Scope or 50-500 lens (1 Viewer)

[Jaysan]

Hi. I am new to this field. Have been making do with 10x50 bins and am now looking at spotting scopes and zoom lenses. I have a Canon EOS40D camera. This is a long winded question and my apologies. My question is in four parts.

1. Initially I was looking at a zoom and had narrowed down to the Sigma 50-500 OS. However the cost (>£1000.0) is keeping me from taking the plunge.

2. I have recently seen the benefits of a scope when observing birds. The scope I had the luxury of using was a Swarovski. I was told that it was an expensive buy, but did not realize just how expensive until I came home. I am not interested in the price league of Leica or Swarovski. I hope increasing the size of the objective to 100mm will reduce the difference to a degree. Has any one used the Bresser Pirsch 25-75x100 45° Spotting Scope. The other two I came across are Konuspot-20-60x 100 Spotting Scope and the Yukon 6-100x100? All seem to be in the ballpark of £250-350.

3. The other aspect I am not sure of is zooming. I have not liked zooming binoculars in the past. Will the light cut-off be as dramatic in scopes or is it improved by the size of the objective?

4. When reading about scopes, I came across digiscoping. If I buy a 100mm scope with zoom facility, will it be a replacement to a the zoom lens? I understand it will have to be mounted and I cant hand hold it to take photographs. Also I don't understand how to compare the magnification of a 50-500 mm zoom lens with a 25-70x zoom of the scope.

Like I said, I am a novice. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Adam W]

Also I don't understand how to compare the magnification of a 50-500 mm zoom lens with a 25-70x zoom of the scope.

The magnification of a 500mm lens is only around 10x so the magnification of a scope is vastly superior but that said the quality will almost always be better from a DSLR than from digiscoping.

You'll certainly need to have the scope monuted on a tripod which makes it much less user friendly than using your DSLR and flight shots almost impossible.
Zoom eye peicies do reduce the light as you say but this is usually less the better quality the scope, I've no experience so any of the scopes you mention but even with the Swarovski zoom (25-50x) the light reduction is quite noticable.


So it all depends really on what your main priority is, if its mainly birdwatching and perhaps the odd photo then you'd probably be better off with the best scope you can afford but if its mainly photography then getting decent lens for your DSLR is the best bet.Have you considered the Canon 100-400mm zoom lens? that makes a good all round lens.

 

[Jaysan]

Thanks Adam,

My main aim is to photograph birds. I will have a look at the 100-400 IS lens. Have read somewhere that there is no significant diff between the canon 100-400 and sigma 50-500 as the 500 is not really 500, etc, etc. Will I miss the extra 100. I am interested in small birds, and would not be able to buy another lens for many years if I buy one for £1000.0.

I am still a bit confused re magnification and mm.

The magnification of a 500mm lens is only around 10x so the magnification of a scope is vastly superior.

Can understand that the 50-500 is a 10x lens. However, how much bigger will an image with a 500 mm lens be compared to a 400 mm lens?

 

[dogfish]

Never heard of the scopes you mention; they're certainly not popular with birders. See what you can afford in the Opticron range. Widely used by birders and usually good value at the lower price ranges.

Sean

 

[Adam W]

Can understand that the 50-500 is a 10x lens. However, how much bigger will an image with a 500 mm lens be compared to a 400 mm lens?

Yes 500mm is 10x, I think you are right in saying that the 500mm isnt quite 500mm though some say the 400mm isnt quite 400mm either. I'm not really sure how much difference you'd see between the two to be honest but i dont think it would be all that much. Another lens worth looking at is the Canon 400mm 5.6 prime for around the same price.

 

[Kevin Purcell]

400mm to 500m is about about 25% larger images (a quarter more pixels in each direction on the bird). From 8x to 10x noticeable but not as big as it sounds.

It depends on what you expect from your images. Just for ID confirmation or pictures for the wall?

My favorite local bird photographer (retried and spending all of his time on bird photography now) uses a (BIG!) Canon 800mm prime for his small bird work and generally gets to within 5m of the bird for the shots. This gives big, useful, detailed images of even the smallest birds (e.g. a decent fraction of the frame filled with a Ruby-crowned Kinglet, a Regulid a bit like the Firecrest).

So what are your goals and how close do you expect to get?

If you are really after the birds dropping the zoom requirement and looking for older lenses may be a good idea (though you loose the IS).

For more distant shots digiscoping might be a better option.

 

[John P]

I am still a bit confused re magnification and mm.

A standard 50mm lens on a DSLR is considered to give a roughly life sized image - so, (provided you can do simple arithmetic) - - you can work out the correlation between camera lenses and magnification :-

200mm lens = X4
400mm lens = X8 etc...........

 

[Jaysan]

Brilliant. That's what I was looking for. Thanks John, Kevin, Adam and Sean.

 

[Khalid J]

A standard 50mm lens on a DSLR is considered to give a roughly life sized image - so, (provided you can do simple arithmetic) - - you can work out the correlation between camera lenses and magnification :-

200mm lens = X4
400mm lens = X8 etc...........

From my experience, I believe that the two fundamental parameters of any lens are the focal length and the maximum aperture. The lens' focal length determines the magnification of the image projected onto the image plane. Therefore, for a given photographic system the focal length determines the angle of view not the (life sized image), short focal lengths giving a wider field of view than longer focal length lenses. The 50mm angle of view of the diagonal about 50° and a focal length approximately equal to the image diagonal. I don't know how John did his math here and why the 50mm is the standard not 35mm.

 

[Huntso]

Not sure how relevant this is, but don't forget the 1.6x multiplying factor on a crop sensor camera such as your 40D

Although the focal range remains constant, taking for example a 400mm lens the view you obtain is 640mm due to the APSC sensor

 

[lmans66]

I think you might be happier with the lens over the scope, considering your options of scopes. In a scope, you get what you pay for and digiscoping is difficult enough to get a great shot when you have the best equipment. I shutter to see the images you might get with those scopes in mind.

I think you would be just as happy with a good lens, say the 150-500mm sigma, and crop to get closer, although nothing beats getting physically closer to the bird. Regardless, by cropping using the image taken from the 150-500, your images will be much sharper and you will have more pleasure than from the digiscoping setup you might have in mind.

Now, if you are looking at a more quality scope, I would say you might be more on a par...except with tiny hyper birds or birds in flight...where is digiscoping is not a good choice. jim

 

[Roger Boswell]

What are you trying to achieve?

If it is high quality images you will need an EOS 1D, 600mm lens, substantial tripod and a porter to carry them!

I have a Sigma 80-400 on my EOS450. It produces great results when you can get close to your subject but could not possibly compete with the big guns!

If it is only for taking record shote, why not go for a super-zoom compact? I use a Canon SX20 - with 560mm equivalent lens. It takes great record shots and even close-ups with the subject touching the lens! There are plenty of cameras that now exceed the 20X zoom.


Have a look at my Birdforum Gallery for examples with the Sigma and an SX3 with 1.7 converter and SX3.