long lens and bird lust

[Andy]

i'm *not* a telephoto guy, and so i have a lot of respect for you birders :D today i shot for a little while with steve... i used my canon 70-200 f/2.8L with canon 1.4x and tamron 1.4x stacked. camera set to iso 400 and f/4 av mode, shutter speeds around 1/800th or 1/1000th. i like the combination of this lens and the telconverters, i think i'm going to invest in a second one for myself....

anyhow, nothing spectacular, but i'll return to this spot often, i rather think that birding is like fishing .. persistence must pay off.

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/18149927-L.jpg

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/18149928-L.jpg

just as we were leaving, this guy was all over his mate of the hour.... a quick hello kiss

http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/18149926-S.jpg

no waiting, and more than a little rough, if you ask me!
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/18149923-S.jpg

and, all done about 1min later, he's all proud of himself.
i think he's ready for a http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/11746845-Ti.gif
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/18149931-S.jpg

[wxwax]

Oh boy, here we go. :evil

There's some rarely available big glass on FM right now. I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on something that costs more than five grand.

I like your shots Andy, but the tight ones have the softness that made me unhappy with extenders on the 300 f4 I have.

[Andy]

Oh boy, here we go. :evil

There's some rarely available big glass on FM right now. I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on something that costs more than five grand.

I like your shots Andy, but the tight ones have the softness that made me unhappy with extenders on the 300 f4 I have.


yes on the softness... and i was at 1/1000th, to boot. the second one is a full-frame shot, no crop, can't really get much sharper than that, but the first one, is cropped... the redwing blackbird, he's not perfectly sharp. also the dof is very slim!

if i were doing this seriously, i'd have a 400 2.8 or somesuch glass.

[Steve Cavigliano]

Good ones Andy :thumb :thumb

Loved your "Geese in Lust" shot. Zip, zam, thank ya maam :lol And don't most of us like to flap our wings and crow after sex? :rofl :lol4 :haha


Hey Sid,
There's no getting around the need for more reach. Andy and I were even talking about putting TC's on a 500mm L......lol Go for it Sid :clap We need more long lenses up at Yosemite anyhow....lol Ian and Andy are bring 500mm L's and I'm bringing the Bigma. Surprise us by bringing the 600mm L :oogle

Steve

[Andy]

Oh boy, here we go. :evil

There's some rarely available big glass on FM right now. I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on something that costs more than five grand.

I like your shots Andy, but the tight ones have the softness that made me unhappy with extenders on the 300 f4 I have.

i've seend some amazing shots by daniella, she routinely uses a 200L + two stacked tcs. and a monopod. so, while it may take more shots, more persistence, and more good light, i think that tcs are a viable alternative. of course, if i shot birdies for a living, i'd have the long fast primes :deal

[Andy]

Oh boy, here we go. :evil

There's some rarely available big glass on FM right now. I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger on something that costs more than five grand.

I like your shots Andy, but the tight ones have the softness that made me unhappy with extenders on the 300 f4 I have.

yes, i saw that: canon 600mm f/4 for $6100. betcha it could be had for less. i'll be back in ny on monday, if anyone wants me to look at it for them, would be happy to.

[wxwax]

It may well be that the 300 f4 with extenders is a poor combo. I tried 2x alone and stacked 1.4 and 2x. :dunno All I can say is that I was extremely disappointed. I haven't tried either extender on the 200 f2.8, maybe it would be better. Not much point, tho, when I have a 300, ya know?

[wxwax]

yes, i saw that: canon 600mm f/4 for $6100. betcha it could be had for less. i'll be back in ny on monday, if anyone wants me to look at it for them, would be happy to.

Get thee behind me, Satan. :wxwax

[rutt]

You know, just this morning I was trying to do a little arithmetic and speculation. These 600mm primes cost about $6k. I already have a 400mm (100-400mm push/pull) that I think is nice and sharp. So what if I bought a 1Ds Mark II instead of a big lens. The price is almost the same (well, close enough for government work.) Then I could crop and get sharp shots that would have required an 800mm or something. Certainly, it's be sharper than stacking TC, wouldn't it? And smaller? And the body would be good for something other than birding, surfing, and baseball.

As Sid said, "Satin, get behind me." I think this is some combination of greed and envy.

[Dee]

The one of the red winged black bird? I'm not really a birder, but I do shoot whatever catches my eye... I'm more a macro/telephoto type of gal than a wide angler, so we are at opposite ends of the spectrum here! :):

I've been busy lately with this and that -- but I did get a crow in flight shot. Not the greatest light just before sunset, but I'll post it later on.

I got a great natural "filter" shot of the ocean with crashing waves through the rain soaked window too...

[ginger_55]

I have the 300L and I use a 1.4 Canon extender with it all the time. I may be just learning, and I may not be the best photographer here, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the equipment.

Particularly for the price.

Of course if you start stacking things, just about anywhere, you are going to lose some quality, etc. And I guess the words "best" choice is kind of open.

For me, a financially challenged beginner with very long lenses, it was an excellent buy, IMO.

If anyone would like to send me a 2X Canon extender, I would like to try it. Not stacked over the 1.4, just by itself with the lens.

ginger (all I read was that one post. Kind of steamed me as I love my lens so much. Will read the rest now.)

If anyone is interested, I just put my monopod together.

[tmlphoto]

You know, just this morning I was trying to do a little arithmetic and speculation. These 600mm primes cost about $6k. I already have a 400mm (100-400mm push/pull) that I think is nice and sharp. So what if I bought a 1Ds Mark II instead of a big lens. The price is almost the same (well, close enough for government work.) Then I could crop and get sharp shots that would have required an 800mm or something. Certainly, it's be sharper than stacking TC, wouldn't it? And smaller? And the body would be good for something other than birding, surfing, and baseball.

As Sid said, "Satin, get behind me." I think this is some combination of greed and envy.
Seriously Rutt, I've had the same thoughts. Art Morris (Birds as Art), pro bird guy uses the 500 f/4 with the 1.4TC & 2x TC alot. He shoots with a 1DmII. I would like to see a side to side comparison of a cropped 1Ds shot with a short lens v. a 1DmII with a 500mm lens.

[Andy]

ginger (all I read was that one post. Kind of steamed me as I love my lens so much. Will read the rest now.)



which post :dunno

[Michiel de Brieder]

Lack of food will clutter a mans mind, that's for sure :D I think you should take a nice walk with your 24mm :wink
Oh and, nice pics :thumb too bad you ain't got Harry around no more to show you how it's done :rofl
So, when are you going to go Bigma??? :lol

[ginger_55]

Harry gets some great shots without spending all that money, he did before he spent more money, too.

I get a few very clear, very sharp shots when I do everything right. It is not the lens, IMO, it is a bunch of things in my learning curve. I think the lens has it right.

Sid, would you post a photo you are disappointed in with the 300 plus one or other of the extenders. The 1.4 should do less damage. Even both of them. I would just like to see what you are so disappointed in. (You know I was kind of disappointed in my first bird shots, too. I am ecstatic at the time, but as we know, as I look back, they were not that hot)

I would really like to see your shots, Sid.

I would buy a 400, if I could afford it, but honestly, I am not sure I would want more reach at times. So I would have to add a lens, not trade.

[ginger_55]

which post :dunno
Post #7. I suppose I am calmer now. I do like the 300L with the extender (one is all I have tried), and I think it was right for me. Finances willing, in time, I hope to get a longer one, too.

ginger

[rutt]

Post #7. I suppose I am calmer now. I do like the 300L with the extender (one is all I have tried), and I think it was right for me. Finances willing, in time, I hope to get a longer one, too.

ginger
A little research shows that both the Canon 100-400 L (push pull) and bigma are sort of the same price as your 300mm prime. The bigma is, well, big, and other than that I don't really know. The 100-400 is a real kick. I hand hold it all the time and get great shots. It has great bokah and great reach. The surfing shot you admired a little while ago was shot with it. I've used with the 1.4 TC and like it. I've used with the 2x TC and don't like it. Maybe you need a prime to do that?

[rutt]

Seriously Rutt, I've had the same thoughts. Art Morris (Birds as Art), pro bird guy uses the 500 f/4 with the 1.4TC & 2x TC alot. He shoots with a 1DmII. I would like to see a side to side comparison of a cropped 1Ds shot with a short lens v. a 1DmII with a 500mm lens.
I did a little more arithmetic. The 20D sensor is not as dense as the 1Dmkii sensor, but almost. If my arithmetic is right, a 1.6x sensor like the 20D has made with the same density as the 1Dsmkii's sensor would be a 11.6mp. So it's like having a 1.4 TC with no quality compromise at all. Then my 400mm can be cropped to get the same resolution as a 560mm lens on a 20D. So that almost gets us into 600mm territory. Close enough. The same logic does't really apply with 1Dmkii which has the least dense sensor of the three.

[wxwax]

Ginger, your camera sucks, your lens sucks and your tripod sucks. So there. :bad

[wxwax]

Sid, would you post a photo you are disappointed in with the 300 plus one or other of the extenders. The 1.4 should do less damage. Even both of them. I would just like to see what you are so disappointed in. (You know I was kind of disappointed in my first bird shots, too. I am ecstatic at the time, but as we know, as I look back, they were not that hot)

I would really like to see your shots, Sid.




Ginger, I toss 'em, I'm afraid.

Here's the only one I think I saved. It's a heavily cropped 300 f4 with the 1.4 TC.

http://wxwax.smugmug.com/photos/9674550-L.jpg

[rutt]

I did a little more arithmetic. The 20D sensor is not as dense as the 1Dmkii sensor, but almost. If my arithmetic is right, a 1.6x sensor like the 20D has made with the same density as the 1Dsmkii's sensor would be a 11.6mp. So it's like having a 1.4 TC with no quality compromise at all. Then my 400mm can be cropped to get the same resolution as a 560mm lens on a 20D. So that almost gets us into 600mm territory. Close enough. The same logic does't really apply with 1Dmkii which has the least dense sensor of the three.
The explanation was a little murky, but what I was trying to sa is that when you crop images from a 1Dsmkii to 20D resolution the effect on focal length is about the same as using a 1.4 TC but with no image quality compromise (compared to the 20D) at all. And you wouldn't lose any f-stops or lens functionality.

[ginger_55]

Ginger, I toss 'em, I'm afraid.

Here's the only one I think I saved. It's a heavily cropped 300 f4 with the 1.4 TC.


Thanks, Sid. I like it for what it is. I guess.

I loved your previous post.

g

[ginger_55]

The explanation was a little murky, but what I was trying to sa is that when you crop images from a 1Dsmkii to 20D resolution the effect on focal length is about the same as using a 1.4 TC but with no image quality compromise (compared to the 20D) at all. And you wouldn't lose any f-stops or lens functionality.
Oh, OK! I will file that.

I wanted to get one of those push pull 400 things, but "people", and I don't remember who, they talked me out of it.

In actuality, I was getting absolutely desperate to find something I could afford without selling my dogs and cat, when Pathfinder. See this is all his fault. He said, Ginger, MACzippy has a 300 for sale, you could use it with the 1.4 and it is less than 1000.00. Why don't you get that.

Just the fact that someone said, ginger, you can get a long lens and handle it OK, it was enough. I jumped on it. Now if I had known you had the push/pull and liked it, I probably would have gotten that, though it did cost a bit more, as I remember. (I was about ready to sell the dogs at that point)

The small fact that by the time I had bought the Canon 1.4 extender, I was way over 1000.00............. I don't think I was thinking by that point. Really a lot of people said the push pull was very awkward........I don't know exactly what they said, but it wasn't encouraging to take a chance on it.

Now with my car in the shop and my hearing aids definitely needing work, well, I had better like what I have cause I can't get the push pull now, coulda then.

ginger (I thought I did like what I have..........don't know now, I did.)

Gotta find Pathfinder............. :whip No, I love Pathfinder, he thought I could hold a long lens. And he talks English, too. Anyone wants to know something I say, "ask Pathfinder, he is great at explanations".:thumb

Thanks Rutt for taking the time to do the math and all, but what does one of those MK cameras have to do with the resolution of the 20D...........I don't think I need to know.... But I will ask you before I buy a lens again.

Hey, I could sell the 70-200L and the 300 Prime and get a push pull. I would have a gap, but I do anyway.

ginger, I think

[ginger_55]

Ginger, your camera sucks, your lens sucks and your tripod sucks. So there. :bad
Hey, Sid, that is pretty good English there, too.

I'll tell you what sucks, my sunpak flash with the 20D. Someone gave me the correct number for the sunpak whatever dept, and I misheard it. I repeated it back several times.

It sucks, sucks, sucks! And I have another baptism to shoot Easter, that sucks.
Then another one. These are inside, if I don't use a flash, the colored windows in the door really do a number on the people. I learned that the way most photographers learn things.

ginger I know the on camera flash, but this is supposed to work.

[Harryb]

Hey Andy,

Not too bad for a rookie. The second shot is really good.

My normal set-up is the 300mm/f4 with a 1.4 TC and it works very well for me. Of course this is Nikon glass so I have an advantage over you white lens folks. :poke

No matter what lens us birders get it will never be enough. The only satisfied shooter that I've met was shooting with a 800mm and a 1.7 TC.

Harry

[pathfinder]

Hey Andy,

Not too bad for a rookie. The second shot is really good.

My normal set-up is the 300mm/f4 with a 1.4 TC and it works very well for me. Of course this is Nikon glass so I have an advantage over you white lens folks. :poke

No matter what lens us birders get it will never be enough. The only satisfied shooter that I've met was shooting with a 800mm and a 1.7 TC.

Harry

And there are a whole new set of problems when you try to shoot out beyond 700mm. Just trying to find the bird can be very challenging - no way could you shoot BIF unless you were already looking at it when it took off. Longer glass is like stronger telescopes - you need bigger and better tripods and you begin to see more and more of less and less.

See, Ginger, Harry shoots with a 300 + 1.4 Tx just like you, but he has to limp along with the black lenses unlike you. :D

I do kinda envy the Nikon guys having the 1.7 Telextender though.

[Kirwin]

Hey Andy & Harry,

Your both not that bad for "rookies". :poke My normal set-up is the 420mm/f2.8 image stabilised quasi-Leica glass so I have a slight advantage over both your lens. :D

I definitely agree with ya' Harry... there is no such thing as enough! By the way Andy... nice shootin'.:gun2


Hey Andy,

Not too bad for a rookie. The second shot is really good.

My normal set-up is the 300mm/f4 with a 1.4 TC and it works very well for me. Of course this is Nikon glass so I have an advantage over you white lens folks. :poke

No matter what lens us birders get it will never be enough. The only satisfied shooter that I've met was shooting with a 800mm and a 1.7 TC.

Harry

[Andy]

Hey Andy & Harry,

My normal set-up is the 420mm/f2.8 image stabilised quasi-Leica glass so I have a slight advantage over both your lens

mmmm leica glass http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/14326032-Ti.gif http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/14326032-Ti.gif http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/14326032-Ti.gif

mmmm

mm

m
mmmmm bacon

[Steve Cavigliano]

[QUOTE=pathfinder]And there are a whole new set of problems when you try to shoot out beyond 700mm. Just trying to find the bird can be very challenging - no way could you shoot BIF unless you were already looking at it when it took off. Longer glass is like stronger telescopes - you need bigger and better tripods and you begin to see more and more of less and less.

See, Ginger, Harry shoots with a 300 =1.4 Tx just like you, but he has to limp along with the black lenses unlike you. :D QUOTE]


PF,

Doncha be making fun of black lenses :wink I've got a bag full of em :rolleyes

You are right about the longer you go, the harder it is to get BIF's. While Andy was using multiple TC's, on the 70-200mm this morning, I used the Bigma. We had an osprey buzzing the ponds, but I just couldn't get him in focus fast enough and kept losing him because I was zoomed out to 500mm (approx 760mm FOV). Trying to shoot red-winged blackbirds in flight, at anywhere near max zoom, was an exercise in futility :huh The key, as it always has been, is to get closer with your feet, cuz glass won't always get you there. Most of the best BIF shots, I've seen have been due more to where the shooter had placed himself, than the reach of their lens.

IMO, anything longer than an 800mm FOV would be a bear to shoot BIF's with :uhoh Unless, as you point out, you are tracking the bird before he takes to the air.

Steve

[ginger_55]

Yes, finding the darn bird, learning to hold the lens comfortably, all sorts of reasons I thought the 300 was a good starter for a birder. And I didn't have the extender at first, so that was for the best. Now I won't take the extender off.

But, really, there are times when 300 with the extender seems just right. Birds are still difficult for me to find in the sky.

How big would the bird be at 800? The moon? Nobody would need to go to the moon. Put an extender on the 800, we would be there.

g

[Harryb]

And there are a whole new set of problems when you try to shoot out beyond 700mm. Just trying to find the bird can be very challenging - no way could you shoot BIF unless you were already looking at it when it took off. Longer glass is like stronger telescopes - you need bigger and better tripods and you begin to see more and more of less and less.

I do kinda envy the Nikon guys having the 1.7 Telextender though.
The shooter with the 800mm lens was an eagle fanatic. He would locate eagle nests and then set up and shoot off 500-600 shots of the nest activity. The lens was mounted to one tripod and the the camera body was attached to a second tripod. He triggered the shutter with a wireless remote. There was no way he would get a BIF shot unless the subject flew into the scene.

Most of the Nikon shooters I know who have the 1.7 TC usually end up doing most of their shooting with the 1.4 TC.

[evil eggplant]

Andy

I'm glad it's not me. I use a 2X on my 70-200 f/2.8 and the same thing happens. When the subject fills the frame, all is well. When the subject is distant, you can forget it.

Up close:
http://iceninephotography.smugmug.com/photos/17532580-M.jpg

and far away:
http://iceninephotography.smugmug.com/photos/16613392-M.jpg

Once the 20D is paid for I'm thinking a nice Sigma 400mm APO prime.

Nice job, btw. And thanks for your support at the *yucky* place.

Cheers:thumb

[Stan]

Yes, finding the darn bird, learning to hold the lens comfortably, all sorts of reasons I thought the 300 was a good starter for a birder. And I didn't have the extender at first, so that was for the best. Now I won't take the extender off.

But, really, there are times when 300 with the extender seems just right. Birds are still difficult for me to find in the sky.

How big would the bird be at 800? The moon? Nobody would need to go to the moon. Put an extender on the 800, we would be there.

g
Holding any telephoto lens, unless the light is great so the shutter speed is up, as Andy's was at 1/1000th sec makes any movement, breathing, heart beat move the lens and blur the image. The longer the telephoto, the greater the effect. My 100-400 works well hand held some times and then often is rubbish. I admit this may have something to do with coffee though :):

[evil eggplant]

Holding any telephoto lens, unless the light is great so the shutter speed is up, as Andy's was at 1/1000th sec makes any movement, breathing, heart beat move the lens and blur the image. The longer the telephoto, the greater the effect. My 100-400 works well hand held some times and then often is rubbish. I admit this may have something to do with coffee though :):
Actually, you're right. And stopping down a bunch also makes a big difference. Shown below is 400mm on a 1.6X crop body. f/8, which with the TC is actually f/16. Tack sharp, limited only by atmospherics. The rig was set on a nice, sturdy tripod with a remote release.

http://iceninephotography.smugmug.com/photos/17524783-O.jpg

[Khaos]

It's kind of tough trying to get yourself to spend on one lens what can get you 2 decent flat screen TVs or hell, a used car in good shape.:(:

Nice shot EE.

[wxwax]

It's kind of tough trying to get yourself to spend on one lens what can get you 2 decent flat screen TVs or hell, a used car in good shape.:(:

Nice shot EE.

There ya go, thinking logically about spending on camera gear. *sigh* Don't worry, it will pass.

[Khaos]

There ya go, thinking logically about spending on camera gear. *sigh* Don't worry, it will pass.
:rofl I must be spending too much time with the wife.:rofl

[pathfinder]

It's kind of tough trying to get yourself to spend on one lens what can get you 2 decent flat screen TVs or hell, a used car in good shape.:(:

Nice shot EE.


Or some new motorcycles. A new Suzi Dr650 is less than the Canon 600f4 L IIS !! Makes ya think, doesn't it?:D

[pathfinder]

[QUOTE=pathfinder]And there are a whole new set of problems when you try to shoot out beyond 700mm. Just trying to find the bird can be very challenging - no way could you shoot BIF unless you were already looking at it when it took off. Longer glass is like stronger telescopes - you need bigger and better tripods and you begin to see more and more of less and less.

See, Ginger, Harry shoots with a 300 =1.4 Tx just like you, but he has to limp along with the black lenses unlike you. :D QUOTE]


PF,

Doncha be making fun of black lenses :wink I've got a bag full of em :rolleyes

You are right about the longer you go, the harder it is to get BIF's. While Andy was using multiple TC's, on the 70-200mm this morning, I used the Bigma. We had an osprey buzzing the ponds, but I just couldn't get him in focus fast enough and kept losing him because I was zoomed out to 500mm (approx 760mm FOV). Trying to shoot red-winged blackbirds in flight, at anywhere near max zoom, was an exercise in futility :huh The key, as it always has been, is to get closer with your feet, cuz glass won't always get you there. Most of the best BIF shots, I've seen have been due more to where the shooter had placed himself, than the reach of their lens.

IMO, anything longer than an 800mm FOV would be a bear to shoot BIF's with :uhoh Unless, as you point out, you are tracking the bird before he takes to the air.

Steve

I think anything much longer than 400mm for BIF is very tough. Like you said, the better BIFs are caught by using shorter lenses with zooming of the feet. But some small birds have such a proximity zone that getting close enough can be challenging. There really do seem to be territorial differences in the proximity that birds will allow.

[Dixie]

Great shots, Andy. I especially like #2. :thumb

[Dixie]

If anyone would like to send me a 2X Canon extender, I would like to try it. Not stacked over the 1.4, just by itself with the lens.
Ginger, you can try my 2X when we see each other next weekend. I would also like to try the 1.4 and both stacked just to see what type of quality I can get.

[Angelo]

Loved your "Geese in Lust" shot. Zip, zam, thank ya maam And don't most of us like to flap our wings and crow after sex?
You scare me!

[Dixie]

I wanted to get one of those push pull 400 things, but "people", and I don't remember who, they talked me out of it.
Ginger, you can also try my push pull 100-400 thingy as well this coming weekend. It does take some getting use to, but you can set the slide tension on it for the push pull. Once I got use to it, I found it easy and fast to work while shooting races.

[Andy]

And there are a whole new set of problems when you try to shoot out beyond 700mm.

no s*** !

courtesy of my new friend ian408, and his generosity, i got to use a 500 f/4 today, doing some birding - let me tell you, it was tough!

i'll post some shots this weekend after i get home.

thanks pf!

[ginger_55]

no s*** !

courtesy of my new friend ian408, and his generosity, i got to use a 500 f/4 today, doing some birding - let me tell you, it was tough!

i'll post some shots this weekend after i get home.

thanks pf!
Did you have more trouble finding the birds in flight with the longer lens?

Did it focus as fast as you are used to?

ginger

[ginger_55]

Ginger, you can also try my push pull 100-400 thingy as well this coming weekend. It does take some getting use to, but you can set the slide tension on it for the push pull. Once I got use to it, I found it easy and fast to work while shooting races.
Dixie, I am excited about trying this stuff, but don't let me like any of it. Tell me your problems with it. Have mercy on me (no that is tomorrow night at the vigil mass). But truly, I can't afford anything.

You know I would like a longer lens, but right now I wouldn't die for one. I just want it.

However, what I need, can't afford, but it is a problem. I have a 17-40L that I love, I am using it like I used to use my 28-135 because that is the hole I have.
That is what I really need, not that I can afford it, but it is the indoor portrait and stuff lens. Does Canon even make a L glass lens for the hole between 40 and 128? If they do, do you have it?

Is it a fortune type? Well, I don't have any money now, so I don't need to go there, but it is a lens I would like to aspire to, but I am not sure they make it.

ginger

[Dixie]

Dixie, I am excited about trying this stuff, but don't let me like any of it. Tell me your problems with it. Have mercy on me (no that is tomorrow night at the vigil mass). But truly, I can't afford anything.

You know I would like a longer lens, but right now I wouldn't die for one. I just want it.

However, what I need, can't afford, but it is a problem. I have a 17-40L that I love, I am using it like I used to use my 28-135 because that is the hole I have.
That is what I really need, not that I can afford it, but it is the indoor portrait and stuff lens. Does Canon even make a L glass lens for the hole between 40 and 128? If they do, do you have it?

Is it a fortune type? Well, I don't have any money now, so I don't need to go there, but it is a lens I would like to aspire to, but I am not sure they make it.

ginger
There are two L-series in that range. They are the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ($1,150) and the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ($2,200). I have the 28-135 so I will just stick with it for awhile.

[ian408]

Did you have more trouble finding the birds in flight with the longer lens?

Did it focus as fast as you are used to?

ginger
It takes some getting used to. But, once you are used to the longer lens,
BIF is possible.

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/18231164-M.jpg

ian

[Andy]

It takes some getting used to. But, once you are used to the longer lens,
BIF is possible.

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/18231164-Ti.jpg

ian

ian, this is a beautiful egret, perfectly captured! exposure spot on. boy are they graceful birds. makes me wonder why anyone couldn't like 'em? :dunno

thanks again for the long-glass treat yesterday. i really had a blast with it.

i can see how it only takes a bit of getting used to. i expect that after shooting with it for a while, results would improve. i'm just looking at my shots now with your lens...

[rutt]

It takes some getting used to. But, once you are used to the longer lens,
BIF is possible.

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/18231164-S.jpg

ian
Great shot. The long lens envy isn't quite dead (though the shot of charles with is around his neck helped God's cause.)

Maybe just a touch of shadow/highlight to open up the shadows in his face? I found this very important for my only really successful BIF shots because the sky is always so bright compared to the underside of the bird.

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/5973907-L.jpg

[ian408]

ian, this is a beautiful egret, perfectly captured! exposure spot on. boy are they graceful birds. makes me wonder why anyone couldn't like 'em? :dunno

thanks again for the long-glass treat yesterday. i really had a blast with it.

i can see how it only takes a bit of getting used to. i expect that after shooting with it for a while, results would improve. i'm just looking at my shots now with your lens...
Anytime. It's fun to shoot with.

Here's another flight shot. From today. 10d with the 500.

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/18260935-M.jpg

Again, hand-held.

Ian

[Andy]

Anytime. It's fun to shoot with.

Here's another flight shot. From today. 10d with the 500.

http://ian408.smugmug.com/photos/18260935-M.jpg

Again, hand-held.

Ian

cool ian!

and to all who commented here: thank you!

[TOF guy]

Seriously Rutt, I've had the same thoughts. Art Morris (Birds as Art), pro bird guy uses the 500 f/4 with the 1.4TC & 2x TC alot. He shoots with a 1DmII. I would like to see a side to side comparison of a cropped 1Ds shot with a short lens v. a 1DmII with a 500mm lens.
I may be wrong - I haven't followed the whole discussion, but I am on the impression that you have a lens which is not long enough for your needs, and you are considering a body with a higher pixel count like a 1DsMkII in the hope that the higher pixel counts would help you with FOV compared to a 1D mk II just by cropping part of the pic. So rather than getting a longer lens, you want to crop. That won't work very well.

Same lens on all bodies. 1.3 x crop factor on 1DMkII means that just to get same FOV using the 1Ds MkII you have to throw away nearly half of your pixels (1.3x1.3 = 1.7). All right, not quite half, but the pixel advantage of the 1DsMkII is minimal compared to the 1DMkII when what you're trying to do is crop to make up for a lens which is not long enough. And in most shooting situations (again we're only talking of cropping to get smaller FOV) you'll be at a disadvantage if you have a 1Ds and you crop your image to get the FOV of 1DMkII.

The best tool for your purpose is 20D. Do the math :scratch : the 20D packs 8 MPs with a cropping factor of 1.6. To get the same 20D FOV on the 1DsMkII by cropping you have to cut about 60% of your pixels. The 20D wins, with some money saved for that longer lens :rofl .

Of course, I daresay that $8000 would buy you a Nikon D2X and a very nice Nikon prime tele lens. Being a newcomer to this forum, I can't be sure, but I suspect that you're not interested to go that way :D .

That is, of course, if I guessed your intentions correctly :dunno

Thierry

[rutt]

The best tool for your purpose is 20D. Do the math :scratch : the 20D packs 8 MPs with a cropping factor of 1.6. To get the same 20D FOV on the 1DsMkII by cropping you have to cut about 60% of your pixels. The 20D wins, with some money saved for that longer lens :rofl .

Of course, I daresay that $8000 would buy you a Nikon D2X and a very nice Nikon prime tele lens. Being a newcomer to this forum, I can't be sure, but I suspect that you're not interested to go that way :D .

That is, of course, if I guessed your intentions correctly :dunno

Thierry
I think I've been confused about this topic. Mia culpa. See this post. (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8864)

[tmlphoto]

I may be wrong - I haven't followed the whole discussion, but I am on the impression that you have a lens which is not long enough for your needs, and you are considering a body with a higher pixel count like a 1DsMkII in the hope that the higher pixel counts would help you with FOV compared to a 1D mk II just by cropping part of the pic. So rather than getting a longer lens, you want to crop. That won't work very well.

Same lens on all bodies. 1.3 x crop factor on 1DMkII means that just to get same FOV using the 1Ds MkII you have to throw away nearly half of your pixels (1.3x1.3 = 1.7). All right, not quite half, but the pixel advantage of the 1DsMkII is minimal compared to the 1DMkII when what you're trying to do is crop to make up for a lens which is not long enough. And in most shooting situations (again we're only talking of cropping to get smaller FOV) you'll be at a disadvantage if you have a 1Ds and you crop your image to get the FOV of 1DMkII.

The best tool for your purpose is 20D. Do the math :scratch : the 20D packs 8 MPs with a cropping factor of 1.6. To get the same 20D FOV on the 1DsMkII by cropping you have to cut about 60% of your pixels. The 20D wins, with some money saved for that longer lens :rofl .

Of course, I daresay that $8000 would buy you a Nikon D2X and a very nice Nikon prime tele lens. Being a newcomer to this forum, I can't be sure, but I suspect that you're not interested to go that way :D .

That is, of course, if I guessed your intentions correctly :dunno

Thierry
Thanks for clearing this up. Your logic seems sound. I do miss the crop factor of my old 10D when trying to go long. A 20D sure would be easier on the wallet than a 1DsMkII, and alot cheaper than a Canon 500mm prime, not to mention the weight. I suppose a 400mm 5.6 with 1.4TC on a 20D would give a reasonable combo fairly inexpensively. 400 x 1.6 x 1.4 = 896mm at f/8.
The standard 1DMkII 500mm f/4 with 1.4 TC gives 910mm at f/5.6. Not a bad comparison. Would love to see a side to side comparison.