Lens Questions

[eospete]

George

Precise questions coming up.

Telephoto options 300mmf2.8 with 1.4 and 2x covertors or 500mmf4?

How essential do you think IS is for telephoto photography from a vehicle assuming use of a bean bag?

How do you rate Sigma Telephoto lenses?

Can you see where I am going with this.

Took my 100-400 out to Africa and shot mostly with the 1.4x but the viewfinder was dark at f8 and I lost AF and even though you can tape the contacts the D60 hunts like mad with this combo. Most of my telephoto work is done in the UK and in the North West where the sun is apparantly banned. I figure a f2.8 lens would be useful and the Sigma 300mmf2.8 is quite reasonably priced though I'm not sure if it works with Canon convertors which I already have.

Cheers for any feedback
Regards
Peter
www.nwng.co.uk

[George McCarthy]

Hi Pete,
300mm F2.8 with converters versus 500mm F4

If you can afford it it's really a no-brainer. If I stick the 2x on the 300mm I get a 600mm F5.6. If I then stack the 1.4 on as well I get a 840mm F8. However if I put the 2x on the 500mm I get a 1000mm F8 and the Golden Eagle shot shown on the 'splash' (opening) page to my website.

OK, I know that's a simplistic response but it is a fact of life that as serious bird photographers we require the longest lenses we can afford and manage. As an example Canons' 600mm F4 costs around £6000 and with a motor driven body attached weighs about 8 kilos!

Yes I know we are discussing 300/500 but using the facts on the 600mm as a starting point, lets weigh up some of the pro's and cons of the two lenses you ask about. First of all the 300mm F2.8.

Plus points:
It’s quite a bit cheaper than the 500mm F4.
Easier to travel with especially on aircraft.
Easier to handhold for flight photography even with converters.
With its wide F2.8 aperture it has a really bright viewfinder making focussing easier.
Focuses closer so you can get nearer to your subject without the need for tubes and retains that close focussing distance even when you add converters.
Because it is such a fast lens adding converters still allows you to work in combinations between F4 – F8.

Minus points:
It’s too short.
It’s too short.
It’s too short.

Now the 500mm F4:

Plus Points:
If you can only afford to have one telephoto lens for your bird photography then, in my opinion, the 500mm F4 is it especially if it says Canon and IS on the side.
If you can afford two then get the 600mm as well.
Although longer than the 300 it is quite manageable when travelling and certainly much easier than the 600mm.
You can hand hold it especially the image stabilised versions but not for very long and I actually use the Canon 400mm F5.6 for most of my flight work when hand holding.
You can work at greater distances than the 300mm for the same image size and this often means that the bird is more relaxed. This is very apparent in places like Lesvos where a lot of my work is done from a vehicle. The longer lens means more successful shots at the end of the day.

Minus points:
I can’t think of one.

When I have run my bird photography workshops in Florida the question of what lens to take is the question uppermost in every clients mind. My advice has always been to take the longest lenses you can. Most turn up with lenses in the 300-400mm range which is fine 95% of the time in Florida where the birds are relatively tame. But I guarantee there will be times during the tour when each of those people will say to me “I wish I had a longer lens”.

In fact, I’ll bet there is not a bird photographer worth his salt that hasn’t said that many, many times before.

Now having advised you to think big there are some inherent problems associated with using long telephoto lenses but that’s something I’ll discuss at another time.

By the way I am running some Bird Photography Masterclasses in Sussex later this year so if that interests you or any one else out there go to my website and e-mail me direct and I’ll send the info by return.

I will come back to your other questions in due course.

Thanks for this one. Rgds George

[eospete]

Cheers for that George a well reasoned argument I felt can I print it out to show Mr Bank Manager?

Will check out the Masterclasses. I think for now I'll have to stick with the 100-400 (160-640 on D60) and start saving the pennies before my next big trip I just found the max aperture of f5.6 somewhat limiting when trying to blast out a background in the bush. At least I will have the field skills to get close if and when I eventually can afford the big glass.

all the v. best
Peter

[Paulyoly]

George, when and were do you hold workshops in Florida?

[George McCarthy]

Hi Paul,
I have been running wildlife photography tours to Florida for years, in fact, in February this year I completed my 24th or 25th tour. Sadly it was also my last commercial tour as I have decided to drop all tours so that I can concentrate purely on my own photography.

I used to fly into Miami, pick up a 15 seater crew bus and drive over to Florida City which would be my first base. From there I could easily get down to the Keys, into the Everglades and occasionally over to Loxahatchee. Then a drive up on 41 taking in Shark Valley and hoping those elusive Snail Kites would oblige just further on before getting to my second base at Ft Myers. From there it was FM Beach (of course), Coral Island, Sanibel, Corkscrew to mention just a few. Then take off for Osprey further up the Tamiami Trail which provide the base for Myakka, Venice Rookery, Oscar Scherer and many locations around Sarasota. I did the East coast one time Merrit etc although my big regret is not getting to the St Augustine alligator farm.

However that does not mean to say that it will be my last time out there because I love it - for me Florida has to be THE BEST PLACE IN THE WORLD to photograph birds without question. I met many great photographers out there, some time year after year, and made many friends including the McDonalds and Art Morris and was inspired by their work and friendliness.

Right now I am trying to convince my wife Angie, who is a nurse, to take a year out from work so that we can come over, buy a Winnegbago, and tour round the States just taking pictures. I hope I succeed!

Thanks for your question. George

[Paulyoly]

The Winnebago sounds like a great idea George. If you decide to do it be sure to check out paynes prairire(La chua trail) in Gainesville and Rodman dam in Palatka is one of the best places to photograph ospreys in action.

[bcurrie]

Well George, if you do make it over here, plan on being in Northern Utah during the month of February for some fantastic photo ops of Bald Eagles. That is, if you can handle seeing between 200-400 Bald Eagles in just a few hours. And you can get photos of first year, second year, third year, fourth year, and mature birds. Then of course in March is the Greater Sage Grouse Lek and you can get within feet of the grouse. Oh so much to do in just a year!

Enjoyed your Golden Eagle on your front page of your website, great capture.

[spiderwood]

Fancy finding you 'ere too Pete ;)

I guess you've gone ahead and bought by now...but here's my 2p worth..

If you're after static subjects (non-flight shots) then the 500/4 is great especially when used on a tripod & with the 1.4x too. The 1.6x crop from the D30/60 will end up giving you a 1.1m effective focal length.

For in-flight shots, the 500/4 and 1.4 is handholdable (builds the arms muscles though 3:-) , but the biggest downer is the narrow field of view - trying to get the subject in the viewfinder in flight and then stay on track with it is very hard (even on a tripod).

For moving objects....a 300/2.8 - a mate has the Sigma - along with a 1.4 gives you a healthy 420mm and a much wider field of view to track with.

Personally, I've been bitten by Sigma lenses to much in the past, but not everyone can afford Canon's own glass :(.

Thing to watch for with Canon TC's is that the front element also projects in front of the mount plate - your lens needs to have a suitable "hole" at the back to allow it to be mounted to the TC (you can use an extension tube, but would loose some infinty focusing.)

Catch you later!

[citreola]

George
I figure a f2.8 lens would be useful and the Sigma 300mmf2.8 is quite reasonably priced though I'm not sure if it works with Canon convertors which I already have.

I own the Sigma 300mm f2.8 EX HSM and it works with Canon EF 2x and 1.4x converters and of course also the Sigma 2x. However, image quality is better with the Canon 300mmf 2.8 (which I owned also and thus could compare it myself).
Greetings,

Luc

[eospete]

To report back I final went for the 300mm 2.8 IS (480mm on the digital body) so close to what George recommended. still with option for 1.4 and 2x tc retaining AF as well and cheaper option plus lighter. Loving the results from the lens after just a few outings and some of my results can be seen at
http://www.madeley.garlick.net/galleries/springwood/index.htm

Would appreciate some feedback on these if you have the time to visit please.

[Geoff Brown]

Like the photos Pete but not the dull drab background to your website, brighten it up a bit!