long lens and bird lust

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:


and far away:


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

Stan

ginger_55 wrote:

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

Stan wrote:

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.

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

Khaos wrote:

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

wxwax wrote:

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

I must be spending too much time with the wife.

pathfinder

Khaos wrote:

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

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

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

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.

Dixie

ginger_55 wrote:

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

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

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

ginger_55 wrote:

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

pathfinder wrote:

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

andy wrote:

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

Dixie wrote:

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

ginger_55 wrote:

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

ginger_55 wrote:

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.



ian

Andy

gorgeous, ian.

ian408 wrote:

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



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?

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

ian408 wrote:

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



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.

ian408

andy wrote:

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?

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.



Again, hand-held.

Ian

Andy

ian408 wrote:

Anytime. It's fun to shoot with.

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



Again, hand-held.

Ian

cool ian!

and to all who commented here: thank you!

TOF guy

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 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 : 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 .

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 .

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

Thierry

rutt

TOF guy wrote:

The best tool for your purpose is 20D. Do the math : 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 .

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 .

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

Thierry

I think I've been confused about this topic. Mia culpa. See this post.

tmlphoto

TOF guy wrote:

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 : 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 .

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 .

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

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.