What is after 100-400mm?

compared to a 500mm f4 yep its not good

but still impressive for the cost IMO, i have found the lens is sharper at around 380mm as well
Kai
2.0 works very well but the lens is getting abit slow by then
Currently I have a 300D and 100-400mm is my work horse for tele
photos. When it comes to wild life, more than often, 400mm is
hardly enough.

I'd like to get myself better equipped because I am seeing some
serious birds now and I believe that I have a much better
understanding of photographing.

So what's next?

Originally I thought about 400mm prime, but so many of you just
returned that lens. I know I shouldn't expect a $1000 lens is much
better than my 100-400mm, but will I get a slight better
performance?

1. Is 400mm f5.6 as good as 100-400mm at f8.0? My 100-400mm right
now is pretty much a 400mm f8.0 lens. I just don't just f5.6 on
that zoom lens.

2. Can I put a 1.4x TC to make it a 560mm f8.0? I know
theoretically I could, but I mean how good it is with a TC.

Then other options will be big guns. Handholdability is very
improtant for me. I can't spend much times like a pro. I can't camp
in a place for weeks to wait for opportunities. My gear has to be
mobile enough so I can chase opportunities other than wait for them.

I know somo one can handhold big guns, but how realistic for a
normal people like me? I think I am atheletic. I am 5'10", 190 lbs.
My legs are much stronger than arms because my sprots are soccer
and basketball.

Options:
300 f2.8 IS (is Non IS version discontinued? Where can I find it?).
Put a 2X TC on I will get a 600mm f5.6 lens. From what I know, I
know it is good. Has anyone done rigorous test on this? I mean
tripod mounting, cable release shots, and 100% crop.

500mm IS f4 is good. It is lighter than 400mm f2.8 and 600 f4, and
I'd assume that it works well with 1.4X TC and 2X TC. Can anybody
handhold this guy? 100% crop samples? How do I find one to test it
myslef?

Where can I find a 500mm f4.5? I hear you guys talk about this lens
a lot, but I just can't find it on Canon's website. distontinued?

I don't like 400 f4 DO becasue It seems I can't gain much for that
much of money. Also 600mm is just too heavy to carry.

Gene also told me that he's looking at some sidekicks sort of
stuff. If those big guns are hopeless for me to handhold, I guess I
will have to look into that direction as well.

What about camera? Will 1D Mark II be drastically better than 300D?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Kai

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--
500+ Posts before it was reset :D
A muppet with Pro gear ;)
http://www.pbase.com/nick_eos/
--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--
500+ Posts before it was reset :D
A muppet with Pro gear ;)
http://www.pbase.com/nick_eos/
 
Currently I have a 300D and 100-400mm is my work horse for tele
photos. When it comes to wild life, more than often, 400mm is
hardly enough.

I'd like to get myself better equipped because I am seeing some
serious birds now and I believe that I have a much better
understanding of photographing.

So what's next?

Originally I thought about 400mm prime, but so many of you just
returned that lens. I know I shouldn't expect a $1000 lens is much
better than my 100-400mm, but will I get a slight better
performance?

1. Is 400mm f5.6 as good as 100-400mm at f8.0? My 100-400mm right
now is pretty much a 400mm f8.0 lens. I just don't just f5.6 on
that zoom lens.

2. Can I put a 1.4x TC to make it a 560mm f8.0? I know
theoretically I could, but I mean how good it is with a TC.

Then other options will be big guns. Handholdability is very
improtant for me. I can't spend much times like a pro. I can't camp
in a place for weeks to wait for opportunities. My gear has to be
mobile enough so I can chase opportunities other than wait for them.

I know somo one can handhold big guns, but how realistic for a
normal people like me? I think I am atheletic. I am 5'10", 190 lbs.
My legs are much stronger than arms because my sprots are soccer
and basketball.

Options:
300 f2.8 IS (is Non IS version discontinued? Where can I find it?).
Put a 2X TC on I will get a 600mm f5.6 lens. From what I know, I
know it is good. Has anyone done rigorous test on this? I mean
tripod mounting, cable release shots, and 100% crop.

500mm IS f4 is good. It is lighter than 400mm f2.8 and 600 f4, and
I'd assume that it works well with 1.4X TC and 2X TC. Can anybody
handhold this guy? 100% crop samples? How do I find one to test it
myslef?

Where can I find a 500mm f4.5? I hear you guys talk about this lens
a lot, but I just can't find it on Canon's website. distontinued?

I don't like 400 f4 DO becasue It seems I can't gain much for that
much of money. Also 600mm is just too heavy to carry.

Gene also told me that he's looking at some sidekicks sort of
stuff. If those big guns are hopeless for me to handhold, I guess I
will have to look into that direction as well.

What about camera? Will 1D Mark II be drastically better than 300D?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Kai

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
I used 550ex with a flash extender called 'Better Beamer'. It is marketed under a different name in Europe by Kirk Enterprises maybe?

Here is a link from site in USA that sells them.
http://www.birdsasart.com/accs.html#BEAMER

Works wonders, great for fill flash with 300mm + lenses.

Jonathan
Nick
JL
No need to say sorry. It is a tricky phrase. I don't know how
people have started this jargon. I appreciate you providing the
info.

The sharpness of 420mm looks pretty good to me. However, it is from
1D. I have not much knowledge on what the lenses should perform on
1D. Maybe somebody else can comment on this. The other thing I
can't tell much is contrast. It is a difficult shot since, I guess,
you are shooting indoor using flash. The object itself does not
have a whole lot contrast.

Kai
300 with 1.4x out of the camera Raw, ran thru BB, no sharpening,
nothing done to it in PS, out of 1D.

Jonathan
For most people here:
100% crop is that you crop a small part of the image (most often
the center part of the image) and save it WITHOUT downsizing. So
that small part, all the details of the original images are
preserved, so we can compare details of original files.

If you downsize the images, then even no-so-sharp and out-of-focus
images will look good. If you downsize to that size, essentially
all lenses are the same.

Kai
JL
Are these 100% crop? When we discuss the shaprness at this level,
any 100% crop can tell us.

Kai
300 2.8 with 2x on Wimberely sidekick with 550ex and better beamer
for fill



300 2.8 with 1.4x on Wimberely sidekick with 550ex and better
beamer for fill



Not a bad option since the price is much lower than 400/500/and
600. Sigma 300-800 is good option to me.

JL
--
Jonathan Lefcourt
2003 NYC-Central Park Winter Scenes
http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/nyc_central__park
--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--
Jonathan Lefcourt
2003 NYC-Central Park Winter Scenes
http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/nyc_central__park
--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--
Jonathan Lefcourt
2003 NYC-Central Park Winter Scenes
http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/nyc_central__park
--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--
Jonathan Lefcourt
2003 NYC-Central Park Winter Scenes
http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/nyc_central__park
--



Sometimes Slicknick, sometimes not so Slicknick
http://www.hanswurst.ch
--
Jonathan Lefcourt
2003 NYC-Central Park Winter Scenes
http://www.pbase.com/jlefcourt/nyc_central__park
 
Where is it? I have serached your profile, couldn't find it. I have serached your post in the past 3 days, couldn't find it.

Kai
 
This is all leading to a question, not a statement:

I'm a complete amatuer for digiscoping so maybe my experience is
not typical but I did a little bit of digiscoping with my G2 when I
was in Costa Rica 2x ago. It was fun turning the 3x zoom into a
20x or whatever it was and I got a few pictures that were fairly
good but I don't think it would be so easy to do with a 10D. From
my (limited) experience it would be much easier with a live-LCD
like the point and shoots -- the swivel on the G2 was handy for
this. I haven't tried the 10D on a spotting scope but I have used
it on my telescope. It's not very convenient -- the large mass of
the 10D + adapter unbalances the tripod and it is difficult to
focus. I can live with the telescope+10D combination because the
subject moves in a predictable way but extrapolating from my
experiences I would say that a spotting scope + 10D would be
ungainly and difficult to use in the field for bird.

So if a person were interested in digiscoping maybe it would be
better with a high quality point and shoot rather than a dSLR? Or
is there a scope + adapter combination that works well?

Doug
If you're seeing some serious birds now, you should think about
getting a decent spotting scope - and in that case, the way to go
with bird photography is digiscoping. Lots of good web sites on how
to do it. I've been at it for over a year, and I'm hooked - see a
few of mine at - http://www.pbase.com/rb_stern/birds - using a
Nikon Coolpix 4500 and Fieldscope-3ED scope with 20x eyepiece. Many
seasoned digiscopers are much better than I am. Carrying a scope on
a tripod in the field is not hard, and most birders and serious
photographers get used to it.

Richard
--
rb_stern
Doug - Most people who digiscope use the Coolpix swivel type of camera (990, 995, 4500) and any of the high quality spotting scopes available, usually with a 20x eyepiece, plus an adaptor to join the two. There is a ton of info. about it on the web. Just type in "digiscoping" in Google and browse. A lot of the info. is about equipment. A particularly good site for questions and answers, and people's experience, with different equipment, is at the Yahoo group "digiscopingbirds" (you have to join to browse the messages).
--
rb_stern
 
I have the Sigma 50-500. Good price for the quality. Not the fastest at 5.6 - 6.3, but it's quality is best when wide-open.

On a 1.6x like the 10D, it's got the angle of view of a 80-800mm.

As a compromise between tripod and hand-held, how about a monopod?

[email protected]
Currently I have a 300D and 100-400mm is my work horse for tele
photos. When it comes to wild life, more than often, 400mm is
hardly enough.

I'd like to get myself better equipped because I am seeing some
serious birds now and I believe that I have a much better
understanding of photographing.

So what's next?

Originally I thought about 400mm prime, but so many of you just
returned that lens. I know I shouldn't expect a $1000 lens is much
better than my 100-400mm, but will I get a slight better
performance?

1. Is 400mm f5.6 as good as 100-400mm at f8.0? My 100-400mm right
now is pretty much a 400mm f8.0 lens. I just don't just f5.6 on
that zoom lens.

2. Can I put a 1.4x TC to make it a 560mm f8.0? I know
theoretically I could, but I mean how good it is with a TC.

Then other options will be big guns. Handholdability is very
improtant for me. I can't spend much times like a pro. I can't camp
in a place for weeks to wait for opportunities. My gear has to be
mobile enough so I can chase opportunities other than wait for them.

I know somo one can handhold big guns, but how realistic for a
normal people like me? I think I am atheletic. I am 5'10", 190 lbs.
My legs are much stronger than arms because my sprots are soccer
and basketball.

Options:
300 f2.8 IS (is Non IS version discontinued? Where can I find it?).
Put a 2X TC on I will get a 600mm f5.6 lens. From what I know, I
know it is good. Has anyone done rigorous test on this? I mean
tripod mounting, cable release shots, and 100% crop.

500mm IS f4 is good. It is lighter than 400mm f2.8 and 600 f4, and
I'd assume that it works well with 1.4X TC and 2X TC. Can anybody
handhold this guy? 100% crop samples? How do I find one to test it
myslef?

Where can I find a 500mm f4.5? I hear you guys talk about this lens
a lot, but I just can't find it on Canon's website. distontinued?

I don't like 400 f4 DO becasue It seems I can't gain much for that
much of money. Also 600mm is just too heavy to carry.

Gene also told me that he's looking at some sidekicks sort of
stuff. If those big guns are hopeless for me to handhold, I guess I
will have to look into that direction as well.

What about camera? Will 1D Mark II be drastically better than 300D?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Kai

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
--



I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
--
[email protected]
 
I guess right now I am leaning toward 500mm f4 and ID mkII now for my next equipment upgrade.

I went to the local store today for a small part for my camera and found the store had a used 500mm f4 IS. The owner said the lens was used only once by a lady, but she hurt her shoulder by carrying it so she decided to sell it. The rear and front glass is clean, but no UV filter protect it. (really strange!). The hood was really beat up, and the lens has a dent on it. It just doesn't look like a lens that has been used only once. The owner asked $5000. He said it has a $300 circular polorizer which I don't care (I'd rather have a UV O filter). I said the new one was only $5500 at BH, he said he's willing to negotiate. I offerred $4000, and he didn't take the offer.

Anyway, I shot thi sbaby for a while handheld. The AF is very fast. It is heavy, but I was able to take about 20 shots handheld for about 3 minutes. It seems that I do OK at 1/320 sec with IS on.

Kai
 
I guess right now I am leaning toward 500mm f4 and ID mkII now for
my next equipment upgrade.
Fine gear no doubt, but quite frankly thats a ton of money to be spending.

Now generally im all in favor of people buying gear like that since hopefully it translates into more gear on the used market for me, but you seem like a good guy so I actually want to give you helpful advice =)

Lets be honest hear, if you have the money to afford it, great, by all means go for that setup. But the reservation I have is that ive seen very little of your work, and what I have seen doesnt shout " look at how this 300D and 100-400L hold me back"

Thats just my honest assessment and I dont mean any offense in it so hopefully you understand where im coming from.

I simply think at this point, you still have a bit of learning to gain simply with what you have. You only got a 300D, your first DSLR recently in fact right ?

Now im all in favor of great gear, pretty much anyone can take a 500 f4 mounted on a gimbal head with a 1D and fire off some shots. Its basically as simple as put this red mark on the target and hold down this shutter button.

Its tons of fun as well if you havent played with one by the way. Always reminds me of a computer video game 1942, where you can use these anti aircraft guns. You scan the sky and then when you see a bird, hit that shutter button and the 1d starts to fire like a machine gun, great stuff.

Back to the point though, thats technically going to produce a shot of the bird or whatever subject you want, but theres alot of "artistic" stuff that goes into a great photo as well. Composition, lighting, DOF , just like any other type of photography.

Easiest and best example is with portrait photography. You could buy someone a 1Ds, and $5000 worth of studio lights or you could give a very talented photographer a g5 and 2 420ex speedlights and he/she would produce the better photos.

So I think you should try to learn with what you've got for a while. When your producing great shot after great shot then definatly upgrade and you should be able to produce even better shots. You might actually hurt your development as a photographer if you move up to great $10,000 setup to fast.

I actually know a number of friends with alot nicer jobs than I have who have bought some top notch gear like that and they are still poor photographers. They simply cant get past the simply approach of firing a ton of frames. I try to tell them this and they tell me "what do you mean, ive got 30 frames of that bird and they are all in focus" Yes thats true BUT, they are 30 frames of the bird from behind flying into the direction of the sun making the bird basically a detailess silloutte save for the a few markings which are very noisey.

Thats my advice to you, use it well and please dont take offense, its meant with your best intrest in mind.

Soley the decision is up to you of course

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
I'd like to add a couple of comments to what big bad has said. I agree with him btw.

I assume, have been assuming, you are talking down the road and not right this moment. You still have a ways to go to get the best out of that 100-400L, which is good. Tackling these much bigger telephotos is a different ball game. They come with all kinds of new issues and problems besides weight and hand-holdability. You will need to learn how to use a tripod well for one thing, and if your talking 700mm just getting a bird in sight and a shot without shake (even with a tripod) will take skill and good support equipment. BTW, it will be a bit more than $10k. A good tripod and ballhead (or wimberly), $1k easily, and a Canon 1.4x TC (you won't want the cheap tamron) $270.

Cheers,
Gene
I guess right now I am leaning toward 500mm f4 and ID mkII now for
my next equipment upgrade.
Fine gear no doubt, but quite frankly thats a ton of money to be
spending.

Now generally im all in favor of people buying gear like that since
hopefully it translates into more gear on the used market for me,
but you seem like a good guy so I actually want to give you helpful
advice =)

Lets be honest hear, if you have the money to afford it, great, by
all means go for that setup. But the reservation I have is that
ive seen very little of your work, and what I have seen doesnt
shout " look at how this 300D and 100-400L hold me back"

Thats just my honest assessment and I dont mean any offense in it
so hopefully you understand where im coming from.

I simply think at this point, you still have a bit of learning to
gain simply with what you have. You only got a 300D, your first
DSLR recently in fact right ?

Now im all in favor of great gear, pretty much anyone can take a
500 f4 mounted on a gimbal head with a 1D and fire off some shots.
Its basically as simple as put this red mark on the target and hold
down this shutter button.

Its tons of fun as well if you havent played with one by the way.
Always reminds me of a computer video game 1942, where you can use
these anti aircraft guns. You scan the sky and then when you see
a bird, hit that shutter button and the 1d starts to fire like a
machine gun, great stuff.

Back to the point though, thats technically going to produce a
shot of the bird or whatever subject you want, but theres alot of
"artistic" stuff that goes into a great photo as well.
Composition, lighting, DOF , just like any other type of
photography.

Easiest and best example is with portrait photography. You could
buy someone a 1Ds, and $5000 worth of studio lights or you could
give a very talented photographer a g5 and 2 420ex speedlights and
he/she would produce the better photos.

So I think you should try to learn with what you've got for a
while. When your producing great shot after great shot then
definatly upgrade and you should be able to produce even better
shots. You might actually hurt your development as a photographer
if you move up to great $10,000 setup to fast.

I actually know a number of friends with alot nicer jobs than I
have who have bought some top notch gear like that and they are
still poor photographers. They simply cant get past the simply
approach of firing a ton of frames. I try to tell them this and
they tell me "what do you mean, ive got 30 frames of that bird and
they are all in focus" Yes thats true BUT, they are 30 frames of
the bird from behind flying into the direction of the sun making
the bird basically a detailess silloutte save for the a few
markings which are very noisey.

Thats my advice to you, use it well and please dont take offense,
its meant with your best intrest in mind.

Soley the decision is up to you of course

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
--
Gene (the hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

 
BB,

Points well taken. No offense at all. I actually appreciate your honesty and guts to write this.

Actually I have been debating this myself as well. One thing you can believe is that I am not a lens collector.

Yes, I can afford those gear, yet I am still taking a slow approach. I bought 300D as my starting gear. 75-300mm NON IS for my tele, then have to trade the non IS to 75-300mm IS. Now, I just sold 75-300mm IS because I got 100-400mm. This all happened in 4 months. I don't like this buying and selling idea at all. It is no fun to me. Then I think, since I can afford them why don't I just buy it once and forget about upgrading?

The only reason I am thinking to get better gear is because I have seen some birds recently.
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui/osprey&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui/small_birds&page=all
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui/swan&page=all

Do my gear hold me back? I do feel like that way. 300D is not the greatest camera, and I always feel 400mm is short for those kind of shots.

Meanwhile, I also see Gene and William Bates have produced stunning photos with their 400mm. This makes me wonder whether I have already taken the advantage of my gear fully yet. Probably not! Sure someday I wish I could get the the same quality shots as they do using the SAME gear.

Thanks agian, and I will hold my horse.

Kai
I guess right now I am leaning toward 500mm f4 and ID mkII now for
my next equipment upgrade.
Fine gear no doubt, but quite frankly thats a ton of money to be
spending.

Now generally im all in favor of people buying gear like that since
hopefully it translates into more gear on the used market for me,
but you seem like a good guy so I actually want to give you helpful
advice =)

Lets be honest hear, if you have the money to afford it, great, by
all means go for that setup. But the reservation I have is that
ive seen very little of your work, and what I have seen doesnt
shout " look at how this 300D and 100-400L hold me back"

Thats just my honest assessment and I dont mean any offense in it
so hopefully you understand where im coming from.

I simply think at this point, you still have a bit of learning to
gain simply with what you have. You only got a 300D, your first
DSLR recently in fact right ?

Now im all in favor of great gear, pretty much anyone can take a
500 f4 mounted on a gimbal head with a 1D and fire off some shots.
Its basically as simple as put this red mark on the target and hold
down this shutter button.

Its tons of fun as well if you havent played with one by the way.
Always reminds me of a computer video game 1942, where you can use
these anti aircraft guns. You scan the sky and then when you see
a bird, hit that shutter button and the 1d starts to fire like a
machine gun, great stuff.

Back to the point though, thats technically going to produce a
shot of the bird or whatever subject you want, but theres alot of
"artistic" stuff that goes into a great photo as well.
Composition, lighting, DOF , just like any other type of
photography.

Easiest and best example is with portrait photography. You could
buy someone a 1Ds, and $5000 worth of studio lights or you could
give a very talented photographer a g5 and 2 420ex speedlights and
he/she would produce the better photos.

So I think you should try to learn with what you've got for a
while. When your producing great shot after great shot then
definatly upgrade and you should be able to produce even better
shots. You might actually hurt your development as a photographer
if you move up to great $10,000 setup to fast.

I actually know a number of friends with alot nicer jobs than I
have who have bought some top notch gear like that and they are
still poor photographers. They simply cant get past the simply
approach of firing a ton of frames. I try to tell them this and
they tell me "what do you mean, ive got 30 frames of that bird and
they are all in focus" Yes thats true BUT, they are 30 frames of
the bird from behind flying into the direction of the sun making
the bird basically a detailess silloutte save for the a few
markings which are very noisey.

Thats my advice to you, use it well and please dont take offense,
its meant with your best intrest in mind.

Soley the decision is up to you of course

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
 
Thank for the help along the way.

Yes, I think I will hold my horse until I feel absolutely held back by my current gear.

It is funny, my buddy always make fun that I am cheap on photo gear, but I think you are right, (actually that's my point all the time), only the work speaks. If I can get the same stunning work with less gear, I'd feel much achieved, because I will feel I am smart.

Kai
I assume, have been assuming, you are talking down the road and
not right this moment. You still have a ways to go to get the best
out of that 100-400L, which is good. Tackling these much bigger
telephotos is a different ball game. They come with all kinds of
new issues and problems besides weight and hand-holdability. You
will need to learn how to use a tripod well for one thing, and if
your talking 700mm just getting a bird in sight and a shot without
shake (even with a tripod) will take skill and good support
equipment. BTW, it will be a bit more than $10k. A good tripod and
ballhead (or wimberly), $1k easily, and a Canon 1.4x TC (you won't
want the cheap tamron) $270.

Cheers,
Gene
I guess right now I am leaning toward 500mm f4 and ID mkII now for
my next equipment upgrade.
Fine gear no doubt, but quite frankly thats a ton of money to be
spending.

Now generally im all in favor of people buying gear like that since
hopefully it translates into more gear on the used market for me,
but you seem like a good guy so I actually want to give you helpful
advice =)

Lets be honest hear, if you have the money to afford it, great, by
all means go for that setup. But the reservation I have is that
ive seen very little of your work, and what I have seen doesnt
shout " look at how this 300D and 100-400L hold me back"

Thats just my honest assessment and I dont mean any offense in it
so hopefully you understand where im coming from.

I simply think at this point, you still have a bit of learning to
gain simply with what you have. You only got a 300D, your first
DSLR recently in fact right ?

Now im all in favor of great gear, pretty much anyone can take a
500 f4 mounted on a gimbal head with a 1D and fire off some shots.
Its basically as simple as put this red mark on the target and hold
down this shutter button.

Its tons of fun as well if you havent played with one by the way.
Always reminds me of a computer video game 1942, where you can use
these anti aircraft guns. You scan the sky and then when you see
a bird, hit that shutter button and the 1d starts to fire like a
machine gun, great stuff.

Back to the point though, thats technically going to produce a
shot of the bird or whatever subject you want, but theres alot of
"artistic" stuff that goes into a great photo as well.
Composition, lighting, DOF , just like any other type of
photography.

Easiest and best example is with portrait photography. You could
buy someone a 1Ds, and $5000 worth of studio lights or you could
give a very talented photographer a g5 and 2 420ex speedlights and
he/she would produce the better photos.

So I think you should try to learn with what you've got for a
while. When your producing great shot after great shot then
definatly upgrade and you should be able to produce even better
shots. You might actually hurt your development as a photographer
if you move up to great $10,000 setup to fast.

I actually know a number of friends with alot nicer jobs than I
have who have bought some top notch gear like that and they are
still poor photographers. They simply cant get past the simply
approach of firing a ton of frames. I try to tell them this and
they tell me "what do you mean, ive got 30 frames of that bird and
they are all in focus" Yes thats true BUT, they are 30 frames of
the bird from behind flying into the direction of the sun making
the bird basically a detailess silloutte save for the a few
markings which are very noisey.

Thats my advice to you, use it well and please dont take offense,
its meant with your best intrest in mind.

Soley the decision is up to you of course

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
--
Gene (the hawkman) - Walk softly and carry a big lens

Please visit my galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/gaocus/

--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
 
refurbs sell at B&H for $4499 and those come in perfect condition with a 90 day warranty and everything that they would come with if you bought new. If it has a dent in it and a beat up hood I would certainly not go higher than $4000.

Greg
--

 
Thats just an amazing deal since you could sell it on ebay for $5000 easy.

Hmm, getting to enjoy using a 500mm f4 IS lens for basically as long as I want and then making $500 once I get rid of it ?

Sure sounds alot better than paying $75 a day to rent one doenst it LOL

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Hi, BB,

I hope you don'ttake this offense as well. I am just trying to sort out wether I should equip me better.

I checked your PBASE gallery. I guess you are looking things from a differemt angle. Most, if not all, of your animal shots are zoo shots, most of yoru birds, if not all, are captive.(nothing worng with it. Somep people enjoy that, and I might do that at some point) Sure, for those kind of shots, given me a one good day, I can run to a zoo and get the shots. 500mm is absolutley not needed. Animals and birds stand still. 70-200mm f2.8 probably would be very good. 100-400mm might be overkill.

Right now, I am hooked up to birds in the wild. All my small birds were caught in the wild. I don't even have bird feeders. That's a whole different game. Let's just say the simplest condition, small bird still in the wild. Even if ortunately enough I could get close enough, the lighting might not be good even in perfect sunny day. The light might be blocked by tree branches and leaves. The bird's head might not be facing me, all sorts of problems, etc. Sure a longer lens would help, otherwise I will just lose to many opportunities.

When shooting birds in flight (not captive eagles), sure longer and brighter lens would help, and faster camera will help.

Am I held back by my current gear? I think so, but some people have achieved a lot using similar gear. I sure want to achieve it as well.

I also notice that you have some shots for landscape and cityscape. I agree, those kind of shots do not demand gear that much. Pretty much any lens stopped down is pretty decent for those kind of shots.

Kai
I guess right now I am leaning toward 500mm f4 and ID mkII now for
my next equipment upgrade.
Fine gear no doubt, but quite frankly thats a ton of money to be
spending.

Now generally im all in favor of people buying gear like that since
hopefully it translates into more gear on the used market for me,
but you seem like a good guy so I actually want to give you helpful
advice =)

Lets be honest hear, if you have the money to afford it, great, by
all means go for that setup. But the reservation I have is that
ive seen very little of your work, and what I have seen doesnt
shout " look at how this 300D and 100-400L hold me back"

Thats just my honest assessment and I dont mean any offense in it
so hopefully you understand where im coming from.

I simply think at this point, you still have a bit of learning to
gain simply with what you have. You only got a 300D, your first
DSLR recently in fact right ?

Now im all in favor of great gear, pretty much anyone can take a
500 f4 mounted on a gimbal head with a 1D and fire off some shots.
Its basically as simple as put this red mark on the target and hold
down this shutter button.

Its tons of fun as well if you havent played with one by the way.
Always reminds me of a computer video game 1942, where you can use
these anti aircraft guns. You scan the sky and then when you see
a bird, hit that shutter button and the 1d starts to fire like a
machine gun, great stuff.

Back to the point though, thats technically going to produce a
shot of the bird or whatever subject you want, but theres alot of
"artistic" stuff that goes into a great photo as well.
Composition, lighting, DOF , just like any other type of
photography.

Easiest and best example is with portrait photography. You could
buy someone a 1Ds, and $5000 worth of studio lights or you could
give a very talented photographer a g5 and 2 420ex speedlights and
he/she would produce the better photos.

So I think you should try to learn with what you've got for a
while. When your producing great shot after great shot then
definatly upgrade and you should be able to produce even better
shots. You might actually hurt your development as a photographer
if you move up to great $10,000 setup to fast.

I actually know a number of friends with alot nicer jobs than I
have who have bought some top notch gear like that and they are
still poor photographers. They simply cant get past the simply
approach of firing a ton of frames. I try to tell them this and
they tell me "what do you mean, ive got 30 frames of that bird and
they are all in focus" Yes thats true BUT, they are 30 frames of
the bird from behind flying into the direction of the sun making
the bird basically a detailess silloutte save for the a few
markings which are very noisey.

Thats my advice to you, use it well and please dont take offense,
its meant with your best intrest in mind.

Soley the decision is up to you of course

http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
--
http://www.pbase.com/kaihui
 
Russian mirror lens... 100$ I know it's know in the spirit of this thread but heck! you could buy a few hundred of them for the $$$ we seem to be talking about. Pass them out as favours at all your birding sites... you'd be the digiscoping to slr patron saint of birders!!! Now that would be some good karma... ;)
 
Im definatly all in favor of the best gear you can buy. My ideal setup would be a 1D mkII and a 1Ds in addition to 500 f4 and 300 2.8 lens, so dont think im trying to say that good gear isnt worth it.

My 10D's AF can be to slow and the buffer to small when ive been shooting some birds in flight, my 300 with 2x TC can be too short etc.

I fully see the want and the need for better gear, and with your current setup of a 300D, definatly understand where your coming from even more

main point I was trying to make is that theres more to a great photo than just the gear.

My first camera was my dads old canon AE-1. real simply, nothing fancy, just a shutter speed dail, apature ring, mf ring and a shutter button. It helped me learn a bit though as there was no real option around it.

If i started with a 1D i would of probably just had it in P mode and fired off tons of frames at everything. I couldnt do that so I had to shoot slowly and learn about DOF and things of that nature, no fancy features to distract me from learning actual photography if you will

Now, I can do all the technical aspects of photography without evne thinking about it and im a better photographer for it.

I do think a 500 f4 would be a great lens for your needs and you should definatly get one at some point if you have the money. I know I want one

Dont let it make photography to easy and simple for you though. dont be one of those people that I see that simply sets up a supertele on a gimbal head 5 feet from their car, fires off 500 frames on a 1D in 20 minutes and then packs it up and goes back home thinking they are a great wildlife photographer since theres probably going to be one or two great shots by pure luck out of the 500.

Those kind of people are simply using the gear as an easy way out. There no work or thought involved, simply stand there and hold down a button.

Use the gear instead to take your photos to a higher level. No matter how great of gear you have you still have to deal with composition, lighting, the overall feel of the shot etc.

Im sure if you spend enough money you can get some sorta auto tracking camera system that can detect a bird in flight, focus on it and fire off a ton of frames. Basically just like those rader controled AA miniguns on naval ships, cept with a camera of course.

Thats not great photography though and thats really all the more alot of people with long lens and fast cameras turn themselves into. Just a body that points the lens in the direction of the target and holds down the shutter.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bigbad
 
Now, please don't take my comment as any kind of talking you into something. It's just my engineering nature to analyze.

I've stated my reasons for picking the 300/2.8IS in another post in this thread. Here's another way to look at 300 vs 500.

For realistic AF accuracy, the max aperture you want to go would be f/8. That translates into a 840/8 combo for the 300 and 1000/8 combo for the 500, a difference of 160mm. Let's not talk about image quality, as they are both very good still (I've shown a bunch of 840/8 samples already). The 500 will have an edge but after post-processing (and/or donwsizing if you're lucky to be close), there'll be little (you'll be amazed in how much is due to contrast loss).
In order to get this 160mm gain the reach, here's what you pay for:
1) $1.5k more for the lens and extra money for a good tripod ($500?).
2) 3.5 lb more for the lens plus the weight of the tripod (10 lb?).

3) Mobility. When you spot an eagle on the other side of the forrest, you, with a tripod and heavier lens, are not going to run faster than me to get there before it flies away.

In my book, no way is the 160mm worth that much. Others' viewpoint may vary. Just don't flame me on this.
--
Brian
Dallas, TX
Still love the Spurs (the Mavs suck)
10D owner and love sharp images.
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
In order to get this 160mm gain the reach, here's what you pay for:
1) $1.5k more for the lens and extra money for a good tripod ($500?).
2) 3.5 lb more for the lens plus the weight of the tripod (10 lb?).
3) Mobility. When you spot an eagle on the other side of the
forrest, you, with a tripod and heavier lens, are not going to run
faster than me to get there before it flies away.
In my book, no way is the 160mm worth that much. Others' viewpoint
may vary. Just don't flame me on this.
If you want to develop as a bird photographer, some moment you will change to longer lens. I don't know any 'name' bird photographer in Europe or America who hasn't a long lens like 500 or 600/4. I may be wrong on that and stay corrected.

For my own history, I went through digiscoping through 300/4 to 500/4. I took thousands of bird pictures with mediocre (digiscoping) or too short (300/4 and TC) optics. When I'm going now shooting, will it be Norway, India or my near forest, I know that I have all possibilites to take really good pictures and it is not necessary to return for the sake of bad equipment used.

It is not about wealthiness, my only other lens is now 28/2.8 ;), but commitment and loving subject that keeps me going. A few extra pounds on my back or a few thousands extra $$ spent are not counting that much when I can see my results getting substantially better all the time. So if you are really interested in wildlife bird photography, go for it. That is my suggestion.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top