Lens advice, please

Kate wrote:
"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...
paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?

By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.

Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use?

h = subject size
I = image size (film or sensor size)
v = distance to subject
f = focal length of lens

I x v
f = ----------
h


I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit

Kate wrote:
"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...
paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?

By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.

Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use?

h = subject size
I = image size (film or sensor size)
v = distance to subject
f = focal length of lens

I x v
f = ----------
h


I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit

Kate wrote:
"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...
paul wrote:

Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?

By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.

Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use?

h = subject size
I = image size (film or sensor size)
v = distance to subject
f = focal length of lens

I x v
f = ----------
h


I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?



I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both
1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss
of autofocus is another matter!!

http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html

John

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?



I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both
1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss
of autofocus is another matter!!

http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html

John

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?



I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both
1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss
of autofocus is another matter!!

http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html

John

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Kate wrote:

"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...

paul wrote:


Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?


By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.




A 200mm with a 2x converter has a 600mm FOV for a D70 (or 640 on a
Rebel). I have that for a D70 with a +2 diopter for closeups and I did
the following diagram:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/lenses/closeup-range.pdf
I mighta screwed it up, very tedious & I'd need to go through the whole
thing again more carefully but this should be approximately what to
expect. The circles indicate the size of the long end of the frame to
scale at the distance captured. Most of the possible variations with
this setup are shown.

With TC (teleconverter) & DO (diopter) the focus ring moved you between
1/2" filling the frame at 2 ft away from the sensor and 3" filling the
frame at around 32" distance.

With closeup diopter and no teleconverter, the 70-200 goes from around
1-1/2" to 4" at around 4-feet.

Without the closeup diopter, 5" fills the screen at about 5 feet to
infinity, 10" at 10 feet.

The teleconverter with no diopter fills the screen with 2-1/2" at 2-feet
to infinity. It's about 6" wide at 10 feet, great for small birds. If
you need to be back 20 feet then you need 800mm.


There ought to be a simpler way to diagram this, I can hardly understand
it. I think it's just different for any given lens design but the basics
should be similar.





Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use?


h = subject size
I = image size (film or sensor size)
v = distance to subject
f = focal length of lens

I x v
f = ----------
h



I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

Joseph Meehan wrote:

Kate wrote:

"Angela M. Cable" wrote in message
...

paul wrote:


Kate wrote:


... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
get _closer_ to the subject?



It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in grin. I don't know
what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
another group today:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
http://www.neocognition.com/

PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.psplinks.com/

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and mo
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it?


By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.




A 200mm with a 2x converter has a 600mm FOV for a D70 (or 640 on a
Rebel). I have that for a D70 with a +2 diopter for closeups and I did
the following diagram:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/lenses/closeup-range.pdf
I mighta screwed it up, very tedious & I'd need to go through the whole
thing again more carefully but this should be approximately what to
expect. The circles indicate the size of the long end of the frame to
scale at the distance captured. Most of the possible variations with
this setup are shown.

With TC (teleconverter) & DO (diopter) the focus ring moved you between
1/2" filling the frame at 2 ft away from the sensor and 3" filling the
frame at around 32" distance.

With closeup diopter and no teleconverter, the 70-200 goes from around
1-1/2" to 4" at around 4-feet.

Without the closeup diopter, 5" fills the screen at about 5 feet to
infinity, 10" at 10 feet.

The teleconverter with no diopter fills the screen with 2-1/2" at 2-feet
to infinity. It's about 6" wide at 10 feet, great for small birds. If
you need to be back 20 feet then you need 800mm.


There ought to be a simpler way to diagram this, I can hardly understand
it. I think it's just different for any given lens design but the basics
should be similar.





Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use?


h = subject size
I = image size (film or sensor size)
v = distance to subject
f = focal length of lens

I x v
f = ----------
h



I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?) ;-)

Kate

"Kate" wrote in
:


I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode)
and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I
notice a considerable increase in noise, so I do try to use 200 ISO or
lower most of the time. Unfortunately, with photographing odonata,
the option to set up flash units is impossible. However, this is
compensated for somewhat by their preference for warm, sunny
conditions. They do move very quickly and change direction in an
instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like
to use a high shutter speed if possible.

You're highly unlikely to get anything even remotely decent, if
you're not after perched shots, unless you go for a really elaborate setup
or get extremely lucky. They're the most unpredictable flyers. And trying
might just drive you nuts ;-)

One of the better traits, however, is their preference for returning
to the same perch. Patience and slow stalking can get you a lot closer.
Also, early morning helps a tremendous amount, especially if the night was
cool. Odonata need their flight muscles to be warm to work properly (which
is why they perch and sun themselves), so chasing them before they get warm
enough means they either don't move, or perch frequently.


As I mentioned earlier, they
tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in
the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need
for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when
they come to rest.

Don't accept any one locale, but always seek out new places to find
them. Some may provide ideal conditions, such as reeds close to shore and
at a good height. This is where I've gotten most of my insect shots.


With the bird photography, I did consider getting
some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered
by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens
sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less
demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds!

Not less demanding subjects, but less demanding conditions. Even
traveling to an area where your subjects are allowing closer approaches can
do wonders.

As for flashes, some are triggered by the camera flash, and these are
typically called "optical slaves". Others can be triggered by radio - see
the Canon 550EX for example, or check out instruments by Quantum and Pocket
Wizard.

Then there's a simple trick with optical slaves - cover the flash
unit on the camera with a piece of unexposed, developed slide film (in
other words, black). This blocks nearly all of the visible light, but not
the infra-red, which will trigger the slaves. If you get creative, you can
use multiple flashes and slave triggers (from Wein, for instance), maybe a
few PC cords, to create an entire outdoor "studio" flash setup.


Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper
than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I
have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses
with better optics.

A teleconverter is always a possibility, but they come with a price.
The first is, you're going to lose at least some image quality, though with
the better converters this is minimal. Second, you lose some light, giving
you an effective f-stop even lower than before - one stop (f8 to f11) with
a 1.4X converter, two stops (f8 to f16) with a 2X.

Better lenses always help, but perhaps not as much as you would like,
especially for the price. Be careful about getting trapped in the process
of chasing equipment - no matter what you buy, you'll still need good
technique.

Think of it in these terms: Purchasing a 600mm f4, to the tune of
several thousand dollars, still only doubles the subject's size on the
film, and this is in overall area, not body length (only 1.4 times body
length). The quality will indeed increase, and you may be delighted at the
sharpness. But will it be enough? Because if it isn't, you're now out a
bucket of money and still have to find alternate ways to get closer.

And sometimes, all this takes is throwing some bird food out. Or even
using a small fine net and catching the odonata before they're fully alert,
and shooting them in a makeshift studio *in your house* ;-)


Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and
sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that
shadows and darker areas generally give the most problems, regardless
of colour, so sharpening in the Brightness channel might make it
worse? I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
_closer_ to the subject?

Yes. And I think we're at a slight misunderstanding as to some of
your difficulties, but you did mention not being able to focus close
enough. This is something I've seen many times, where the photographer can
get close enough to the subject with a longer zoom, but it won't focus
within the short distance. Doesn't sound like this is your problem though.


What I was hoping to achieve was to almost
fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a
dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away.
Am I asking for too much on a limited budget?

Bluntly, yes. Every nature photog wants the image to be a lot bigger,
but getting that kind of performance tends to be expensive - shortcuts
always leave something lacking.

So, you cheat whenever possible ;-). Set up a feeding station. Shoot
within an aviary or butterfly house. Travel to a place that sees a lot of
people so the birds and insects are far more accustomed to close
approaches. Use a long remote for the camera and put the camera right smack
in the reeds, prefocused on a favorite perch, and shoot "blind". Hatch the
little beggars yourself in an aquarium ;-)

Some subjects are just damn tricky, and you have your work cut out
for you. But don't try to conquer it all at once. Experiment and learn, and
do some research too. Some of the best insect photos are obtained by
elaborate setups such as multiple infra-red trigger beams and large forced-
air tubes that guide a flying insect to right where the camera's pointing.
And that's because those photographers found out the same thing you have,
and got frustrated enough to find alternate methods ;-)

Good luck!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"Kate" wrote in
:


I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode)
and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I
notice a considerable increase in noise, so I do try to use 200 ISO or
lower most of the time. Unfortunately, with photographing odonata,
the option to set up flash units is impossible. However, this is
compensated for somewhat by their preference for warm, sunny
conditions. They do move very quickly and change direction in an
instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like
to use a high shutter speed if possible.

You're highly unlikely to get anything even remotely decent, if
you're not after perched shots, unless you go for a really elaborate setup
or get extremely lucky. They're the most unpredictable flyers. And trying
might just drive you nuts ;-)

One of the better traits, however, is their preference for returning
to the same perch. Patience and slow stalking can get you a lot closer.
Also, early morning helps a tremendous amount, especially if the night was
cool. Odonata need their flight muscles to be warm to work properly (which
is why they perch and sun themselves), so chasing them before they get warm
enough means they either don't move, or perch frequently.


As I mentioned earlier, they
tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in
the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need
for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when
they come to rest.

Don't accept any one locale, but always seek out new places to find
them. Some may provide ideal conditions, such as reeds close to shore and
at a good height. This is where I've gotten most of my insect shots.


With the bird photography, I did consider getting
some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered
by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens
sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less
demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds!

Not less demanding subjects, but less demanding conditions. Even
traveling to an area where your subjects are allowing closer approaches can
do wonders.

As for flashes, some are triggered by the camera flash, and these are
typically called "optical slaves". Others can be triggered by radio - see
the Canon 550EX for example, or check out instruments by Quantum and Pocket
Wizard.

Then there's a simple trick with optical slaves - cover the flash
unit on the camera with a piece of unexposed, developed slide film (in
other words, black). This blocks nearly all of the visible light, but not
the infra-red, which will trigger the slaves. If you get creative, you can
use multiple flashes and slave triggers (from Wein, for instance), maybe a
few PC cords, to create an entire outdoor "studio" flash setup.


Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper
than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I
have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses
with better optics.

A teleconverter is always a possibility, but they come with a price.
The first is, you're going to lose at least some image quality, though with
the better converters this is minimal. Second, you lose some light, giving
you an effective f-stop even lower than before - one stop (f8 to f11) with
a 1.4X converter, two stops (f8 to f16) with a 2X.

Better lenses always help, but perhaps not as much as you would like,
especially for the price. Be careful about getting trapped in the process
of chasing equipment - no matter what you buy, you'll still need good
technique.

Think of it in these terms: Purchasing a 600mm f4, to the tune of
several thousand dollars, still only doubles the subject's size on the
film, and this is in overall area, not body length (only 1.4 times body
length). The quality will indeed increase, and you may be delighted at the
sharpness. But will it be enough? Because if it isn't, you're now out a
bucket of money and still have to find alternate ways to get closer.

And sometimes, all this takes is throwing some bird food out. Or even
using a small fine net and catching the odonata before they're fully alert,
and shooting them in a makeshift studio *in your house* ;-)


Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and
sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that
shadows and darker areas generally give the most problems, regardless
of colour, so sharpening in the Brightness channel might make it
worse? I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
_closer_ to the subject?

Yes. And I think we're at a slight misunderstanding as to some of
your difficulties, but you did mention not being able to focus close
enough. This is something I've seen many times, where the photographer can
get close enough to the subject with a longer zoom, but it won't focus
within the short distance. Doesn't sound like this is your problem though.


What I was hoping to achieve was to almost
fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a
dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away.
Am I asking for too much on a limited budget?

Bluntly, yes. Every nature photog wants the image to be a lot bigger,
but getting that kind of performance tends to be expensive - shortcuts
always leave something lacking.

So, you cheat whenever possible ;-). Set up a feeding station. Shoot
within an aviary or butterfly house. Travel to a place that sees a lot of
people so the birds and insects are far more accustomed to close
approaches. Use a long remote for the camera and put the camera right smack
in the reeds, prefocused on a favorite perch, and shoot "blind". Hatch the
little beggars yourself in an aquarium ;-)

Some subjects are just damn tricky, and you have your work cut out
for you. But don't try to conquer it all at once. Experiment and learn, and
do some research too. Some of the best insect photos are obtained by
elaborate setups such as multiple infra-red trigger beams and large forced-
air tubes that guide a flying insect to right where the camera's pointing.
And that's because those photographers found out the same thing you have,
and got frustrated enough to find alternate methods ;-)

Good luck!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net