| Author |
Message |
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2782
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:29 pm
|  |
With that lens, yes you would. You can't shoot action shots with a 5.6 lens at 100 iso unless you're on the surface of the sun.
I think the main problem was your lens+converter combo, but there's no way to get a sharp image on a flying bird at 1/250 unless you pan. But even in this case, it wouldn't have helped because there are so many birds so you couldn't pan one and get the rest in focus.
I don't know the set up for that third shot, which I think had the most potential as far as visual impact, but I'm thinking you could have gotten something good with a wide lens at a wider aperture.
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2444
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:34 pm
| |
In other words nothing that a bit of money can't solve :)
Next question...what lens should I be looking at for that type of shot?
Please keep in mind I am not Rockefeller, just the other fella.
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2782
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:38 pm
| |
70-200 2.8, all of which are crazy expensive.
Like I said, you could have maybe got the flock shot with a wider lens, like a 35/1.8, 50/1.8 or 85/1.8, which are relatively cheap. You should have one or the other for low light or high speed situations anyway. I wasn't there, but looks like you had some room to work with.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6544
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:14 pm
| |
A cheap fast (prime) lens is the 50mm f/1.8, but you have to get so awfully close to the birds, physically, you would need to be able to fly yourself.
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2444
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:43 pm
| |
I think I might just be able to swing that... Speaking of flying here. If pigs can do it then why not I...
70-200 f2.8 cough, choke. I suppose that would do the trick.
Thinking to self - maybe if I sell one of my motorcycles???
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3806
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:43 pm
| |
I have a 300mm 4.0L that is marginal for this sort of thing. Problem is (as above) that the t.c. plus a relatively slow lens means that you need a tonne of light to get the shutterspeeds AND stop down a few to get into the sweet spot of the lens. You can bump the iso but then you will end up with noise.
This is the sort of subject where a 400 2.8 comes in handy. Of course, most of us can't justify the cash outlay for that.
Laurin often mentions that wildlife is one of the most expensive (and difficult) forms of photography. For the most part, I agree (sometimes you get lucky). Good to do this for fun. Don't submit them and don't pixel peep.
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2444
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:01 pm
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | | Laurin often mentions that wildlife is one of the most expensive (and difficult) forms of photography. |
That is however my where my heart lies (which you can probably tell from my port) and is what I am eventually going to end up doing when I retire.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3806
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:41 pm
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | copidosoma wrote: | | Laurin often mentions that wildlife is one of the most expensive (and difficult) forms of photography. |
That is however my where my heart lies (which you can probably tell from my port) and is what I am eventually going to end up doing when I retire. |
Me too. But it takes some serious kit (or luck)
|
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 6079
Location: Masterton,Wairarapa, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:11 pm
| |
Non VR/IS 70-300 F4-5.6 at 300mm F8 ISO 400
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
59.65 KB |
| Viewed: |
520 Time(s) |
|
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39280
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:46 pm
| |
Crappy Camera. Nikon D-70 a noise machine. Crap lens, A Tamron 28-300 I was testing at F5.6 1/400th at 300MM Handheld in 2004. Tack sharp,No noise. Don't blame the equipment my friend.If you wanna specialize in nature and wildlife ... better learn technique and More Importantly Learn your camera. And If this is truly want you wanna do. Save your money and invest in High FPS cameras and Fast glass as It will compensate for a lot of mistakes But.......Nothing compares or even comes close to technique,years of practice in that type of work and knowing in an instant what you need to do to get the shot..
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
133.64 KB |
| Viewed: |
502 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
81.1 KB |
| Viewed: |
502 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
99.1 KB |
| Viewed: |
502 Time(s) |
|
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17469
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:46 pm
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | I have a 300mm 4.0L that is marginal for this sort of thing. Problem is (as above) that the t.c. plus a relatively slow lens means that you need a tonne of light to get the shutterspeeds AND stop down a few to get into the sweet spot of the lens. You can bump the iso but then you will end up with noise.
This is the sort of subject where a 400 2.8 comes in handy. Of course, most of us can't justify the cash outlay for that.
Laurin often mentions that wildlife is one of the most expensive (and difficult) forms of photography. For the most part, I agree (sometimes you get lucky). Good to do this for fun. Don't submit them and don't pixel peep. |
I also have the 300mm f4, and it is marginal, OK later in the Day, but animals are most active during dawn and dusk hours, as should be photographers and hunters, I am both so it is natural for me to be out and about during those hours :-)
I find my 70-200mm f2.8 the best tool, but still have to get close to anything.
The 500mm f8 I have in my gear bag is only useful on bright summer days in Africa or California, possibly would work in the heart of Australia LOL!
One thing to remember is that putting a 2x converter on any lens also changes the f stop by 2 stops, so my f2.8 becomes an f5.6, while your f5.6 becomes an f11.
70-200mm f2.8 New Zealand
Alaska 70-200mm f2.8
Africa 500mm f8 from film, the lion was with a 70-200mm non IS/VR Vivitar series 1 lens
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
90.93 KB |
| Viewed: |
493 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
130.48 KB |
| Viewed: |
493 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
134.23 KB |
| Viewed: |
493 Time(s) |
|
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3806
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:12 pm
| |
For the record I wasn't trying to imply that you can't take excellent wildlife photos with moderate gear. Just that you have some limits on what you can do and getting consistently top grade results under less than ideal conditions can be tough. Very high end gear helps, skill and patience helps too. It is a total package thing.
I've got plenty of great grabs with pretty poor gear. I consider alot of that luck. If I was doing wildlife for something more than 33 cents I wouldn't be using a consumer grade zoom to do it (not that you couldn't).
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2444
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:14 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: |
One thing to remember is that putting a 2x converter on any lens also changes the f stop by 2 stops, so my f2.8 becomes an f5.6, while your f5.6 becomes an f11.
|
Jeff would my 1.4X have a similar affect on my f-stop?
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17469
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:21 pm
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | jeffbanke wrote: |
One thing to remember is that putting a 2x converter on any lens also changes the f stop by 2 stops, so my f2.8 becomes an f5.6, while your f5.6 becomes an f11.
|
Jeff would my 1.4X have a similar affect on my f-stop? |
Yes! although not two stop, it would add 1.25 to 1.5 stops, depending on the quality of glass in it.
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2444
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:25 pm
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | | For the record I wasn't trying to imply that you can't take excellent wildlife photos with moderate gear. |
No doubt. I understood where you were coming from.
The wildlife photos in my port were nearly all taken with my EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III so I know it can perform. I think the problem might lie with the Teleconverter that used for the first time evidenced by the green and purple fringing.
But if you want to be serious then having good kit and knowing how to use it is key. I have never seen a wildlife photographer that is worth their salt running around the bush using an EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
