On 4/28/13 6:55 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
news

The problem gets to be 'weight'. The one I've got saw very little use
simply because it's heavy and
bulky. That one is much worse. Would probably be great for a sporting
event, where a tri- or monopod
can be used. But, traipsing through the woods with it would be a bear -
even for a bear.

---------------------------------

Yeah, the weight becomes an issue even with the lenses he has now, but
he's young, strong and uses a monopod most of the time. Obviously the
one True North linked to is WAY too big, although I thought it was a
very interesting story as to how and why it was developed.

He has mentioned that he'd like to get a "longer" lens than the 70 to
200mm he is using now, especially for the birds and owls he likes to
find. His birthday is coming up and I'd like to get him something but I
am an idiot when it comes to cameras and photography.

I was just looking at a Sigma 150-500mm lens that goes for about $1k.
The Nikon version of it is over $8K. I just don't know enough about
the different manufacturers in terms of quality, etc. The Sigma seems
to have good reviews, it's autofocusing (although I don't even know if
he uses that feature) and has some form of image stabilization in it.



I can't speak to the Sigma 150-500 you wrote about, but I do have a
Sigma 30mm f1:1.4 I use on my Canon DSLR. I haven't noticed any
differences in build/mechanical/optical quality compared to the higher
priced Canon lenses, which a local dealer let me mess around with at his
shop. My DSLR's "multiplier" lenses is 1.6, so the 30 mm gives me the
equivalent of a pretty fast 48 mm "normal" lens, but I really bought it
for its low-light abilities.