Reading mode: Light Dark

Long Lens Technique

Go to last post
T

TimboUK

Well-known member
Messages
109
Reaction score
8
Location
North Yorks, UK
I have recently purchased a second hand 400mm 5.6 L with a view to getting into bird photography. (I have been involved in birding for some time using Leica scopes and Swaro bins)

So far my results have been pretty poor - the only way I can seen to get sharp shots is with a tripod and even then its all a bit hit and miss plus carrying and using the tripod is a slow. Tried a monopod in a camera shop with this lens also but the lens was all over the place! - I find I need shutter speeds of at least 1/1000+ and even wide open this means good light at 200 ISO.

In any event I have returned this lens as it was more worn than advertised and had a loose tripod ring.

I still want to develop bird photography but would like any pointers on publications that could help me learn technique quicker (or any advice from forum members!)

Also I wondered if an IS lens is gonna help instead (I know it won't help with subject movement) - is the 100-400 lens easier to handle in the field for example than the 400mm 5.6 (I have read opinions on sharpness by searching previous posts comparing the 100-400 with the 400 5.6 and appreciate the small differences in image quallity)

BTW the 500 f4 IS is out of my price bracket at the moment.

My new current gear is 400d, 10-22mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (I have the 70-200mm f4 IS on back order also) I also have manfrotto 055 tripod with grip head

Many thanks for any pointers

--
Tim
 
If it's any help at all, I use a 100-400 mainly for bird pics, I handhold 90% of the time and I find IS helps me get sharp shots as low as 1/100 at times. I'm by no means steady-handed either so the IS is a great bonus to me. It's an expensive lens but I'm very happy with it. There are lots of samples from this lens from me and others throughout these forums.

Hope this helps

Clarke
--
http://www.4eyesphoto.co.uk
 
Get a lens with IS

Canon does an 400 mm f4 DO IS, alternativly a 300 mm f2.8 IS with a 1.4x converter or the 100-400 L IS zoom

These are all abit more than what your lens is likley to have cost, if money is an issue then try the 70-300mm IS non DO zoom

I can vouch for it, and although you will lose reach, usability will be a lot better
 
A long lens like the 400mm f5.6L takes a while to master. I shoot most of the time hand held using it wide open and a shutter speed over 1/640s. With a 1.4x TC attached I use at least 1/1000s. Around 85-90% are very sharp.

Recently I started using a monopod with the 3 little legs at the bottom and find that over 95% are now sharp at 100% viewing. The monopod is reasonably light (much lighter than my tripod which rarely gets used) and still does the job. With it I have used shutter speeds below 1/100s and still got sharp images, but would never rely on those sorts of speeds.
TimboUK said:
I have recently purchased a second hand 400mm 5.6 L with a view to
getting into bird photography. (I have been involved in birding for
some time using Leica scopes and Swaro bins)

So far my results have been pretty poor - the only way I can seen
to get sharp shots is with a tripod and even then its all a bit hit
and miss plus carrying and using the tripod is a slow. Tried a
monopod in a camera shop with this lens also but the lens was all
over the place! - I find I need shutter speeds of at least 1/1000+
and even wide open this means good light at 200 ISO.

In any event I have returned this lens as it was more worn than
advertised and had a loose tripod ring.

I still want to develop bird photography but would like any
pointers on publications that could help me learn technique quicker
(or any advice from forum members!)

Also I wondered if an IS lens is gonna help instead (I know it
won't help with subject movement) - is the 100-400 lens easier to
handle in the field for example than the 400mm 5.6 (I have read
opinions on sharpness by searching previous posts comparing the
100-400 with the 400 5.6 and appreciate the small differences in
image quallity)

BTW the 500 f4 IS is out of my price bracket at the moment.

My new current gear is 400d, 10-22mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (I have the
70-200mm f4 IS on back order also) I also have manfrotto 055 tripod
with grip head

Many thanks for any pointers

--
Tim
Click to expand...
--

 
You must have had a bad sample of the 400. I use mine on a tripod virtually all the time, certainly with birding which I have just started to take up. I have a Benro CF tripod which is incredibly light - almost like a monopod - yet very rigid and stable. If you don't want to use a tripod, the the 100-400 IS would fit the bill, if you can afford it. The 70-300 IS would be too short on its own and is soft at the long end. I find 400 is often too short for birding.

Michael
 
Are you generally a steady handholder? I do a lot of rifle and pistol target shooting, and I find that shooting a camera requires the same skills (albeit with less recoil).
  • Steady stance with feet about shoulder width apart.
  • Lean against a fence or a tree (if possible) to steady your body.
  • Left arm tucked in against your side. Left hand palm up to cradle the lens. Don't grip too tightly as your pulse can introduce vibration.
  • Camera pressed slightly against your face to steady it. (in rifle shooting, this is called the "cheek to stock weld.")
  • Pause your breathing just before you snap the picture. Inhaling and exhaling causes your camera to rise and fall. I try to exhale about half of the air in my lungs and then hold my breath before taking the shot.
  • Gently squeeze the trigger, er shutter, without jerking it. Keep it down rather than releasing it immediatley because excess finger movement will move the lens.
I took this shot last night when I was playing with my new 70-300IS lens. I realize the shot is a bit soft, but it's at 300mm and shutter speed is 1/13:



I hope this helps,
Glenn
 
Why are your pix not coming out ok? Could be many different reasons. If we could see some images maybe some better suggesitons would coe along.
 
I am not talking about the rifle stock type shoulder pod like the Brush Hawk, I am talking about a shoulder pod more like what cinematographers and videographers have always used. This has a brace that fits "over" the shoulder rather than "against" the shoulder.

I have not used one with a still camera but, I became very proficient in using one with a motion picture camera many years ago. It really allowed me to hold the camera steady and also took a lot of strain off my arms and wrists.

I am sure it could be easily adapted to a still camera, especially using a lens with a tripod ring.

Here is an example of what one shoulder type pod. You could either use the cameras shutter release button for firing or you could tape a remote release to the handle.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160113575242&sspagename=ADME:L:RTQ:US:1

This is not the only pod carried by this supplier and there are many other varieties sold by other suppliers. The Summer 2007 B&H Catalog has several on page 306. However, these are quite a bit more expensive.

I also suspect that with a little ingenuity and some basic tools, a pod of this type could be fabricated using the flat aluminum stock that is available at most home improvement stores.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate. I was a Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director, and a Naval Aircrewman. I also had experience in reconaissance and intelligence photography. I have had considerable commercial photo experience in weddings and advertising photography. I am fully retired now although I dabble occasionally in dog portraiture. I presently use Canon DSLR cameras.
 
I have a Manfrotto shoulder stock that is designed to be used in conjunction with a monopod. It could, however be used without the pod. It would give "some" support to the camera and "might" just help to steady your shot. It is pretty inexpensive. I seem to remember that I got mine used on eBay for about twenty bucks.

Another technique is top shoot bursts of three shots. Usually the middle shot is sharper than the ones at either end because there is no movment on the shutter release button during that esposure.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate. I was a Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director, and a Naval Aircrewman. I also had experience in reconaissance and intelligence photography. I have had considerable commercial photo experience in weddings and advertising photography. I am fully retired now although I dabble occasionally in dog portraiture. I presently use Canon DSLR cameras.
 
Couple recommendations...

I have the 400f5.6, 100-400, and 500f4. When I'm not on a tripod, the 400f5.6 is my favourite lens for BIF due to it's light weight and sharpness.

First I would test the lens on a tripod with a detailed target outside in the light you typically shoot in. Evaluate the images at different f stops and if they are sharp then you'll have confidence in your equipment. Can't remember if you said you already did this already.

I use the 400mm alot with the bushawk (www.bushawk.com) and get great results. Initially I used the bushawk for just BIF shots but now I try and use the bushawk for other subjects as well as it really keeps the lens steady (kinda a cheap alternative to IS). You might want to look into getting one if you do alot of bird photography.

Shooting from the car or low to the ground I find a beanbag indispensible.

Also...be sure to keep an eye on your shutter speeds...I try for 1/500 and bump iso accordingly.

Don't give up on the 400f5.6 yet...it's a very nice lens which takes a bit of getting use to. Try and get out in good light using fast shutter speeds. Compare your previous images with your new ones and hopefully you'll see some improvement.

Good luck...
--
http://www.pbase.com/pwh
 
rpcrowe said:
I have a Manfrotto shoulder stock that is designed to be used in
conjunction with a monopod. It could, however be used without the
pod. It would give "some" support to the camera and "might" just
help to steady your shot. It is pretty inexpensive. I seem to
remember that I got mine used on eBay for about twenty bucks.
Click to expand...
As the OP is in the UK, he should be able to find the one I use, the Cullmann 0080 shoulder and table pod - I think it's probably almost 40 GB pounds now - I paid 30 for mine a few years ago. The Cullmann site has always shown it as a table and travel pod, but that to my mind is the weakest aspect of it, I certainly wouldn't trust it standing like that with my 20D and a heavy lens on, it's totally top heavy.

http://www.cullmann-foto.de/en/products/tripods/travelpods/0080.htm

I have mine set up as a shoulder pod and in fact have even wired it into my chosen position to keep it there. It's no substitute for a heavy tripod, but I have joint problems and largely started using it to take some of the weight. It certainly helps with shutter speeds - I suspect it works pretty much as well as a monopod - where it helps, but good technique is a large part of it too.

This is it with my old Fuji 602 on it, in the operating position - I'm a woman at only just over 5', so most men would probably need it rather longer than this. When I'm using it, you can't really see it, it slots in amongst my arms and against my shoulder, so is very discreet to use and in fact I find it far easier to carry the camera on it than not - the camera nestles in the crook of my left elbow with the lens hooked over my arm and the shoulder stock sits in my fingers. I keep the wrist strap over my wrist and it just balances there, I don't even need to grip or carry it.



This is how small is folds - although I leave mine assembled as I keep it tightened in just the right position and a quick release plate on the camera, I haven't folded it up for several years, I just dump it in the back of the car with my bag.



With a good stance and technique, I'd expect to get a sharp reliable shot at 1/3 focal length - so with my 300mm lens I'd be happy enough with my own technique to risk a shot at 1/100 - although with small birds especially, that's almost certainly too slow to freeze their movement or stop any breeze - I took some delicate wild flower shots with extension tubes at the weekend and the stiff breeze was far more of a problem than me keeping still. I'd risk slower shots still, especially if I could brace myself at the knee, hip etc. as my biggest problem is whole body swaying, not hand trembling, but if I had the luxury, I'd take a few at slower speeds and lower ISO and then up the ISO and shutter speed accordingly and see which arrangement gave best results.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.
 
Thanks for all the replies

The lens itself was not at fault - I did test it using a cable release and tripod in the garden and although a bit worn cosmetically it was very sharp - the fault is a user one without doubt. I guess that using a scope to view birds is just not the same as photographing them!

Great advice re the rifle shooting analagy - I also like the look of the cullman shoulder pod to help steady.

Maybe I was just expecting too much too soon having viewed some of the results from the weekly wildlife threads - this type of photography is not easy and some of the fantastic results obviously come from years of practice.

Anybody come accross any books on the subject of bird photography to shorten the learning curve?

--
Tim
 
TimboUK said:
Great advice re the rifle shooting analagy - I also like the look
of the cullman shoulder pod to help steady.
Click to expand...
My father is a retired scientific photographer and also a competition rifle shooter and coach - I'm a qualified marks(wo)man myself, although I haven't shot in a while. So the technique is clearly pertinent to both 'sports'. You can certainly improve success through practice and honing of technique, so it's well worth doing if you want to shoot long focal lengths - or in available light which is my thing.

My father showed me a trick some time ago to help practice and gauge success - get yourself set up with the camera and use a torch or light source try and position yourself to get it reflecting off the lens and onto a plain wall. Watch the reflected disc of light on the wall - it jiggles about with your movement and you can work on technique to keep it still - set yourself a challenge to keep it inside an area for a timed period etc..
TimboUK said:
Maybe I was just expecting too much too soon having viewed some of
the results from the weekly wildlife threads - this type of
photography is not easy and some of the fantastic results obviously
come from years of practice.
Click to expand...
I fell foul of that this week too - I took a heron shot on Monday that I was very pleased with myself about - it was raining and grey and a chance encounter and the heron didn't seem bothered by my presence (having spooked many over the years and never even got a shot on most occasions) and I considered myself lucky to get some nicely posed shots from 15 or 20 feet away with my 100-300mm lens. I saw the wildlife thread and thought I could post the finished shots - until I saw the ones that were already posted. Out of shame, I didn't bother adding mine, it looked pathetic in comparison. I felt well and truly put in my place. Good wildlife photography - like landscapes - needs lots of elements to come together in just the right way - and then the photographer not to stuff up when everything presents itself.
TimboUK said:
Anybody come accross any books on the subject of bird photography
to shorten the learning curve?
Click to expand...
As already posted, John Shaw's books are superb if you can find them in your library. They're good for general tips and technique, regardless of subject matter.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.
 
I have a grip head for my manfrotto tripod. I love it for landscape and just about everything BUT birds. I havent used it yet with my 400 5.6 but I tried to use it with my Bigma and it drove me nuts, id try to follow a wading heron and I found it impossible to move it in small enough imcrements to follow the egret. Once I got it locked again in the right place the egert had moved again. Im going to sell mine and buy a manfrotto 501 video fluid head instead.

With the fluid head you can lock it down fast, and when its loose you can adjust the tension and control the camera with the long control arm. You get way better control and its really easy to smoothly pan to follow swimming running and flying birds. 501 heads are about $150, about the same price as my 322RC2 grip.

this is really only relevant if your going to use a tripod for birds, which i rarely do, but when i do the grip head annoys the snot out of me.
--
-Finch
 
I've recently got my first IS lens and first Canon dSLR etc etc - 300mm F4 IS, 5D and various other lenses - but the only IS one is the 300mm. Being unused to good quality telephoto lenses and even more unused to IS, I had a rather stupid idea that I'd get lots of sharp photos without too much difficulty.

However, what I was forgetting was that as much as IS may minimise hand shake movement, it can do nothing about any movement when you focus on something and take the picture. DOF is very small - if you get it right, the results are brilliant - but th idea that IS will solve all your problems if you hand hold is just not realistic. It's very easy to move that little bit away from the target and with a telephoto lens that can make all the difference. The more practice you can get the better!
--
Lizzie
----------------------------------
http://www.lizzieshepherd.com
 
Decades ago, when I was in my teens, I knew a guy into photography. He used a table-top sized tripod .... legs no more than a foot long. Placed a leg over each shoulder, and the third against his chest.

I've never seen that done since, but it seemed like a good idea.

--
http://www.pbase.com/amateurone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top