Will a tamron sp 2x pro teleconverter work with a canon 75-300 IS lens? Going to Alaska

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Scott W wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
The discussion has been about hand holding a long
telephoto for wildlife or use a tripod, but I can't
imagine NOT using a tripod for a serious landscape image
with a wide angle lens. The OP needs to learn that
a tripod will probably be the most significant improvement
in image sharpness he could obtain, at least for many situations.

My way of thinking on this is that if there is enough light that I can
hand hold a 300mm lens and get a sharp image then when I am shooting at
30mm using that same shutter speed the blurring I get from camera shake
will be insignificant.

Yes, but we are talking f/11 with the 2x TC, and with landscapes,
you often need f/8 to f/16 for depth of field. That plus low
ISO for good S/N and exposure times are relatively long.
Then add a polarizer, and 1/4 second and longer is common.
Yup, a tripod is definitely needed there.


If photographing from a boat or other moving platform, image
stabilization is a big help when you can't use a tripod,
but if you are on solid ground a tripod is essential in most
situations unless one only wants snapshots and 4x6 inch prints.

I think this is a rather broad statement, to say that you need a tripod
or your photo will be good for nothing past 4x6 prints is a bit extreme
don't you think?

Yeah, that was an extreme statement. Good 8x10s hand held are are reasonably
done, but would most likely be sharper with a tripod.

If you can't get a great looking 8 x 12 print from a hand held shot
using a good DSLR then there is something very wrong.

I do a lot of shooting with and without a tripod and I would say that
there are many cases were a tripod is a great help, but in bright light
the help is minimal for short to normal lenses.

Yes, I agree. I do a lot of hand held imaging too. But almost
of the landscape images on my web site were done with a tripod
(all but the Hawaiian sunset with sailboat),
and most of the wildlife images too. Four images total hand held
out of 289 currently on the site: http://www.clarkvision.com
I think tripods are great and if you have one with you there is little
reason not to use it.

Now if we are talking about cases where camera shake is a problem, long
shutter times, then we also should talk about mirror lockup. Even with
a tripod you will suffer a fair bit of loss if you don't use mirror
lockup. I don't know about other cameras but the 20D has a neat mode
where when you push the shutter the mirror locks up, the camera waits 3
seconds and then takes the photo.

Yes, that is a good point too.

Of course if you are photographing
bears this is not a recommended technique.

If they are distant and still, it can still be a help to image sharpness.

IMO if you are shooting landscapes with a tripod you might as well go
the extra step of using a panoramic head and get images that are truly
sharp. Once I have taken the time to setup the tripod and level it the
extra time to take 15 to 30 photos to be stitched is nothing.

Yes, I agree. But there is a lot of post processing effort involved.
I have a lot more 1 frame images processed than I do mosaics, and
many mosaics waiting to be processed. I need a faster computer
and more time ;-).

If I have a number to do I will run them in batch more. Mostly time is
only needed it I have people moving in the photo and have to hand
adjust the seams around them.

The other thing to keep in mind is that it is ok to put the photos to
be stitched off to the side and stitch them when you have good tools to
do so. What I have found is photos that I could not stitch, at least
easily, a few years ago I can stitch with ease now. This is
particularly true of scenes with moving clouds, which the earlier
version of the software I used would not blend at all well. I am
willing to bet that what seems like a huge image now will seem pretty
average in 10 years. 10 years ago the idea of dealing with image of
100MP seemed pretty far fetched, now it is no big deal.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
I am
willing to bet that what seems like a huge image now will seem pretty
average in 10 years. 10 years ago the idea of dealing with image of
100MP seemed pretty far fetched, now it is no big deal.

Yes. interesting. I just looked back and 9 years ago, 1997, I started doing
my first 4x5 drum scans: 650 mbyte files processed in Photoshop
on a Pentium 1 100 MHz machine with 256 mbytes of RAM.
Every operation I did meant a coffee break!

Roger

I will be staying at Northface Lodge in Denali National Park in late August
mainly, among other places. I also plan on going over into Canada to do
some shooting. Any suggestions for photographing Mount McKinley around
Wonder Lake? I have purchased several additions to my equipment repertoire
lately including a Galen Rowell Singh-Ray Soft Graduated Neutral Density
Filter, more CF cards, Expodisc, etc and thought a 2x teleconverter might be
nice to have. Don't you think a teleconverter would be wise to have? If
not the Tamron one I mentioned, which one? Any other suggestions on low to
moderate priced equipment/books/videos/workshops. I am willing to spend
"some" money on something that will really help me get great photos and
could possibly reuse, but I'm not rich and photography is more of a serious
hobby than a career, so I probably won't spend 4k or more on a nice L lens.

Thanks for all the help,

Rick Baker

http://www.rickbakerimages.com


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I'm planning on taking a trip to Alaska in August.

What part of Alaska, how are you traveling, what do you want to
see and what do you want to photograph? The more detail, the
better, because what you've said is no different than "I'm
visiting the US in August."

An overlay of Alaska on the Lower-48 puts Ketchikan down in
Florida, while I'd be in Minnesota, and Attu is in California
and Anchorage is somewhere near Kansas (?). The range of
climate and geography is even greater.

I want to make sure I
have the proper equipment to get great wildlife shots of bears, eagles,
etc.

It might well vary from place to place. At the Anchorage zoo
you don't need much of a telephoto to photograph a polar bear,
where I live (bears are interactive and) the longer the lense the
better...

I have a Canon 20d digital SLR and various lenses including a Canon 75-300
IS lens. I was thinking about purchasing a 2x teleconverter to increase
the
range of my lenses. Will the Tamron SP 2x Pro Teleconverter work with my
Canon 75-300 IS lens?

As others have mentioned, that lens is a f/5.6 at 300mm, and a
2x teleconverter puts it down to f/11. Then consider that for
best results you'll need to stop the lense down at least one
f/stop (and depending on the lense maybe two). Hence you are
then looking at f/16 or f/22! (I.e., that is acceptable many
days of the year in Fairbanks, and rarely works well in coastal
areas where the number of cloudy days is twice what it is in the
Alaskan Interior!)

If you think a 600mm lense is appropriate, perhaps a fixed focal
length lense would be a better idea than a teleconverter. You
still might want a teleconverter for the few times that you can
take advantage of it... but put it into the "extras" category,
and don't consider it a primary tool that will be used with any
regularity.

I'm not familiar with your camera, or how easy it is to use with
manual focus lenses, so I won't comment on that, but obviously
using the teleconverter means you have to be handy at manual
focusing. (If you haven't tried it, you might want to buy
something cheap to practice with before deciding to spend real
money.)

Familiarity with manual lenses might also find application if
you decide to purchase a fixed focal length telephoto lense too,
simply because older manual focus lenses are easier on the
pocket book than newer AF lenses.

How is the quality of this teleconverter? I will
lose 2 stops, correct? I don't like bringing a tripod, but if I have to
use
it, I will.

The question is not if you want a tripod. How many different
tripods do you want to have available?

Again, it depends on where you are going and your mode of
travel. If you plan on backbacking you'll need something you
can carry. If you don't plan on packing it far, a more
substantial tripod is a good idea. An assortment of 3 or 4
different tripods is not unreasonable...

Can I somehow use shutter priorty mode to increase the shutter
speed and shoot without a tripod? Or is a tripod necessary? Any other
suggestions on equipment/tips for getting good shots in Alaska?

The tripod is necessary if you really want to shoot everything
possible. Not having at least one would be a serious limitation.

But again: where in Alaska, what mode of travel, and what is it
you want to photograph?

And I would seriously recommend not just giving extra thought to
photo equipment tips, but also Alaska tips too! Ask questions
in alt.culture.alaska, and maybe ask questions in some of the
rec.travel groups too, and perhaps also in rec.backcountry if
you are thinking of backpacking or anything close.

As someone else mentioned, if this is a "once in a lifetime"
trip to Alaska, you *don't* want to trust generalities either
for your photography or for where to go. Find out *exactly*
what gives you the best bang for the buck *before* you go,
rather than once you are here and are locked into a schedule you
can't change.

A trip to Denali (along with literally a million plus other
tourists each summer) is certainly interesting, as is the drive
from Anchorage to Fairbanks... but in all truth what you would
be seeing is the part of Alaska that is the most *similar* to
where you live. What you'd miss is almost everything that makes
Alaska what it is! Which do you want to see and photograph?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Rick Baker writes ...

I will be staying at Northface Lodge in Denali National Park in late August.

I've stayed at North Face three times for up to 11 days each time, and
also once stayed at their sister lodge up the hill, Camp Denali ...
late August is great for the tundra changing colors and you should get
chances at moose, caribou and grizz and maybe wolves. Email me if you
want more details ... try to get on the pre-breakfast "photo bus" if
they have one going out one morning, that's your best chance at
grizzlies close to the road ...

Any suggestions for photographing Mount McKinley around Wonder Lake?

Most days it's clouded over but if it's clear I'd suggest skipping
dinner and staying out at the Lake to shoot, that's what I always did
(they will hold food for you, I've gotten back at 11 PM and they still
had food for me) ... this way you get the best light ... you can take
one of their mountain bikes along on the bus when you ride out in the
AM and if it's clear just ask to be dropped off and ride back late
while everyone is at dinner ... from the WL Ranger station it's mostly
downhill to the lodge so it's easy enough if you have a pack for your
camera gear (maybe 4-5 miles distance). If you're a moderately strong
rider you can ask to get off at Eielson, which is about 26 miles from
the lodge, if you're a really strong rider you can get off at Highway
Pass but it's 33 miles and you have to bike up 2 passes to get to
Eielson, but it's worth it if you're a good rider. There are a lot of
caribou and bears in the Highway Pass area most years. You need to
know what to do if you come across a grizzly bear in the road if you do
this alone, but if you act properly you shouldn't have a problem (I
never did ... so far).

Here are some wildlife shots my wife and I have taken from this area
the past couple of years (late Aug - early Sept) ...

http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/T9D4036_grizz.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/W1037_bear.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3882_wolf.jpg
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/D3961_grizz.jpg

Also here's a web page of thumbnails from Alaska (scenics and wildlife)
that I started a few years ago and never finished, you can click on a
thumb to see a larger image but the other links aren't implemented ...
http://members.aol.com/marlinazul/gallery/g_alaska.htm ... the images
from North Face are row 1 col 2,3,4, row 2 c 1-4, row 3 c 2,4, and row
4 c 1 ... the McKinley images from Wonder Lake are r1/c3, which was
shot across from the WL Ranger Station late in PM (I was the only one
there, everyone else was at dinner , and r2/c1 which was shot near
the inlet/outlet of the lake near the gravel road. You can also shoot
at Reflection Pond to get a nice reflection, but I always skip that
area. You can bike to this area in the early AM from the Lodge but
it's uphill, unfortunately.

Don't you think a teleconverter would be wise to have?

With the lens you have I'd get a 1.4x instead of a 2x ... a tripod will
be handy if you find caribou or moose while on the bike since you can
set up, but your bear and wolf shots need to come from a bus. A tripod
is very handy for shooting scenics at Wonder Lake or the tundra, even a
small light one. You can approach caribou safely to 25 yards legally
and moose to 25 yards legally, but be careful with the moose -- some
areas I will approach them to 25 yards but if it's flat and open or if
they look particularly feisty I stay back further, they will stomp you
if you misread their moods.

Good luck, it's a great place with the tundra, mountain and animals
when the weather cooperates ... our last time there we had 7 days with
heavy smoke from forest fires south of Fairbanks and shot nothing, then
it snowed which cleared the air, then we got the shots of the grizz and
wolf on the same day to make up for all the bad days. So it's a place
where you can do great or you can be really disappointed.

Bill

nobody wrote:

I will be staying at Northface Lodge in Denali National Park in late August
mainly, among other places. I also plan on going over into Canada to do
some shooting. Any suggestions for photographing Mount McKinley around
Wonder Lake? I have purchased several additions to my equipment repertoire
lately including a Galen Rowell Singh-Ray Soft Graduated Neutral Density
Filter, more CF cards, Expodisc, etc and thought a 2x teleconverter might be
nice to have. Don't you think a teleconverter would be wise to have? If
not the Tamron one I mentioned, which one? Any other suggestions on low to
moderate priced equipment/books/videos/workshops. I am willing to spend
"some" money on something that will really help me get great photos and
could possibly reuse, but I'm not rich and photography is more of a serious
hobby than a career, so I probably won't spend 4k or more on a nice L lens.

Thanks for all the help,

Rick,
Yes, a TC is nice to have, but only if it is used on a good
lens. On a low quality lens, all it does is magnify the blur
circle. Your 75-300 lens on a 20D is probably already maxed out
in terms of resolution, so I don't think a TC will help
(perhaps a little, but not worth the effort and loss of
autofocus and shutter speed).

If you are willing to spend a little, but not 4K, take a look
at the 300 mm f/4 L IS lens and a Kenko pro 300 1.4x TC.
I use both and find them excellent. The 300mm is about $1100,
and a 1.4x Kenko is about $200. Then a good tripod.

For that focal length, a Bogen 3001 tripod will be limiting (too much
vibration), so a 3021 class tripod is needed, with a good head.
A much lighter Gitzo 1228 carbon fiber would be ideal, along
with a good head and perhaps the Wimberly sidekick.
The 1228 is about $460, a good ball head $250-400, sidekick $250.
I use an arca-swiss B1 ballhead (about $400) on the 1228, and
carry the sidekick. This would be a good starter wildlife system
that would produce good results and something you would not
need to replace later. You could look for ball heads on ebay, and
perhaps the other stuff, but they are rare and the prices aren't
much lower than new.

This is the system I take when I need to travel light for wildlife
(300mm, 1.4 and 2x TCs, Gitzo 1228, B1 head, sidekick,
plus shorter focal length lenses and a 1D Mark II body).
(For more serious stuff, then it's a 500mm f/4 plus the 300 plus
more sturdy tripod and full Wimberly.) I'm not a pro either,
but I take the fun seriously ;-).

---just my opinion.

Roger

Rick,

I recommend paying close attention to what Bill says.
Bill helped me out a lot when I started into wildlife
photography with big lenses, and has always given me good
advice. His experience with both equipment and locations
is very impressive. And if we say something contradictory,
go with Bill.

Roger