Lens advice, please

John Lee wrote:
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

Some very nice shots and clearly not just a fast click and go, you
worked for a few of those.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit

John Lee wrote:
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

Some very nice shots and clearly not just a fast click and go, you
worked for a few of those.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit

Kate wrote:

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

I see somebody else posted a formula. Don't forget that if your lens is
a regular EF, you have additional focal length when you put it on the
Canon digital body. The multiplier for the D-Rebel is 1.6. So a
traditional EF 100-400mm lens is a 160-640mm when mounted on the digital
body. Adding a 1.4x teleconverter gives you 896mm or a 2x gives you
1280mm. I can't remember now if you said you were or were not using a
tripod. You're going to have to use one at this kind of focal length.

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?) ;-)

Isn't that thing something? I just can't imagine anybody using it, you'd
have to hire somebody to do nothing but cart it around :-)


--
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/

John Lee wrote:

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

These are great! I especially like the last two. I like seeing birds
actually doing something, the berry it its beak is perfect. The floral,
I just plain like, composition, lighting, color, all of it taken together.


--
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/

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
.8...


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

This will be my third year photographing odonata, but the first using
a digital SLR with zoom. I have been using a Coolpix 4500 which is
very good for close-ups, but it was because I had to stalk them in
order to get close that I decided to get a camera to which I could
attach a long lens. I did get lucky several times - one dragonfly
even landed on my knee so I got some good `portrait` shots, and a pair
of Anax Imperators `in cop` were so engrossed I could have shoved the
lens up the male`s nose, if it had one! I have not taken any shots of
dragonflies in flight, or even attempted it, although I might try this
year. I do get somewhat despondent if I am out for hours and don`t
get anything, but the sense of achievement when I do is very
satisfying. That is why I prefer to take my photos in the wild. If I
went to an aviary or butterfly house, or photographed captive
dragonflies, I wouldn`t get that feeling of accomplishment.

I have only just started photographing birds, and we do have feeders
in the garden, but the species of birds visiting is quite limited. I
intend to get out and about to find more species, so a long lens will
be important unless I am very lucky indeed.

I have never had such an expensive hobby (obsession?) before, so I
have to think very hard before buying extra equipment. I can
understand the need to always want something better or different to
get that elusive shot. However, I have always said that in order to
do the job properly, you have to have the right tools, otherwise you
usually end up bodging it, which is what I feel I am doing at the
moment.

I have been on a very steep learning curve for the past few weeks and
all the responses to my original query have given me plenty to think
about. Improving my technique should be my first priority, I suspect,
but I still feel that better glass will give me sharper shots,
regardless of which length I eventually decide to go for. Maybe then,
if I do have to crop, there won`t be so many imperfections to
exaggerate by having to sharpen so much.

with thanks and best wishes to all
Kate

"Al Denelsbeck" wrote in message
.8...


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

This will be my third year photographing odonata, but the first using
a digital SLR with zoom. I have been using a Coolpix 4500 which is
very good for close-ups, but it was because I had to stalk them in
order to get close that I decided to get a camera to which I could
attach a long lens. I did get lucky several times - one dragonfly
even landed on my knee so I got some good `portrait` shots, and a pair
of Anax Imperators `in cop` were so engrossed I could have shoved the
lens up the male`s nose, if it had one! I have not taken any shots of
dragonflies in flight, or even attempted it, although I might try this
year. I do get somewhat despondent if I am out for hours and don`t
get anything, but the sense of achievement when I do is very
satisfying. That is why I prefer to take my photos in the wild. If I
went to an aviary or butterfly house, or photographed captive
dragonflies, I wouldn`t get that feeling of accomplishment.

I have only just started photographing birds, and we do have feeders
in the garden, but the species of birds visiting is quite limited. I
intend to get out and about to find more species, so a long lens will
be important unless I am very lucky indeed.

I have never had such an expensive hobby (obsession?) before, so I
have to think very hard before buying extra equipment. I can
understand the need to always want something better or different to
get that elusive shot. However, I have always said that in order to
do the job properly, you have to have the right tools, otherwise you
usually end up bodging it, which is what I feel I am doing at the
moment.

I have been on a very steep learning curve for the past few weeks and
all the responses to my original query have given me plenty to think
about. Improving my technique should be my first priority, I suspect,
but I still feel that better glass will give me sharper shots,
regardless of which length I eventually decide to go for. Maybe then,
if I do have to crop, there won`t be so many imperfections to
exaggerate by having to sharpen so much.

with thanks and best wishes to all
Kate

Kate wrote:

This will be my third year photographing odonata, but the first using
a digital SLR with zoom. I have been using a Coolpix 4500 which is
very good for close-ups, but it was because I had to stalk them in
order to get close that I decided to get a camera to which I could
attach a long lens. I did get lucky several times - one dragonfly
even landed on my knee so I got some good `portrait` shots, and a pair
of Anax Imperators `in cop` were so engrossed I could have shoved the
lens up the male`s nose, if it had one! I have not taken any shots of
dragonflies in flight, or even attempted it, although I might try this
year. I do get somewhat despondent if I am out for hours and don`t
get anything, but the sense of achievement when I do is very
satisfying. That is why I prefer to take my photos in the wild. If I
went to an aviary or butterfly house, or photographed captive
dragonflies, I wouldn`t get that feeling of accomplishment.

I have only just started photographing birds, and we do have feeders
in the garden, but the species of birds visiting is quite limited. I
intend to get out and about to find more species, so a long lens will
be important unless I am very lucky indeed.

I have never had such an expensive hobby (obsession?) before, so I
have to think very hard before buying extra equipment. I can
understand the need to always want something better or different to
get that elusive shot. However, I have always said that in order to
do the job properly, you have to have the right tools, otherwise you
usually end up bodging it, which is what I feel I am doing at the
moment.

I have been on a very steep learning curve for the past few weeks and
all the responses to my original query have given me plenty to think
about. Improving my technique should be my first priority, I suspect,
but I still feel that better glass will give me sharper shots,
regardless of which length I eventually decide to go for. Maybe then,
if I do have to crop, there won`t be so many imperfections to
exaggerate by having to sharpen so much.

with thanks and best wishes to all
Kate

Hi,
Things I did not see discussed so far is your tripod setup. Is your
tripod sturdy enough? Most amateur setups are not once
you get into longer focal lengths of 300+ mm. Test your tripod
using the following: mount your camera + telephoto on the tripod,
then tap the lens and see how much it vibrates and how long
it takes to dampen. Look through the viewfinder at full
zoom and tap it again. Grab the camera + lens and twist the
tripod back an forth and look at the flexure in the legs.

Now go to a camera store and do the same with some of the
tripods there (even without your camera mounted, you can twist
the head and tap the legs and look for flexure and vibration.
Some common tripods for comparison:
Bogen 3001: small an light but better than most consumer tripods:
not good enough for telephoto work in my opinion.
Bogen 3021: heavy (~$130 for legs, aluminum tripod): minimal
tripod for 300 mm, inadequate for 600+mm (equivalent)
in my opinion.
Gitzo 1228 or 1225 carbon fiber (carbon fiber dampens vibrations much
better than aluminum): good up to about 500mm (with a good
head).
Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber: Good for 500mm and 600mm big telephotos.

Get a good tripod head too. Legs + head are not cheap for a good
telephoto setup. A gitzo 1225/8 is ~450 (if I remember correctly),
an arca-swiss B1 monoball ~$400, and a wimberly sidekick ~$250.
This will be good up to ~500mm.

Beyond 500mm, a gitzo 1325 (~$700) and full wimberly (~$650)
is needed (very approximate prices from memory).

Improving your tripod may be a big step in image quality.

Second, I suggest using Av (aperture variable; aperture priority) mode.
This way you can set the aperture to maximum opening to maximize
shutter speed. Moving animals need maximum shutter speed you
can get. Birds in flight can require 1/2000 second and faster.

After you've improved your image stability, contrary to others
suggestions, I don't believe you will get great results with a
75-300mm zoom. These consumer zoom lenses are soft compared to
prime lenses. So in your future, you may want to plan for a
prime lens.

Several years ago I bought a 500mm f/4 lens, and it has been
a life changing lens for me, allowing me to get images never before
possible. But last night I just returned from Australia, where because
of weight restrictions, I only took a 300 mm f/4 L IS telephoto
as my longest lens. That with a 1.4x TC did surprisingly well.
I used a gitzo 1325 + arca-swiss B1 monoball + wimberly sidekick
tripod and head configuration. Even then I see some of my images
were blurred due to tripod movement (but a small percentage).

I would recommend a 300 mm f/4 L IS lens as a great starter lens
for wildlife photography. The IS works on the tripod and with the
1.4x TC gives 420mm f/5.6 with autofocus and IS that is really sharp.
I got frame filling (and over-filling) images of wild lorikeets and
flight images of cockatoos (as well as other wildlife, and
scenic photos). I'll get some up in a few weeks.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote in message ...
Kate wrote:

Hi,
Things I did not see discussed so far is your tripod setup. Is your
tripod sturdy enough? Most amateur setups are not once
you get into longer focal lengths of 300+ mm. Test your tripod
using the following: mount your camera + telephoto on the tripod,
then tap the lens and see how much it vibrates and how long
it takes to dampen. Look through the viewfinder at full
zoom and tap it again. Grab the camera + lens and twist the
tripod back an forth and look at the flexure in the legs.

Now go to a camera store and do the same with some of the
tripods there (even without your camera mounted, you can twist
the head and tap the legs and look for flexure and vibration.
Some common tripods for comparison:
Bogen 3001: small an light but better than most consumer tripods:
not good enough for telephoto work in my opinion.
Bogen 3021: heavy (~$130 for legs, aluminum tripod): minimal
tripod for 300 mm, inadequate for 600+mm (equivalent)
in my opinion.
Gitzo 1228 or 1225 carbon fiber (carbon fiber dampens vibrations
much
better than aluminum): good up to about 500mm (with a
good
head).
Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber: Good for 500mm and 600mm big telephotos.

Get a good tripod head too. Legs + head are not cheap for a good
telephoto setup. A gitzo 1225/8 is ~450 (if I remember correctly),
an arca-swiss B1 monoball ~$400, and a wimberly sidekick ~$250.
This will be good up to ~500mm.

Beyond 500mm, a gitzo 1325 (~$700) and full wimberly (~$650)
is needed (very approximate prices from memory).

Improving your tripod may be a big step in image quality.

Second, I suggest using Av (aperture variable; aperture priority)
mode.
This way you can set the aperture to maximum opening to maximize
shutter speed. Moving animals need maximum shutter speed you
can get. Birds in flight can require 1/2000 second and faster.

After you've improved your image stability, contrary to others
suggestions, I don't believe you will get great results with a
75-300mm zoom. These consumer zoom lenses are soft compared to
prime lenses. So in your future, you may want to plan for a
prime lens.

Several years ago I bought a 500mm f/4 lens, and it has been
a life changing lens for me, allowing me to get images never before
possible. But last night I just returned from Australia, where
because
of weight restrictions, I only took a 300 mm f/4 L IS telephoto
as my longest lens. That with a 1.4x TC did surprisingly well.
I used a gitzo 1325 + arca-swiss B1 monoball + wimberly sidekick
tripod and head configuration. Even then I see some of my images
were blurred due to tripod movement (but a small percentage).

I would recommend a 300 mm f/4 L IS lens as a great starter lens
for wildlife photography. The IS works on the tripod and with the
1.4x TC gives 420mm f/5.6 with autofocus and IS that is really
sharp.
I got frame filling (and over-filling) images of wild lorikeets and
flight images of cockatoos (as well as other wildlife, and
scenic photos). I'll get some up in a few weeks.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

I did consider tripod stability, as I only have a cheap one. For this
reason I keep IS switched on, just in case. I`m afraid that, at the
moment, an expensive tripod is not an option. I would rather put the
money towards a better lens, I think.

As regards buying a prime, it is very tempting, but it could turn out
to be a problem when I never know where a dragonfly will land. The
darters are fairly predictable, as are the skimmers, but the hawkers
can land anywhere from right in front of your nose, to yards and yards
away. Can you tell me what the minimum focussing distance is of the
300mm f/4 L IS lens with the 1.4x TC, please. I do like
the idea of the versatility of a zoom, but if it is at the expense of
image sharpness, I may have to think again. I doubt very much if I
shall ever be able to have a 500 or 600mm lens. Not only is the price
prohibitive, but I have osteoarthritis in my hands and would find
handling such heavy lenses very difficult.

For the hide in the garden I have now bought a camping toilet tent and
have draped the frame with the camouflage net we already have. As it
is free-standing now, I have been able to move it closer to the bird
feeders, but the wretched birds haven`t been back since so I haven`t
been able to see if my images will be better. Trial shots of the
feeders alone do seem to be improved, though, even at maximum zoom,
and I don`t think I will have to crop so much.

I have started using RAW mode, although it is agonisingly slow through
the buffer. It may be that I have been losing some sharpness by the
way in which I was processing the images, but until I can get some
more shots from this new hide, I cannot tell for sure. There is no
getting away from the fact that a better lens would make a lot of
difference, but if I can improve my technique with the lens I have at
the moment, it should stand me in good stead for the future.

Lucky you to visit Australia. Did you get any pics of dragonflies, by
any chance?

Thanks for your suggestions.
Kate

Kate wrote:


I did consider tripod stability, as I only have a cheap one. For this
reason I keep IS switched on, just in case. I`m afraid that, at the
moment, an expensive tripod is not an option. I would rather put the
money towards a better lens, I think.

Ah, but your lens does not work correctly on a tripod with IS on.
IS on when on a tripod could cause an instability causing soft
images. Try imaging a target with lots of detail with the camera
on a rock (a bean bag on the rock may help). Then do the
same with your tripod. Are the tripod ones just as sharp?
Do this at different exposure times, e.g. in bright sun and
cloudy days or sunset to see the variability in softness.

Tripod stability is very important, and too often overlooked.

One problem is the vibration caused by mirror slap. At slower
shutter speeds, like longer than about 1/250 second, vibration
from mirror slap can influence image sharpness. Mass and
a sturdy tripod and head can minimize this and push the
region of image blur to slower shutter speeds. Thus a heavier
lens and camera body as well as sturdy tripod help. Try
putting one of those ankle weights (used for exercise) around your
camera (be careful around the lens; it might put too much weight
on the lens mount) to add stability.

As regards buying a prime, it is very tempting, but it could turn out
to be a problem when I never know where a dragonfly will land. The
darters are fairly predictable, as are the skimmers, but the hawkers
can land anywhere from right in front of your nose, to yards and yards
away. Can you tell me what the minimum focussing distance is of the
300mm f/4 L IS lens with the 1.4x TC, please.

The 300 L has a minimum focus distance of about 4.9 feet, and the
100-400 is 5.9 feet.

I have started using RAW mode, although it is agonisingly slow through
the buffer. It may be that I have been losing some sharpness by the
way in which I was processing the images, but until I can get some
more shots from this new hide, I cannot tell for sure. There is no
getting away from the fact that a better lens would make a lot of
difference,

Only if your tripod is good enough.

but if I can improve my technique with the lens I have at
the moment, it should stand me in good stead for the future.

Yes!

Lucky you to visit Australia. Did you get any pics of dragonflies, by
any chance?

No. I did not see any, nor any in New Zealand.

Roger

Kate wrote:


I did consider tripod stability, as I only have a cheap one. For this
reason I keep IS switched on, just in case. I`m afraid that, at the
moment, an expensive tripod is not an option. I would rather put the
money towards a better lens, I think.

Ah, but your lens does not work correctly on a tripod with IS on.
IS on when on a tripod could cause an instability causing soft
images. Try imaging a target with lots of detail with the camera
on a rock (a bean bag on the rock may help). Then do the
same with your tripod. Are the tripod ones just as sharp?
Do this at different exposure times, e.g. in bright sun and
cloudy days or sunset to see the variability in softness.

Tripod stability is very important, and too often overlooked.

One problem is the vibration caused by mirror slap. At slower
shutter speeds, like longer than about 1/250 second, vibration
from mirror slap can influence image sharpness. Mass and
a sturdy tripod and head can minimize this and push the
region of image blur to slower shutter speeds. Thus a heavier
lens and camera body as well as sturdy tripod help. Try
putting one of those ankle weights (used for exercise) around your
camera (be careful around the lens; it might put too much weight
on the lens mount) to add stability.

As regards buying a prime, it is very tempting, but it could turn out
to be a problem when I never know where a dragonfly will land. The
darters are fairly predictable, as are the skimmers, but the hawkers
can land anywhere from right in front of your nose, to yards and yards
away. Can you tell me what the minimum focussing distance is of the
300mm f/4 L IS lens with the 1.4x TC, please.

The 300 L has a minimum focus distance of about 4.9 feet, and the
100-400 is 5.9 feet.

I have started using RAW mode, although it is agonisingly slow through
the buffer. It may be that I have been losing some sharpness by the
way in which I was processing the images, but until I can get some
more shots from this new hide, I cannot tell for sure. There is no
getting away from the fact that a better lens would make a lot of
difference,

Only if your tripod is good enough.

but if I can improve my technique with the lens I have at
the moment, it should stand me in good stead for the future.

Yes!

Lucky you to visit Australia. Did you get any pics of dragonflies, by
any chance?

No. I did not see any, nor any in New Zealand.

Roger