«

So you are manually focusing when using it with the X1.4 converter...


"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> >I would have said the Canon EF 100-400mm f/5.6L IS USM. Of course, not a
> >fast lens, but you can crank up the ISO if need be.
>
> >I thought you used this lens Bret?
>
> Nope, I use the Forgotten 400 f/5.6L.
>

"Eric Miller" <> a écrit dans le message de
news: gxWWf.1047$...
> >
>> Sorry for the following question inside an answer to the previous
>> question....
>> Would the Sigma 600mm f:8 (mirror) be an acceptable option (seems to be
>> about 700$ worth) or would it be considered a wrong choice because not
>> "fast" enough (f:?
>> Or any comparable mirror, like the Tamron 500mm f:8 ?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> I recently sold my Sigma 600mm Mirror Lens. It is an option. Whether or
> not it is acceptable is up to you. Image quality is good for that focal
> length in that price range. I would compare the image quality, generally,
> to that of the Canon 400mm 5.6L USM with a 2x teleconverter. It's short
> length and light weight also make it very difficult to get shake-free
> images without a rock-solid tripod in my experience. At f/8, its not a
> very good low light performer and the lack of autofocus at that focal
> length makes it virtually unusable for quick and not-so-quick moving
> subjects, but you can't beat the price. On the whole, for bird
> photography, I preferred the superior optics and autofocus of the Canon
> 400mm to the longer focal length of the Sigma 600 and the Sigma fell into
> disuse. But, when a bird was in direct sunlight, you can get decent images
> from the Sigma:
>
> <http://www.dyesscreek.com/birds_of_my_backyard/pages/house_finch.htm>
>
> BTW, you shouldn't have to pay more than $300 or so for this lens on Ebay.
>
> Eric Miller
>

Thanks a lot for caring to answer!
Very informative.
(And logical! Once again you get what you pay for!)

Mike

Eatmorepies wrote:
> .
>
>>I want to shoot nature - birds mostly. Big hawk fan! Yes, I'd love a
>>Canon 70-200 L IS USM + 1.4 TC. But will that reach out enough? And
>>at that price, can I be happy that I made the correct decision? I
>>considered a mix of lenses. 100 mm macro and a zoom up to 300mm, but
>>not the best quality to get both. mmmmmm spend the $$ on a good quality
>>zoom?
>>
>>So, your opinions are very much needed.
>>
>
>
> I suggest the 300mm f4L IS and a 1.4x converter. Not as flexible as a zoom
> but the 300mm takes excellent pictures and the camera will still autofocus
> when the 1.4x is on it. The IS works and I have hand held the lens at 1/125
> and still had L lens sharpness. Then save up for the 24-105mm f4L IS for
> other stuff.
>
> John

I second this lens. I have the canon 100-400 L IS and mine is not
real sharp, especially at 400. (If some one really wants it contact
me off list.) I got the 300 f/4 L IS and it is very sharp.
I carry it when I want to do wildlife but not carry the much larger
500 mm f/4 L IS (which is what you really want).

Here is an example image with a Kenko pro 30-0 1.4x TC:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html
Click the next button to see more bird images, but most are with a
500 f/4).

A good starter system for wildlife is:

your 20D
300 mm f/4 L IS
1.4x TC (I use kenko pro 300 and find them very sharp)
gitzo 1228 carbon fiber tripod,
good ball head (arca B1 class as a minimum)
wimberly sidekick

(Personally I don't like ball heads, but with the sidekick you
get great flexibility from landscapes to telephoto. I'm also
adapting my ball head plus sidekick to also work as a pano
head.)

The 400 f/5.6 is reported to be the fastest autofocus lens
in the Canon telephoto lineup, which is great for birds in
flight. But it is a further away minimum focus distance.
The 300 f/4, however, has a close minimum focus and some use
it as a macro lens.

In my opinion, forget ALL zoom telephotos. they simply are not
sharp enough. This is especially critical if you don't
have the focal length to start (and 300 mm is a minimum).

Roger

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

> Here is an example image with a Kenko pro 30-0 1.4x TC:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html
> Click the next button to see more bird images, but most are with a
> 500 f/4).

I meant with a 300 mm f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC (Kenko pro 300 1.4x).

Roger N. Clark wrote:

> ...
> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html
> ...

Caption: "Hey, you! Yeah, you with the CANON! Back off, Jack!"

;^)

Jeff

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> >I want to shoot nature - birds mostly. Big hawk fan! Yes, I'd love a
> >Canon 70-200 L IS USM + 1.4 TC. But will that reach out enough?
>
> Sadly, no. If you like birds, you must get a longer focal length. The
> 400 f/5.6L fits into your price range, but it isn't as flexible as the
> 70-200. I've shot hundreds of bird pics with my 400 f/5.6L, usually
> handheld and sometimes even with a 1.4x as seen here:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/54880301
>
> So if you'll be shooting more birds than everything else go with the
> 400 f/5.6L. Otherwise, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a terrific lens. I'd
> probably start with the 70-200 myself.

I'm new to this NG, rec.photo.digital. Why is everyone talking in the terms
of film cameras?

My solution to nature was a Panasonic FZ-3 with a 12X Leica optical zoom
lens with image stabilization. This is equivalent to a 35 - 430 f/2.8 lens
at all zoom levels. Cost was about $270. There are newer Panasonic models
now. Why spend $1,000s?

Robert

"Robert" <> wrote in message
news. ..
>
> "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> >I want to shoot nature - birds mostly. Big hawk fan! Yes, I'd love a
>> >Canon 70-200 L IS USM + 1.4 TC. But will that reach out enough?
>>
>> Sadly, no. If you like birds, you must get a longer focal length. The
>> 400 f/5.6L fits into your price range, but it isn't as flexible as the
>> 70-200. I've shot hundreds of bird pics with my 400 f/5.6L, usually
>> handheld and sometimes even with a 1.4x as seen here:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/54880301
>>
>> So if you'll be shooting more birds than everything else go with the
>> 400 f/5.6L. Otherwise, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a terrific lens. I'd
>> probably start with the 70-200 myself.
>
> I'm new to this NG, rec.photo.digital. Why is everyone talking in the
> terms
> of film cameras?
>
> My solution to nature was a Panasonic FZ-3 with a 12X Leica optical zoom
> lens with image stabilization. This is equivalent to a 35 - 430 f/2.8 lens
> at all zoom levels. Cost was about $270. There are newer Panasonic models
> now. Why spend $1,000s?
>
> Robert

Excellent question, Robert.

I have the Canon S1 IS (10X optical with image stabilization), and I
wondered what all the fuss was about, too. Until I bought a DSLR.

Don't get me wrong - still love the S1 and still take it along for photo
ops. It's just that I get FAR better results from the Rebel XT. Where the
lens on the S1 is a solid all-around performer, I can fit a very good lens
for a specific purpose on the Rebel and go to it. I carry the smaller
70-300mm telephoto zoom (102-480mm, by comparison), a 50mm/1.8 prime with
excellent clarity, and, of course, the kit lens 18-55mm (which, like the S1,
is good throughout its range, but not spectacular).

Why spend thousands? Because the more you spend, the more capable and
flexible the camera becomes. And it performs better than almost any
all-purpose camera. It's all about the glass.

Otherwise, I'd probably have just stuck with the S1 and been content.

dwight

Robert wrote:
>
> I'm new to this NG, rec.photo.digital. Why is everyone talking in the terms
> of film cameras?
>
> My solution to nature was a Panasonic FZ-3 with a 12X Leica optical zoom
> lens with image stabilization. This is equivalent to a 35 - 430 f/2.8 lens
> at all zoom levels. Cost was about $270. There are newer Panasonic models
> now. Why spend $1,000s?

A DSLR is faster, has less digital noise, has interchangeable lenses,
faster and better exposure and focusing, can be left always on without
running down the battery, turns on instantaneously, has a real
viewfinder where you can see what you are actually focusing on, has
sharper lenses, can go wider angle than your 35mm, can get faster
lenses than f/2.8, and is usually owned by someone who knows that a 12X
lens is going to exhibit severe barrel and pincushion distortion.

10X, 12X, whatever. The bigger the X, the more distortion you get from
it. And for what? You might have the same angle of view as a 35-430
camera lens, but you have a much smaller image. And what if you want
the equivalent of an 18mm lens for landscape?

The larger sensors on DSLRs allow them to have a wider ISO range. They
don't have motorized zoom lenses, so you can zoom in and out much
faster and more precisely. Since you can see what is happening in the
viewfinder real time you do not have the slight delay before something
appears in the LCD. Wave your hand in front of your FZ3 and you will
see the delay. You also have more control over depth of field with a
DSLR.

"Robert" <> wrote in message
news. ..
>
> "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> >I want to shoot nature - birds mostly. Big hawk fan! Yes, I'd love a
>> >Canon 70-200 L IS USM + 1.4 TC. But will that reach out enough?
>>
>> Sadly, no. If you like birds, you must get a longer focal length. The
>> 400 f/5.6L fits into your price range, but it isn't as flexible as the
>> 70-200. I've shot hundreds of bird pics with my 400 f/5.6L, usually
>> handheld and sometimes even with a 1.4x as seen here:
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/54880301
>>
>> So if you'll be shooting more birds than everything else go with the
>> 400 f/5.6L. Otherwise, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a terrific lens. I'd
>> probably start with the 70-200 myself.
>
> I'm new to this NG, rec.photo.digital. Why is everyone talking in the
> terms
> of film cameras?
>
> My solution to nature was a Panasonic FZ-3 with a 12X Leica optical zoom
> lens with image stabilization. This is equivalent to a 35 - 430 f/2.8 lens
> at all zoom levels. Cost was about $270. There are newer Panasonic models
> now. Why spend $1,000s?
>
> Robert
>
>
Because the larger sensors in a DSLR can capture silky smooth images that
lack the over processed look of the tiny sensors. At higher ISO's DSLRs can
capture a cleaner image the smaller cameras can't without noise or mushy
looking noise removal.

With my 300mm lens, I get the equiv. focal length of just about 500mm in
35mm and with the 2x attached, it extends to almost 1000mm. With longer
glass, the reach is even further. Of course, let's not even get into wide
angle, fast aperture, specialty lenses such as tilt/shift and 1:1 macros and
beyond.

The interchangable lens capability allows the camera to fit accessories for
specialized capabilities such as astronomy and micro photography (telescope
and microscope mounts).

The larger sensor is able to capture more dynamic range and most DSLRs have
a RAW mode to get that extra range out. Many non-interchangable lens cameras
lack the RAW mode.

John