Hello. I have a Canon Rebel XT and am using a Canon EF 28-135mm zoom lens. Below are two pictures that I have taken and would like some feedback. Thanks for your time.
I admire your pluck , shooting little birds with the Rebel and the 28-135 will challenging in the extreme.
Your first shot demonstrates the smooth creamy Canon sensor at work with nice bokeh in the background. I do not prefer the shot from this low an angle, but it did give you a very nice green background without a lot of branches around the bird. The bird is nicely in focus and fills the frame.
The second image is very noisy - perhaps shot at a high ISO and then cropped after the fact. But I like the angle better. The first shots I ever tried with birds were with a 70-300mm and I found that frustrating.
As I said, I admire your desire. Great patience will be required to get close enough to small birds with 135mm. If you feed them, gulls will frequently come in close enough for a 135 though.
Path brings up some nice points. More of a perpendicular angle is the ideal when shooting birds, not always easy to get though. In the first one the bird is also shadowed on the front, the ideal would be to have the light coming from behind you and onto the bird, again not always easy to get.
The second one is a nicer perspective, but does show excessive noise. A natural perch would also be preferred.
Thanks for the good suggestions.
Good advice, particularly about the low angle. Indeed, the 2nd shot was taken at very high ISO and I did try to find the ideal relationship between Gaussian blur and sharpening the feather details.
I am going to get a more powerful telephoto, and a Canon. Would you suggest a 300 or 400mm?
Incidentally, your egret shot is wonderful. Nice work.
I admire your pluck , shooting little birds with the Rebel and the 28-135 will challenging in the extreme.
Your first shot demonstrates the smooth creamy Canon sensor at work with nice bokeh in the background. I do not prefer the shot from this low an angle, but it did give you a very nice green background without a lot of branches around the bird. The bird is nicely in focus and fills the frame.
The second image is very noisy - perhaps shot at a high ISO and then cropped after the fact. But I like the angle better. The first shots I ever tried with birds were with a 70-300mm and I found that frustrating.
As I said, I admire your desire. Great patience will be required to get close enough to small birds with 135mm. If you feed them, gulls will frequently come in close enough for a 135 though.
I am going to get a more powerful telephoto, and a Canon. Would you suggest a 300 or 400mm?
I'd go with the 400mm. The Canon 400 f5.6 is a really nice lens. Not the fastest but possibly the best long lens for the price ~ $1000. It also works well with the 1.4xTC which will get you even better reach.
Thank you for your suggestions, Steve.
Good feedback, Steve. You are indeed right about the shadowing on the front. Since I was shooting from my kitchen window, I could have--and should have--used a flash. That might have solved my problem, particularly since I was at an angle to the glass. Right again about the noise. The day was dark and dreary, and I did not use a tripod.
You know of my admiration for your photographic skills. Would you recommend a 300 or 400mm telephoto? (If I can recall, you call your 500mm "the beast" and have complained about hauling it to the field.)
Path brings up some nice points. More of a perpendicular angle is the ideal when shooting birds, not always easy to get though. In the first one the bird is also shadowed on the front, the ideal would be to have the light coming from behind you and onto the bird, again not always easy to get.
The second one is a nicer perspective, but does show excessive noise. A natural perch would also be preferred.
I agree with Steve that the Canon 400mm f5.6 is probably the best bargain in long lenses.
You give up IS and a large aperature, but the high ISOs available with the Canon DSLRs lets you get away with f5.6. It is small, light and easily handled.
It won't give you the very best, unless situated on a good tripod. Just think of the good tripod as an investment in long glass for your camera. Tripods are a nuisance, but you really can see the difference with handheld shots and tripod shots with lenses longer than 200mm or so.
Good feedback, Steve. You are indeed right about the shadowing on the front. Since I was shooting from my kitchen window, I could have--and should have--used a flash. That might have solved my problem, particularly since I was at an angle to the glass. Right again about the noise. The day was dark and dreary, and I did not use a tripod.
You know of my admiration for your photographic skills. Would you recommend a 300 or 400mm telephoto? (If I can recall, you call your 500mm "the beast" and have complained about hauling it to the field.)
The 500 is truly a beast and not the easiest lens to carry around in the field, but I wouldn't trade it for anything less. I've considered getting a 400 for travel, but I'm certain I'd miss my 500 the whole time. I didn't mention the 500 in my first responce to you regarding lenses because most people look at the price and shy away, I'm just crazy enough to buy one anyway.
An alternative in weight, and size, and reach, versus a 500mm lens, is Canon's 400mm f4 IS DO. You will hear various opinons about this lens - but it is lighter than the 300mm f2.8 and about the same size. It will accept a 1.4TC without complaint, and even a 2x with a 1 series body or a taped electrical contacts. It is easily carried with a tripod, and a good tripod and the 500 is not something you want to be carrying very far. AT least I don't find a tripod with a 500mm fun to slog along with. It is also easier to travel with due to its smaller size.
I find the 400 DO to be a very nice walkabout lens, and very sharp. I do not usually see the doughnut circle hightlights mentioned in regard with this lens by detractors on the web.
Uwe Rheinhardt reviewed it here - he calls it his pelican lens
Nice job especially with the 28-135!!! Won't even try an offer lens advice except to say there are some really wonderful shots taken with the 400 f5.6 and the 1.4TC. The 500 is an 'only in my dreams' lens, but oh it is so fine.
What a wonderful pelican shot. I love it that you can see the feathers so clearly. Nicely composed, a winner bird shot in my book. I only saw pelicans from afar in Florida. (Strange enough to see them, we are not used to them in Belgium)
Thank you for your input.
Thank you for the input. Last night I read so many reviews about telephotos that I burned out my eyeballs. The one lens that caught my attention, though, is the Ef 70-200 IS USM. It takes a 1.4TC and, from what I have read, is consistently sharp. I do plan on checking into the Canon 400mm F/4 IS DO. Incidentally, the pelican picture is excellent. Good work.
An alternative in weight, and size, and reach, versus a 500mm lens, is Canon's 400mm f4 IS DO.
I find the 400 DO to be a very nice walkabout lens, and very sharp. I do not usually see the doughnut circle hightlights mentioned in regard with this lens by detractors on the web.
The Canon 400 f5.6 will be much sharper than the 70-200, particularly with a 1.4 TC. I know folks use the TC with the 70-200, but using TCs with zooms leaves a lot to be desired.
The 400f5.6 is cheaper than the 70-200 also And it is really nice glass.
Thanks for the response.
I, too, cannot afford the 500mm--yet. But as soon as I win Powerball....:D
My concern about the 400mm, which is a fine lens, is its f/5.6. What recently has caught my eye is the EF 100-400mm, although sharpness has been an issue with some folks (and Luminous Landscape author says he rarely uses it nowadays because of the sharpness issue). Decisions, decisions.
Nice job especially with the 28-135!!! Won't even try an offer lens advice except to say there are some really wonderful shots taken with the 400 f5.6 and the 1.4TC. The 500 is an 'only in my dreams' lens, but oh it is so fine.
I, too, cannot afford the 500mm--yet. But as soon as I win Powerball....:D
My concern about the 400mm, which is a fine lens, is its f/5.6. What recently has caught my eye is the EF 100-400mm, although sharpness has been an issue with some folks (and Luminous Landscape author says he rarely uses it nowadays because of the sharpness issue). Decisions, decisions.
I have the Canon 100-400 and while I really like the lens, I don't think I would buy it again. As a matter of fact my long term goal is to replace this range with a 400 prime and something like the 70-200 f2.8.
While I was able to get sharp images with the 100-400, now that I've owned a prime, zooms just don't seem to come up to snuff.
Comments
I admire your pluck
Your first shot demonstrates the smooth creamy Canon sensor at work with nice bokeh in the background. I do not prefer the shot from this low an angle, but it did give you a very nice green background without a lot of branches around the bird. The bird is nicely in focus and fills the frame.
The second image is very noisy - perhaps shot at a high ISO and then cropped after the fact. But I like the angle better. The first shots I ever tried with birds were with a 70-300mm and I found that frustrating.
As I said, I admire your desire. Great patience will be required to get close enough to small birds with 135mm. If you feed them, gulls will frequently come in close enough for a 135 though.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Path brings up some nice points. More of a perpendicular angle is the ideal when shooting birds, not always easy to get though. In the first one the bird is also shadowed on the front, the ideal would be to have the light coming from behind you and onto the bird, again not always easy to get.
The second one is a nicer perspective, but does show excessive noise. A natural perch would also be preferred.
Nice set.
My Photo gallery- rohirrim.smugmug.com
Selective Sharpening Tutorial
Making a Frame for your image (Tutorial)
Good advice, particularly about the low angle. Indeed, the 2nd shot was taken at very high ISO and I did try to find the ideal relationship between Gaussian blur and sharpening the feather details.
I am going to get a more powerful telephoto, and a Canon. Would you suggest a 300 or 400mm?
Incidentally, your egret shot is wonderful. Nice work.
I'd go with the 400mm. The Canon 400 f5.6 is a really nice lens. Not the fastest but possibly the best long lens for the price ~ $1000. It also works well with the 1.4xTC which will get you even better reach.
My Photo gallery- rohirrim.smugmug.com
Selective Sharpening Tutorial
Making a Frame for your image (Tutorial)
Good feedback, Steve. You are indeed right about the shadowing on the front. Since I was shooting from my kitchen window, I could have--and should have--used a flash. That might have solved my problem, particularly since I was at an angle to the glass. Right again about the noise. The day was dark and dreary, and I did not use a tripod.
You know of my admiration for your photographic skills. Would you recommend a 300 or 400mm telephoto? (If I can recall, you call your 500mm "the beast" and have complained about hauling it to the field.)
You give up IS and a large aperature, but the high ISOs available with the Canon DSLRs lets you get away with f5.6. It is small, light and easily handled.
It won't give you the very best, unless situated on a good tripod. Just think of the good tripod as an investment in long glass for your camera. Tripods are a nuisance, but you really can see the difference with handheld shots and tripod shots with lenses longer than 200mm or so.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
The 500 is truly a beast and not the easiest lens to carry around in the field, but I wouldn't trade it for anything less. I've considered getting a 400 for travel, but I'm certain I'd miss my 500 the whole time. I didn't mention the 500 in my first responce to you regarding lenses because most people look at the price and shy away, I'm just crazy enough to buy one anyway.
My Photo gallery- rohirrim.smugmug.com
Selective Sharpening Tutorial
Making a Frame for your image (Tutorial)
I find the 400 DO to be a very nice walkabout lens, and very sharp. I do not usually see the doughnut circle hightlights mentioned in regard with this lens by detractors on the web.
Uwe Rheinhardt reviewed it here - he calls it his pelican lens
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_400_4_DO/Canon_400DO_review.html
Michael Reichman reviewed it here.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400-do.shtml
Dpreview had blurb about the DO lens here
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00090604canon_400do.asp
Here is one of my pelican shots with the 400 DO
It sounds like Steve and I are about the same level of craziness
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Nice job especially with the 28-135!!! Won't even try an offer lens advice except to say there are some really wonderful shots taken with the 400 f5.6 and the 1.4TC. The 500 is an 'only in my dreams' lens, but oh it is so fine.
What a wonderful pelican shot. I love it that you can see the feathers so clearly. Nicely composed, a winner bird shot in my book. I only saw pelicans from afar in Florida. (Strange enough to see them, we are not used to them in Belgium)
Love your pelican shot!
http://photocatseyes.net
http://www.zazzle.com/photocatseyes
Thank you for the input. Last night I read so many reviews about telephotos that I burned out my eyeballs. The one lens that caught my attention, though, is the Ef 70-200 IS USM. It takes a 1.4TC and, from what I have read, is consistently sharp. I do plan on checking into the Canon 400mm F/4 IS DO. Incidentally, the pelican picture is excellent. Good work.
The 400f5.6 is cheaper than the 70-200 also
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I, too, cannot afford the 500mm--yet. But as soon as I win Powerball....:D
My concern about the 400mm, which is a fine lens, is its f/5.6. What recently has caught my eye is the EF 100-400mm, although sharpness has been an issue with some folks (and Luminous Landscape author says he rarely uses it nowadays because of the sharpness issue). Decisions, decisions.
I have the Canon 100-400 and while I really like the lens, I don't think I would buy it again. As a matter of fact my long term goal is to replace this range with a 400 prime and something like the 70-200 f2.8.
While I was able to get sharp images with the 100-400, now that I've owned a prime, zooms just don't seem to come up to snuff.
My Photo gallery- rohirrim.smugmug.com
Selective Sharpening Tutorial
Making a Frame for your image (Tutorial)