The camera is a Nikon D50 w70/300mm nikon,and a Sigma 50/500mm. When I took photos of an object with both lenses at full telephoto I didn't see that much difference in the pictures. The object was practically the same size. Can anyone help me understand why this is? Well that would depend on the distance that the test shots where taken at. Remember as of this date, Nikon cameras are not a full frame camera, there is that little 1.6 multiplier involved. So, the 300mm is an effective 480mm and the 500mm is an effective 800mm. The differance is almost doubled. You should see a remarkable differance say at 200 feet, Vers 600 feet. Set up some test shots at differant distances, say, 20 ft, 50 ft, 100 ft, 200 ft and 400 ft then compare the differances. In doing this, you are learning the limitations of your gear. Good luck and Happy shooting! You should see a difference if you shooting a specific item. For example, shooting a duck at 500mm might allow for a photo of just the head. While a shot at 300mm will show the entire duck and then some. (Obviously, I have made an assumption here about the size of the duck and the distance to it).
OTOH, if you were at a greater distance the duck might go from taking up 5% of the frame to about 8% of the frame. Not real noticeable but the size increased just as much on a proportional basis.
Ignoring the crop factor (which is a tad over 1.5), the angle of view on a Nikon 300mm f2.8 is 8 degrees. Magnification of 6.1x. Their 500mm is 5 degree and a magnification of 8.3x |
