Reading mode: Light Dark

Have I found the Holy Grail of airshow lenses?

Go to last post
Kal-El33 said:
When I was with Canon, I seen shots of airshows with a 70-200 w/teleconverter or 100-400 that were very good, but when people shot with the long prime lenses then it made the zooms look very poor. The Canon 400mm F5.6 took incredible shots that were tack sharp of the planes. The zooms still looked good but the prime lens easily outshined the zooms.
Click to expand...
The 70-400 G easily beats the 400 f/5.6. Granted, that lens is a very old design, but the 70-400 G at 400 f/5.6 is one killer lens. It shows what potential you can have at those FLs in a zoom that costs the same as the ancient designs of Canon and Nikon and wipe the floor with a Sigma.

As I wrote in the Sony/Oly thread, more shots at airshows are ruined due to atmosphere, weather, sun position, etc. than focus or absolute sharpness of the lens.

The 70-400 G would be the lens to beat. It just needs a better body (cough, a7xx) to be paired to in order to truly shine. The IQ on a900 is excellent, but it's no secret that the AF on that camera is merely good, not great.

--
http://www.dvincentphotography.com
http://www.kefkafloyd.com
 
Kal-El33 said:
When I was with Canon, I seen shots of airshows with a 70-200 w/teleconverter or 100-400 that were very good, but when people shot with the long prime lenses then it made the zooms look very poor. The Canon 400mm F5.6 took incredible shots that were tack sharp of the planes. The zooms still looked good but the prime lens easily outshined the zooms.
Click to expand...
From the photos I've seen, that's true about the primes. And the Canon 400 f5.6 gets rave reviews. Sometimes I toy with the idea of buying a 400 prime and using it along side with a smaller zoom (some thing smaller than the 70-400).
 
Dan Vincent said:
The 70-400 G easily beats the 400 f/5.6. Granted, that lens is a very old design, but the 70-400 G at 400 f/5.6 is one killer lens. It shows what potential you can have at those FLs in a zoom that costs the same as the ancient designs of Canon and Nikon and wipe the floor with a Sigma.
Click to expand...
That's good to know. Now I don't need to consider buying two lenses ;)
Dan Vincent said:
As I wrote in the Sony/Oly thread, more shots at airshows are ruined due to atmosphere, weather, sun position, etc. than focus or absolute sharpness of the lens.
Click to expand...
One of the advantages I have of living in So Cal is the good weather and number of airshows held here. Although, we get our share of over-cast days too.
Dan Vincent said:
The 70-400 G would be the lens to beat. It just needs a better body (cough, a7xx) to be paired to in order to truly shine. The IQ on a900 is excellent, but it's no secret that the AF on that camera is merely good, not great.
Click to expand...
I'm about ready to pull the trigger and buy the 70-400, but I'm waiting till next month (or whenever) until the new 580 is released. For extra reach a APS body would be best. However, your full frame A900 seems to do the job well.

Dan, would you mind commenting on what you do for pp on your flying aircraft shots? They seem to be some of the sharpest images I've seen on the net.
BTW, I don't expect you to give away any secrets ;)
 
Thanks for your comments and pics. This lens does look like a worthy consideration.
Perhaps a good combo with the 70-400.

Your moon and auto shots are excellent , especially the last auto.
Pretty good for slow shutter speeds.
 
BigBen08 said:
I'm about ready to pull the trigger and buy the 70-400, but I'm waiting till next month (or whenever) until the new 580 is released. For extra reach a APS body would be best. However, your full frame A900 seems to do the job well.
Click to expand...
I don't use the a900, I use the a700 (and used the KM 5D in the past, but with the 50-500). I'd LOVE to have an a900, but I think one of these new SLT bodies would be pretty useful, or an a7xx upgrade to the SLT.
BigBen08 said:
Dan, would you mind commenting on what you do for pp on your flying aircraft shots? They seem to be some of the sharpest images I've seen on the net.
BTW, I don't expect you to give away any secrets ;)
Click to expand...
My post is pretty basic, actually.

1. Import into Lightroom.

2. Develop to taste.

3. Push to SmugMug.

SM applies a small amount of sharpening to the downrezzed images. When I have to post photos on airliners.net, I have to be much more concerned about oversharpening. So when I submit those photos, I export the image out as a TIFF, downrez in Photoshop, dupe the image to a second layer, sharpen this second layer, set sharpened layer to luminosity blending, and then use a layer mask to mask out areas that I don't want sharpened too much (e.g. leading edges of wings which can get very jaggy). This is only really necessary for airliners because they screen images like a stock group does, but they are much more picky about things that are probably unnoticeable to the average viewer.

I've maintained an over 80% acceptance ratio on a.net for the past year or so with little issues, though I have dipped a little lower lately due to pushing the envelope.

Main keys to sharpness is to 1. not be too far away from your subject (atmosphere and haze are real IQ killers) and 2. know how to pan and track properly. Combine #2 with knowledge on when to let the shutter dip low on ground-based shots to get a little motion blur, and you'll be able to nail a nice, sharp jet. The motion blurred background will help enhance the plane by comparison, make it look sharper than it really is.

Here's a sample of the 70-400 on a not-airplane subject at 400 f/5.6.



and 100% crop:



Keep in mind there is no output sharpening done on the 100% crop but there's plenty to work with when making a print.

--
http://www.dvincentphotography.com
http://www.kefkafloyd.com
 
the Sony 70-400 is still a lens I want. I have the 500mm Rflex and the 70-300G I used this combo on labour day at an airshow.

http://www.uranium-238.com/~stf/Glenn/CIAS/

the first shot of the police boat is jaw dropping printed out big. The shallow DOF makes it and it surprised me. It's in the set for perspective. that was the 500mm refelx and the boat marked the centre of the show for the pilots. the shot isn't cropped. Most of these shots aren't actually they were all hand held as you can tell some are better than others..
BigBen08 said:
Mark, those are excellent. Both lenses produce sharp images, although I know Focus Magic was used.

Perhaps the 70-400 and 500 would be a great match.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.fotosource.com/downloads/flyer/eye_cancer_en_CA.pdf
 
Dan Vincent said:
The 70-400 G easily beats the 400 f/5.6. Granted, that lens is a very old design, but the 70-400 G at 400 f/5.6 is one killer lens. It shows what potential you can have at those FLs in a zoom that costs the same as the ancient designs of Canon and Nikon and wipe the floor with a Sigma.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree. It beats it in versatility but the AF speed is very fast with it and is sharper than the shots I've seen of the 70-400. Prime beats zooms in IQ every time but the difference isn't as big as it used to be. There's a reason why many wildlife shooters use it, because it brings out the best. If you need the versatility then get a zoom but the best pics will come from a prime.
 
Thanks, those are excellent. Looks like you had some haze to deal with, but great results anyway. Which camera were you using?

I've read somewhere that the 70-300 AF is slower than the 70-400.
 
Kal-El33 said:
I would have to disagree. It beats it in versatility but the AF speed is very fast with it and is sharper than the shots I've seen of the 70-400. Prime beats zooms in IQ every time but the difference isn't as big as it used to be. There's a reason why many wildlife shooters use it, because it brings out the best. If you need the versatility then get a zoom but the best pics will come from a prime.
Click to expand...
My judgments come from comparing my 70-400 images with my friend's Canon 40D and when he had the 400 f/5.6 and shot at the same shows.

Now one thing I will give the 400 f/5.6 is the lesser weight and built-in lens hood. Definitely makes it easier for tripod use.

I do think the Canon 300 f/4 L would be a better lens in terms of sharpness compared to the 70-400 at 300mm, though.

I think the 400 f/5.6 L has better bokeh (as most telezooms tend to have strange close plane-of-focus bokeh) but in terms of raw sharpness and CA, the 70-400 G matches or beats it. When I get photos that are near indiscernible to the time I used the 400 f/4.5 G (a stellar lens on its own), I'm willing to put it above the 400 f/5.6.

--
http://www.dvincentphotography.com
http://www.kefkafloyd.com
 
Thanks.

I use FM for all my sharpening.

The 500mm AF Mirror generally requires a setting of 4, which is similar to the Tamron 18-250 at the long end.

Sharper lenses like the Tamron 170-50/2.8 of Sony 70-300 G usually need a setting of 2.

Yes, that would be a great combo for sure!

--Mark--
BigBen08 said:
Mark, those are excellent. Both lenses produce sharp images, although I know Focus Magic was used.

Perhaps the 70-400 and 500 would be a great match.
Click to expand...
 
BigBen08 said:
Thanks for your comments and pics. This lens does look like a worthy consideration.
Perhaps a good combo with the 70-400.

Your moon and auto shots are excellent , especially the last auto.
Pretty good for slow shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
Thanks Ben! I do have something I'm tinkering with for better moon shots, a little OT though... Back you your original question, the 70-400 is a great lens, and while I've only had it for a couple of months I love it for what it is good for... yet I don't feel compelled to get rid of the 500. I bought mine after finding that for many of the shots I wanted I had a huge hole between 200 & 500 and I'm not sure how I could have chosen a better way to fill it other than perhaps many cubic dollars worth of primes -- more than I want to spend or carry at this point.

You could rent a 70-400 from the place I mentioned above or from borrowlenses.com, who are a short drive from me and 1-2 days ground service from you. No affiliation, but I've used them several times and they are great to work with.

Below are some pics from my first track outing with the lens. While it does have excellent resolving power at 400mm, it was far sharper than I needed for the majority of my shots. On this outing I resolved to really focus on my panning technique, since I felt that I really needed the practice -- especially since the G is my heaviest lens that I can handhold. Unless you are freezing action, almost anything will be sharp enough IMHO. It's great to know that the performance is there when needed though. EXIF should be intact on all.

400mm, uncropped:



100% Crop of above:



250mm, uncropped:



100% Crop of above:



More, mostly around 160mm, cropping varies but if you're curious details on that should be in the EXIF:







 
Wow, Dave...those are nothing short of outstanding !

Razor sharp @ 400mm ! You did a great job of panning.
Thanks for sharing those.

You, Dan, and a few others have me sold on the 70-400.
 
I'm with Dave on this one, the A900 is reputed to be slow and the Sigma 50-500 ( 50-750 on the A900) is generaly known to be unresponsive, but I doubt that any thing at an air show will out-perform a dragon fly in flight, and with a reasonable panning technique its a winning combination.



 
Dsnoir said:
I'm with Dave on this one, the A900 is reputed to be slow and the Sigma 50-500 ( 50-750 on the A900) is generaly known to be unresponsive, but I doubt that any thing at an air show will out-perform a dragon fly in flight, and with a reasonable panning technique its a winning combination.



Click to expand...
The background is out of focus but I don't see much in the way of motion blur. Are you sure the Dragon Fly wasn't hovering? At full speed a dragon fly is virtually impossible to follow.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
 
BigBen08 said:
Yes, I recall the Tamron 200-500 during my quest for an airshow lens.
I rejected it because it didn't have IS, and didn't come in an Oly mount.

But with Sony's IBIS, it does look interesting. Some report it has slow AF, but the same is said for Sony's 70-400.

I viewed your gallery, you have some great shots (especially the squirrels ;) )
Can you direct me to those taken with your Tamy 200-500? Many thanks.
Click to expand...
I just got the lens last week so none of my photos on my site are from the Tamron yet. I used to shoot with a Canon 50d and the 100-400 IS lens. I think the Sony IBIS and the Tamron 200-500 is a much better combination. Weighs the same and has the same IQ but it is much lower in price.
--
Tom Seiler
My portfolio:
http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio
 
Condor99 said:
I just got the lens last week so none of my photos on my site are from the Tamron yet. I used to shoot with a Canon 50d and the 100-400 IS lens. I think the Sony IBIS and the Tamron 200-500 is a much better combination. Weighs the same and has the same IQ but it is much lower in price.
Click to expand...
The Tamron still interests me. I could try to rent it for an evaluation.
 
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