| Author |
Message |
supertramp
Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 4518
Location: I don't know, I'm guessing. :)
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:40 pm
|  |
| rinder99 wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | | I doubt if a 400mm zoom will prove good enough for distant birds. A 600mm f4 prime is the sort of stuff bird shooters carry but the price is insane, plus you need a good tripod and a Wimberley head. |
Agree. people who shoot nature and sports at the pro level would never use zoom Lenses, There to slow and not so good.A 3 legged Monopod is very useful also. You need fast glass for birds and such. 3.5/5.6 is throwing away money.Renting is an option also.Primes are ALWAYS better than any zoom. Optically Impossible the other way and optically impossible to make a good zoom that goes more than 1.7 times as in 70-200. |
Agree, Laurin, but the Canon 100-400mm zoom is a good starting place as opposed to one like the Sigma super zoom; 50-500mm, etc. Now if you want a really want a good super tele zoom, then the Sigmonster: 300-800mm f5.6. About $9k
http://vimeo.com/8829670 |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26290
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:35 pm
| |
She's shooting birds that are perched or hovering more or less motionless. I suspect that is a restriction imposed on her by her lens. At 300mm the f/5.6 aperture will limit both the shutter speed and the ability to grab focus.
Even with long primes, finding ways of getting close to birds is one of the key skills of a bird shooter. It's really an entire genre in its own right. |
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26290
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:35 pm
| |
| PaulCowan wrote: |
She's shooting birds that are perched or hovering more or less motionless. I suspect that is a restriction imposed on her by her lens. At 300mm the f/5.6 aperture will limit both the shutter speed and the ability to grab focus.
Even with long primes, finding ways of getting close to birds is one of the key skills of a bird shooter. It's really an entire genre in its own right. |
True but not really knowing what kind of birds the OP is looking to shoot i just gave the OP an idea, and she sets up a tent and everything to get what she gets.
Hail i cant even get anywhere near any myself and have been trying a hawk and vultures and when you get to close they up and fly away.
And i am trying with a 70-200 f/4L and need the one Wally is talking about to maybe have a better chance. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39250
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2012 3:42 pm
| |
| supertramp wrote: | | rinder99 wrote: | | PaulCowan wrote: | | I doubt if a 400mm zoom will prove good enough for distant birds. A 600mm f4 prime is the sort of stuff bird shooters carry but the price is insane, plus you need a good tripod and a Wimberley head. |
Agree. people who shoot nature and sports at the pro level would never use zoom Lenses, There to slow and not so good.A 3 legged Monopod is very useful also. You need fast glass for birds and such. 3.5/5.6 is throwing away money.Renting is an option also.Primes are ALWAYS better than any zoom. Optically Impossible the other way and optically impossible to make a good zoom that goes more than 1.7 times as in 70-200. |
Agree, Laurin, but the Canon 100-400mm zoom is a good starting place as opposed to one like the Sigma super zoom; 50-500mm, etc. Now if you want a really want a good super tele zoom, then the Sigmonster: 300-800mm f5.6. About $9k
http://vimeo.com/8829670 |
God, I remember that 50-500. sigma gave me one to test when it came out, I went to monument valley. I gave it back. |
|
sdbower
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 64
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:15 pm
| |
I've had the Canon 100 X 400 for probably 10 years and have found it to be a very good lens. I also have a 40D and the majority of my portfolio was shot with it. I'll admit that the 100 X 400 is not the sharpest lens out there and that some of my telephoto shots are rejected for "focus" but at $1,700.00 I think you will find it well worth the money.
Many of the photographers on the forum make their entire living from photography and can justify putting out thousands and thousands of dollars for a lens. Personally, I'm not that "professional" and wouldn't consider that a wise use of my money. If you are in a similar position, I would recommend the Canon 100 X 400. If you have to have the "best", check out the big primes and keep saving and saving and . . . |
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:53 am
| |
If you really need a 600mm f/4 lens then it's a no brainer. If you don't KNOW that you need it, then you don't want it.
Frankly, a shooter with that gear won't want to supply the micros because that price is one of the few remaining entry barriers that justify top dollars per sale. |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10632
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:50 am
| |
the 100-400 is too soft at 400mm for birds.
Personally I would go with the 400mm 5.6.
Here is a good test: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml
The 400 gives you 640mm on the 40D. If that is too long, go with the 300mm 4.0 for about the same amount of money. Both lenses are razor sharp. The 300 has image stabilization, but who cares. |
|
chbaum
Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Posts: 387
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:13 pm
| |
Hmmm... The 100-400 mm indeed is slightly softer at 400 mm. But too soft for birds? FWIW, I have a few 400 mm images on SS (only had the lens for four weeks now), so it seems to be okay focus wise. However, it only works with tons of light, IS on and a shutter speed of 1/1000 and above (or a tripod, which I haven't used so far, so even without it, I was able to shoot SS worthy images).
I guess, the better combination might be the 70-200 / 2.8 IS 2 (!) plus a 2x converter. It's supposed to stay razor sharp even with the converter, and the f-stop is 5.6 throughout the zoom range. If I could afford it, I would have bought that one.
Best regards,
Christian |
|
rudyumans
Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Posts: 10632
Location: www.businesshelpforyou.org www.rudyumans.com
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:23 pm
| |
I think it is too soft for birds. Birds are all about detail.
For me, sharpness is always the most important criteria because other problems are either not all that noticable or can be fixed in post, but, as we all know, sharpness cannot be fixed. So, if someone is on a limited budget (and who isn't?), the 400 5.6 is the way to go for birds.
The people on luminous landscape also tested the 70-200 2.8 with 2x extender and I think that the results are not all that great. |
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3801
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:59 pm
| |
| rudyumans wrote: | I think it is too soft for birds. Birds are all about detail.
For me, sharpness is always the most important criteria because other problems are either not all that noticable or can be fixed in post, but, as we all know, sharpness cannot be fixed. So, if someone is on a limited budget (and who isn't?), the 400 5.6 is the way to go for birds.
The people on luminous landscape also tested the 70-200 2.8 with 2x extender and I think that the results are not all that great. |
x2
If you are primarily doing birds then the 100-400 will be at 400 all the time anyways.
If money was no concern I'd get a 400 2.8 and a few extenders. Very hard to justify that cost though for microstock. |
|
| |
|
Log in
