|
Title: Wildlife lenses Post by: John on December 20, 2008, 04:10:30 PM Hi Bob,
I am new to this forum but have been reading it for a while, great information. The question I have is about telephoto lenses. I have gotten into wildlife and bird photography lately. I had been using the 70-300IS with my (40D) which is OK for near subjects but need something longer. I've been trying the Tamron 200-500 4.5-6.3 lately and it gives good results if you use a tripod. I find it to hard to hand hold @ 500 to get sharp shots. I just do not always have a tripod with me. My question is about the Canon 300L f/4. I know you have one and was wondering what you opinion is about using this lenes with a 1.4 teleconverter for a wildlife lens. I know it is a sharp lens, but is it handholdable at 420 5.6 with the IS. How much do you save with the IS on this lens. I would be giving up the flexibility of the zoom but it seems like it is always at 450-500 anyway. I could still use the 70-300 IS for closer shots. How is the size and weight of the 300L? Any suggestions welcomed. Thanks JT Title: Re: Wildlife lenses Post by: Bob Atkins on December 20, 2008, 09:44:08 PM The Canon EF 300mm f4L IS USM (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009R6WW/bobatkinsphotogr) works very well with the EF 1.4x extender (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009R6WL/bobatkinsphotogr) to give you a stabilized 420/5.6 lens. I'd say that the stabilization is good for at least a couple of stops.
If you do the math, a 420mm lens on an crop sensor camera would require a shutter speed of around 1/700s using the usual "1/focal_length" rule modified for the smaller sensor. With a stabilization of two stops, that means you should be able to get sharp handheld shots at 1/180s, probably 1/125s much of the time. It does depend somewhat on how steady your hands are of course. One "trick" to up the percentage of sharp shots is to shoot short bursts (say 3 frames) for each image when you're appraoching the lower limit of shutter speed and then pick the sharpest one. With film that could get expensive, but with digital it's almost free (except for the additional wear on the shutter). The weight of the 300/4 isn't bad at just over 2.5lbs. I find it pretty easy to use handheld, though I'll admit I prefer to use a tripod when I can. The extender adds another 8oz to the weight, but at around 3lbs total it's still light enough to handle pretty easily. Title: Re: Wildlife lenses Post by: marcfs on December 23, 2008, 08:46:16 PM I have a 300 F/4 L IS and have used it with the 1.4 extender to capture birds. For static images it is fine. For a bird in flight, the AF with extender is slow.
I would suggest that you consider the EF 400mm f/5.6L. The lens is extremely sharp and is particularly good for birds in flight. When thinking about bird photography it is virtually impossible to have too much lens. I wish I owned an 800. I generally shoot with a 500 f/4 IS with a 1.4 extender. AF is extremely fast. I use this combination mounted on a Wimberley head and gitzo tripod. Often the 400 is mounted on my 40D as a second body for birds in flight. Marc Schoenholz Title: Re: Wildlife lenses Post by: Bob Atkins on December 24, 2008, 11:49:20 AM I'd agree that the Canon EF 400mm f5.6L USM (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009USW3/bobatkinsphotogr) is one of the best lenses for birds in flight. AF is fast and the lens is very sharp. It does lack IS, which is certainly a disadvantage, but even despite that it's a lens that's favored by many photographers with the specific goal of shooting birds in flight.
That being said, I think the 300/4L IS + 1.4x might be a better option for more general use that doesn't need ultra fast AF and which includes shooting static subjects without a tripod, where the IS would be very useful. AF with the 300/4L + 1.4x is good (and accurate), but not as fast as the 400/5.6L since AF slows down somewhat with the 1.4x in order to maintain accuracy. A lot of people have been hoping that Canon would release an IS version of the 400/5.6L. That would make a lot of sense since all the other 300mm + telphotos have IS now. Of course the downside is the cost would likely go up to around $1500 if an IS verision of the 400/5.6L was released, and production of the non-IS version would likely stop. Title: Re: Wildlife lenses Post by: Imagician on January 02, 2009, 07:23:22 PM I'm a novice at this stuff, and I'm having a bit of a problem with your 1/1.6xfl formula for cropped cameras. It is my understanding that a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens on full frame or cropped sensor. It does not actually become a 480mm lens on the cropped camera. The FOV is cropped.
A bird in flight, shot simultaneously with a 5D and a 50D, will be the same size on both sensors. A bird that fills the cropped sensor's frame, but not fill the full frame sensor. I had a 10D for four years and recently acquired a 40D. The straight 1/fl formula works for me. I'm 66 years old and don't have rock-steady hands. I try to shoot my 300 f/4L (non-IS) @ 1/400 or faster, but have had good luck at 1/320. With the Kenko 1.5x (really, 1.4x) I try to go faster than 1/500. I have to use a monopod or brace myself really well when using the TC. 300mm is my about limit on comfortable hand-holdability. That is also my limit when using the EOS 620. Title: Re: Wildlife lenses Post by: Halfpress on January 03, 2009, 09:27:13 PM 100-400LIS would be best in that price range when you figure the 3004IS + the cost of a canon extender.
Title: Re: Wildlife lenses Post by: mjf0048 on January 14, 2009, 09:12:25 AM All you would need is a 70-200 F2.8 IS, 300mm F4 IS, and 1.4ex.
Marc |