long lens and bird lust

Andy

i'm *not* a telephoto guy, and so i have a lot of respect for you birders 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.





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



no waiting, and more than a little rough, if you ask me!


and, all done about 1min later, he's all proud of himself.
i think he's ready for a

wxwax

Oh boy, here we go.

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

wxwax wrote:

Oh boy, here we go.

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

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? :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 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

sid i think it takes patience

wxwax wrote:

Oh boy, here we go.

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

Andy

wxwax wrote:

Oh boy, here we go.

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. 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

andy wrote:

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.

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

Hmmmmm, for a shot like this?
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

rutt wrote:

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_55 wrote:

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

Michiel de Brieder

Lack of food will clutter a mans mind, that's for sure I think you should take a nice walk with your 24mm
Oh and, nice pics too bad you ain't got Harry around no more to show you how it's done
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

andy wrote:

which post

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

ginger_55 wrote:

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

tmlphoto wrote:

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.

wxwax

ginger_55 wrote:

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.

rutt

rutt wrote:

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

wxwax wrote:

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

rutt wrote:

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".

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

wxwax wrote:

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

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

Harryb wrote:

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.

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.

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

Harryb wrote:

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

Kirwin wrote:

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

mmmm

mm

m
mmmmm bacon

Steve Cavigliano

pathfinder wrote:

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. QUOTE]


PF,

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

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 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

pathfinder wrote:

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.