It’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a book here, primarily because I’ve not had as much time to really dig into a good book. However, since Moose Petersons Captured came out, it has been on my list of books I’d like to read for a number of reasons. First and foremost, Moose Peterson’s reputation as a wildlife and landscape photographer is pretty well known, so it’s kind of like the EF Hutton commercial – when he talks, it’s a good idea to listen. As I’ve established a pretty good flow for gear reviews, I’ve decided to implement something similar for reading materials as well. In giving a fully detailed account, I’ll be looking at this (and all future materials) based on 5 criteria: 1) Readability 2) Length 3) Writing Style 4) Photography and 5) Educational Value
So, without further ado, let’s take a look at this book in each of the categories
Certain authors and writers have a flair for language – where the point is very well made with an economy of words. Points are made concisely, without a lot of meandering, and without losing the readers interest. Others need the help of an outline to help keep them (and the reader) on track. I was surprised to find that this book fell into the latter category. It really did seem to go from gear, to theoretical, to anecdotal writing styles rather quickly, with abrupt changes coming literally with little or no transition between so it made staying focused on what he was writing about rather challenging. This may be my background and experience in higher education, but I also found some of the grammar and sentence structures kind of awkward to read. I got what he was trying to say, but sometimes I found myself re-reading sentences, paragraphs, and other sections more than once to try and get the point he was trying to make. Score: 3.5
I guess I shouldn’t have been as surprised, because being a talented photographer does not necessarily make you a good writer or teacher, but with books there is so much editing that usually goes into the process, grammar and outlines are usually used to keep things on topic without much in the way of diversion. However, it just felt like an awkward read, moving from one topic to another and not much adherence to any structure. Nevertheless, I plowed on…
Books can be challenging to produce because there really is nothing stopping you (other than your editor) from going on indefinitely. The problem here is that books (like speeches) can get too long and begin to lose reader (or listener) interest. In order for a book to retain your interest over any extended period, the material has to be particularly engaging. This is often the case with novels, mysteries, suspense, and other types of fiction. However, in non-fiction, length can be an issue if you are not careful. Here, the length did seem to go on longer than I would have expected for a book of this kind. It wasn’t really that the material was dragging on longer, but it seemed that it could have been broken up into smaller chunks. My idea for making this more digestible would have been to do that along the lines of something like the following:
The Moose Peterson Chronology
- Moose Peterson – History in the Making: Learning all about technical and techniques in photography (Volume 1)
- Moose Peterson – Building a Reputation and Respectability in the field of Photography (Volume 2)
- Moose Peterson – Working in a Digital World of Photography (Volume 3)
Having shorter books and compartmentalizing the topics for discussion would have made the readability much easier, and likely built in residual sales from those who purchased the first one. But, to each their own I guess. Score: 2.0
3. Writing Style
It is easy to see that Moose is a technical person. From his approach to the craft, figuring out what works and what doesn’t, to his business acumen and gear selection, the technical nature is something I can and do respect. I wish the technical side came out more in the writing though, because for me the approach seemed more haphazard than it could have been. There were sections where he would try to be funny, and while I got the humor, the delivery was just a bit easy to predict. The technical areas came across well, when he described how he figured out lighting problems in caves, and timing the photography window for bird hatchings were quite insightful, but in other areas it made things drag more. Anecdotes were a bit too dry, and could have used a more light-hearted approach, something along the lines of Joe McNally. Score: 4.0
There is a reason why Moose Peterson is such a successful wildlife and landscape photographer – he is good! The landscapes and wildlife he shares with the reader in the book are just tremendous! This is what all wildlife and landscape photographers should aspire to as the benchmark here is quite admirable, and the quality here is unsurpassed. For this reason alone, I am glad the book was as long as it went, because it afforded me the opportunity to see a great deal of his portfolio. Score: 5.0
5. Educational Value
Captured falls into a category that I would best classify as educational, because there really are so many nuggets of wisdom and experience in these pages. Sometimes they are well set-up, and others are buried in the text. To get all the brilliance that resides within, you do have to read the full book, but what you come away from it with is worth the price paid for the knowledge. You get to cut your teeth with Moose as he cut his when he began. And while it takes a while to go through everything, the end result is worth it! Score: 4.5
Would I recommend Captured to others? I’d give this an equivocal yes, depending on what it is you are looking for, and where you are in your own learning curve. For beginning photographers, the finer points that exist here would likely be lost on a first read, and I could not see reading this book twice. If you are an intermediate photographer or well along the path of photography, then this is probably more your speed because you can readily identify the nuggets and pearls of wisdom that emanate from the pages. Averaging the scores, the summary score for Captured is: 3.8
Has anyone else read this book? What are your thoughts on it? What about other books you are reading? Feel free to share your own thoughts and insights in the comments below!
A while back I teased about a forthcoming lens review (nearly 3 months ago actually, in the Teaser Alert), and after several project shoots, the holidays, and scheduling delays, I am finally getting my act together to bring you the latest gear review…that of the Sigma 50-500mm. As a word of caution, you should be forewarned that the Sigma line-up of lenses that I have reviewed has become quite extensive. Right away this should tell you two things:
- Sigma has been quite generous with me in terms of making a variety of lenses available. They likely are doing this for a number of reasons, but primarily because they know that I will give a fair, honest, and 9 times of out 10, a positive review of their equipment.
- I like Sigma lenses! It should be no secret by now that I do like their lenses. They are optically on par with what one would expect from lens manufacturers by todays standards. Heck, sometimes I think the optical quality even exceeds that of the main brands out there (of course here I mean Canon and Nikon). The price is almost always right on – sometimes the price tag is a little high for my taste, but the advantage that Sigma has is that they are what is considered a “third party lens”, and because of that designation, their pricing is a notch below comparable lenses made by either Canon or Nikon for equivalent glass.
So, when Sigma came calling (actually I called Sigma), with the 50-500, the game face was put on. Right off the bat, here Sigma has been more than generous because I have now had this lens in my possession for nearly 3 months! I’ve posted a few photos from this lens over the past three months, so you may see some repeated images here, but they serve the purpose of demonstrating the various settings that I have used to shoot and test this glass. Having set the stage, let’s get started with the review. In the past, I’ve talked about things in terms of Pros and Cons, listing first the things I like, then the things I was not as much a fan of. While it has worked to a degree, I am trying to make things more uniform in the review section, so will start adhering to some more concise points and then indicating whether it is a pro or a con. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the
Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 Review
1. Focal Range: The focal range is how lenses are most commonly identified, and this is the measure of how much “zoom” there is in the lens. Here, the description says it all. This lens ranges from a widest point of 50mm to an impressive “zoom” of 500mm. On a crop sensor camera, that means you are looking at a range of 80 to 800mm! By any standard, this is a pretty wide range, encompassing a difference of nearly 700mm in focal adjustments. I am going to call this one a Pro.
2. F-Stop Range: The f-stop range is the measure of the minimum (or maximum depending on your way of thinking) aperture the lens can handle at various lengths. When dealing with a zoom lens, as you move further out, the elements have to compensate for the change in the length by increasing the size of the opening of the aperture, so you will see adjustments as the lens “zoom” increases. The Sigma 50-500mm is dialed in to a minimum aperture opening of f4.5 to f6.3. So, at the widest zoom of 50mm, the lowest aperture setting you can get is f4.5. Likewise, if you zoom this all the way out to 500, the minimum aperture is f6.3. So, don’t be misled by the numbers, shooting this lens at 500mm will not afford you the f4.5 that is capable at the widest setting any more than the f2.8 is available on a 70-200 at the longest zoom. When you have zoom lenses, there is a compromise in aperture capabilities that must be met when zooming out, and such is the case here. I did some experimenting at various focal lengths, and here are some apparent limits at different zooms:
|Focal Length||Minimum Aperture|
Given the technology of aperture limitations in zooms, I would say that the Sigma is on par with what the expectations would be for this range. To build this lens for any lower aperture settings would make the lens both heavier and longer. I don’t even want to think about what it would do to the price either! It’s not the greatest in aperture abilities, but it’s no slouch either. I’m going to have to thrown an “Even” flag on this.
3. Noise: I brought in the noise consideration based on my first Sigma lens I ever purchased, the 70mm Macro (f2.8) which did not have HSM. The inclusion of HSM in almost every lens since has been a Godsend. This holds true for the 50-500mm as well. It’s super quiet and has convinced me that I will never stray off the Hyper Sonic Motor (or USM on Canon glass, ever gain! ‘Nuff said. Pro
4. Size/Weight: My last big lens I reviewed here was the 18-250. It was a respectable weight, but this is by far the heaviest lens I’ve ever tested. Weighing in at a shade upder 4.5 lbs (that’s 1970 grams for you Metric folks), it can cause some serious arm strain after extensive shooting. I would recommend using either a monopod or a tripod for this lens whenever possible. It also bears mentioning here that due to the weight of the lens, you want to support it in the provided collar. Supporting the rig by the camera can result in some serious shear force, which can rip the lens right off the camera. Other size considerations involve the length of the lens both fully closed and fully extended. This will draw some eyes at either end…whether it be the short side (8.5″) or the long side (12″)! Here’s a comparison shot with it next to several other lenses so you can get an idea of its relative size:
Another consideration to take into account about this size is the filter required. For those interested in using the ND filters to protect front elements, you will need a 95mm filter to cover this – not a cheap thing to purchase by any means. Ultimately the size/weight considerations really will depend on your personal ability to handle it effectively. For me, most of the time it was not a factor, so I’ll acquiesce and call it a Pro.
5. Build Quality: In line with expectations, the Sigma quality showed here. Their now easily recognizable textured exterior exudes professionalism, and just feels good in your hands. Given the weight of the lens, you don’t want to hold this gingerly, but at the same time, if the body took a slight bump from another lens in your bag, the “other lens” would likely bear the brunt of it. No questions here. It’s a Pro.
6. OS/IS/VR: Due to the limited aperture range, and the weight, the presence of OS is invaluable. Using the OS allows you to keep your aperture value low, allowing for bother faster manipulation and shorter shutter speeds, as well as some nice bokeh in the background when your distances are good. What was extra nice about this is the ability to toggle between the vertical and horizontal planes to control vibration in different circumstances. When I was on a monopod, I switched to OS 2 to help control vertical (or up and down) vibration. When shooting handheld, I was on OS 1 most of the time, under the premise that my own face, body and camera holding helped to minimize the vertical and thus needed more help with horizontal. When I was on a tripod, I turned it off per normal procedures for when using OS/IS/VR. In my book, having versus not having OS/IS/VR is definitely a Pro.
7. Cost: The average retail market for this lens is approximately $1500. Given the focal range, the aperture range, and other considerations thus far, it seems to be pretty competitive. The Canon lens with the longest zoom range is their 100-400 and that factors in at $1800. Nikonians can salivate over their 80-400 for $1850. Both price in over the Sigma lens, and it still gives an extra 110-150mm of variable range. For my own personal budget, that’s a tougher call because while I would love to own this lens – I would have to sell something else to do so, and am not sure I want to dispose of anything else in my camera bag at the moment…the jury is out on this for me personally, but for those interested in purchasing any time soon: Pro
8. Image Quality: Image quality is always subjective to the viewer/shooter, so here I will just let everyone defer to their own tastes by sharing a few sample images taken over the last few months:
Other features that bear mentioning here include the locking mechanism and the focusing rings. I thought about including the latter in the build quality, but decided to bring it in here for discussion. First, the locking mechanism is a handy feature to have for keeping the lens locked in place to prevent lens creep. The idea is a good one, but for this particular lens, it would not lock in the “zoomed” position, where I would have thought lens creep would be more of an impact, than in the “closed” position. Having said that, from the lunar shots I did (as shown above), the fully extended lens did not experience much, if any, creep. This could be because the lens was recently brought back from a service stop where knobs and buttons and toggles were all tightened and such.
This brings me to the focusing rings. The rear focusing ring is the one used for fine tuning and the front ring is for zoom. This was an adjustment for me as my other zoom lenses have these rings reversed (where the zoom is on the back ring and the focus is on the front ring). it forced me to change my style of shooting a little, but since I was working off a lens-mounted setup most of the time rather than a camera-mounted setup, my shooting habits were already being adjusted anyway. The last part is that the zoom ring did seem a bit tight to move. Whether this is by design or because of the recent factory adjustments, I am not sure, but it was just a tad stiff to adjust.
All in all, the Sigma 50-500mm is a great lens. It stood up for the challenges of both wildlife and aerial photography, as well as lunar and even a portrait shot of the canine companion. The compression it exhibits at the far end (which is characteristic of these long zooms) is to be expected, but I would probably not be using this for landscapes unless I was in a pinch and had no other lens with me. Still, it could be done, depending on what kind of landscape you are trying to capture. The zoom really had no noticable effect on image quality without going into some serious pixel peeping, and thus, meets or exceeds all criteria that I can think of. I would definitely make a positive recommendation on this lens for either a wildlife or sports shooter where distance from subjects is often greater than 10-15 feet. (The minimum focusing distance at 500mm is something like 6 feet!)
That does it for today – I hope you enjoyed the review and photo gallery from the Sigma 50-500. Here’s the final results/scores I give the lens:
|Lens Motor Noise||8.5|
Have you shot with this lens? Share your own thoughts in the comments or with me via email. Likewise, if you have a lens you would be interested in having me review, feel free to drop me a line or share your requests through the comment area as well. Special thanks to Sigma for giving me such an extended testing period to review the lens, and we’ll see you here again soon! Happy shooting!