photogirl7
Forum Enthusiast
I'm interested in how well this lens works for flying planes. Like AF speed & accuracy, and IQ.
Any opinions or sample images are appreciated, thanks.
Any opinions or sample images are appreciated, thanks.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Anyone shoot air shows with the 500mm f4 ?
- Thread starter photogirl7
- Start date
Glen78
Senior Member
500 f/4 may be overkill for air shows and the fixed focal length would be very limiting for taking photos of close fly bys. In the similar price range I think a 200-400 f/4 VR II would be a more versatile choice. Both choices would be quite heavy and cumbersome for an air show though as you are normally tracking fast moving subjects in bleacher style seating which will usually require hand holding and a large lens may be an annoyance to other spectators. Since neither shallow depth of field (usually blue sky in the background) nor max. light gathering capability (air shows occur in bright daylight) the new 80-400 f/4.5-f/5.6 VR would be my first choice for less than half the price of the 500 f/4. Have not tried it out yet but from what I have read the AF is very fast, VR is superb and it is sharper at 400 f/5.6 than the 300 f/4 with 1.4 TC.
Last edited:
ABA DABA
Senior Member
I think the fixed 500 limits useage, I use a Tamron 200-500 5.6/6.3 and have fairly good results.
I would consider a zoom lens for air shows only from my experience.
I would consider a zoom lens for air shows only from my experience.
Clueless Wanderer
Senior Member
I agree with the previous postings. I have used 70-200mm With 1.4x TC and 300mm f4 with TC at airshows and the prime is just too restrictive. Great when they are circling far off, but when they come in to mimick a straifing run on the crowd, Your frantically changing to the zoom. Far more keepers with a zoom..
wasserball
Senior Member
I find the planes are flying past you very fast and you don't have time to zoom and compose, therefore, if you can avoid a zoom, you get better IQ with fixed tele. Also, a monopod is useless. Two attached pictures, 300mm f2.8 on D3s, handheld. Probably no more Blue Angels for a while due to budget sequestration in 2013.
Last edited:
ABA DABA
Senior Member
Hi I don't personally use a Nikon 500mm f4 but would like to help if I can .
It depends a lot on which body you are using the lens on .
I shoot a far amount of air shows , I used to use a Nikon 300mm f2.8 on a D300 body which was about right
When I went FX on the D700 I found I was using it nearly all the time with a 1.4x TC which produced great results
Late last year i managed to bag myself a bargain in the form of a Sigma 500mm f4.5 which I know if probably not quite as good as the Nikon version but at a 1/10th of the price I wasn't going to say no
I now use the 500mm along with 70-200 at nearly all the events I go too
In conclusion if you are using a 500mm on DX it may be a bit long but on FX it is a perfect combination
Hope this helps
Daren
It depends a lot on which body you are using the lens on .
I shoot a far amount of air shows , I used to use a Nikon 300mm f2.8 on a D300 body which was about right
When I went FX on the D700 I found I was using it nearly all the time with a 1.4x TC which produced great results
Late last year i managed to bag myself a bargain in the form of a Sigma 500mm f4.5 which I know if probably not quite as good as the Nikon version but at a 1/10th of the price I wasn't going to say no
I now use the 500mm along with 70-200 at nearly all the events I go too
In conclusion if you are using a 500mm on DX it may be a bit long but on FX it is a perfect combination
Hope this helps
Daren
wasserball
Senior Member
Try changing focal lengths with your zoom as a FA-18 flying by you. The planes you are taking are slow. Your photos are highly processed.
Last edited:
ABA DABA
Senior Member
ABA DABA
Senior Member
KT_at_SF
Leading Member
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:
2007 USAF Thunderbirds team photographer
Personally, I use both Nikon (for wide and normal focal lengths) and Canon (for Super Tele primes) – here’s a shot with the Canon 500 f/4 to demonstrate the tele compression not seen with shorter lenses:
FYI, a typical airshow setup would include a 500mm prime on one body, plus a shorter tele zoom on a second body (e.g. Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400). More recent examples per this gallery:
http://kenneththamimages.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=245
KT
2007 USAF Thunderbirds team photographer
Personally, I use both Nikon (for wide and normal focal lengths) and Canon (for Super Tele primes) – here’s a shot with the Canon 500 f/4 to demonstrate the tele compression not seen with shorter lenses:
FYI, a typical airshow setup would include a 500mm prime on one body, plus a shorter tele zoom on a second body (e.g. Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400). More recent examples per this gallery:
http://kenneththamimages.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=245
KT
Last edited:
I am so tempted to Photoshop an i-phone into her hand instead of DSLR.KT_at_SF wrote:
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words:
2007 USAF Thunderbirds team photographer
Clueless Wanderer
Senior Member
Don't have time to zoom and compose? ...Zooming to follow the planes is where the fun is at, You (sort of) become one with the planes movements. Same as surf photo's...wasserball wrote:
I find the planes are flying past you very fast and you don't have time to zoom and compose, therefore, if you can avoid a zoom, you get better IQ with fixed tele. Also, a monopod is useless. Two attached pictures, 300mm f2.8 on D3s, handheld. Probably no more Blue Angels for a while due to budget sequestration in 2013.
Clueless Wanderer
Senior Member
Its way easier using a zoom than with a prime.. You start out wide. You can see the approaching plane, then zoom in to shoot and zoom out as it approaches and comes past. Shooting as you go appreciating the money you spent on a fast auto focusing body and lens.
Where as with a long prime, as soon as you see the plane in the frame, its flying outta the frame..
Roy Kikuta
Senior Member
I've used a 500mm f4 VR with a D700 to shoot a Blue Angels show. It was an interesting experiment, but not one I would probably repeat in the future. The AF speed and accuracy are fine. Atmospherics may be a factor for IQ - depending on local weather conditions and distance to aircraft (i.e., heat causing shimmering effects and obscuring haze, for example). The 500 f4 is an arm/shoulder-killer to lug around all day, and it becomes real heavy to lift and swing around as you track aircraft for hours - if you have to fight for space up front at the fenceline, you may not be able to swing the lens without running into other people's equipment. Shots below were made with a Nikon 500mm f4 VR and D700:
Parked aircraft crewman has a prime shooting spot,
C-17 banking - way off in the distance.
Skydivers.
I do have a Wimberley full gymbal system, but it would be really awkward to use at airshows. I suggest that the new 80-400 AF-S zoom is a better fit for airshows. This new zoom focuses fast enough, and IQ seems very good wide open at 400mm on my copy.
Parked aircraft crewman has a prime shooting spot,
C-17 banking - way off in the distance.
Skydivers.
I do have a Wimberley full gymbal system, but it would be really awkward to use at airshows. I suggest that the new 80-400 AF-S zoom is a better fit for airshows. This new zoom focuses fast enough, and IQ seems very good wide open at 400mm on my copy.
Attachments
Paul Janders
Well-known member
Roy,
I really like those first two shots. Not your typical air show pictures which I get tired of seeing. I love the way the F-18s are framed between the wing and tail of the parked C-17. You even managed to get a person in that shot which gives the whole photo a sense of scale. Nice work.
I really like those first two shots. Not your typical air show pictures which I get tired of seeing. I love the way the F-18s are framed between the wing and tail of the parked C-17. You even managed to get a person in that shot which gives the whole photo a sense of scale. Nice work.
Last edited:
Boushh_TFA
Active member
It mostly depends on how close you can get to the planes. Here in the Netherlands (and maybe in other countries as well) there is a save line which the planes may not cross. This means that even in close flybys the planes will be small.
A zoom is handy when you can get close to the planes. You zoom out when they come and go, and zoom in when they pass you. It will also be handy when a formation is flying.
But in all other cases, more length is better.
A zoom is handy when you can get close to the planes. You zoom out when they come and go, and zoom in when they pass you. It will also be handy when a formation is flying.
But in all other cases, more length is better.
Last edited:
Boushh_TFA
Active member
I meant 'zoom in when they come and go, and zoom out when they pass'..
ralphcramdon
Senior Member
the new 80-400 would be perfect
Mike51880
Leading Member
After just being back from an airshow three weeks back...I agree with ralphcramdon...the new 80-400 would be just about perfect.
But even the 80mm...this might make the static displays difficult to shoot well. I use the 28-300 (Canon). Now that I have a Nikon (too) with a sorta simillar 28-300, I would take it without reservation.
Have fun.
Mike
But even the 80mm...this might make the static displays difficult to shoot well. I use the 28-300 (Canon). Now that I have a Nikon (too) with a sorta simillar 28-300, I would take it without reservation.
Have fun.
Mike
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum