10D at airshow

[codeglue]

Hi,

I was lucky enough to get my 10D a few days before the airshow in Topeka, KS. Had no idea how to use the camera, set it to sports mode and stuck a cheap 75-300 on it. The results were pretty amazing. Here's a sample.

http://www.courtforms.com/personal/Photos/diamond6%20enhanced%20LR.jpg

http://www.courtforms.com/personal\Photos\4enhancedLR.jpg

So here's the question. I've learned the lesson(s) about the 75-300 and I will be looking to get a better zoom. The EXIF data indicated that a good deal of the photos I took that day were at 300mm. Any suggestions for a suitable zoom?

I also figured out that Fred Miranda's Shadow Recovery Action is a great tool to have in the toolbox. It does wonders for the issues of shooting aircraft.

Thanks,

Lee
Overland Park, KS

[PaulB]

Hmmm. at 300mm on the zoom that's 300 x 1.6 = 480mm equiv.

How about a wide aperture one!

Seriously though. if you can afford it get a 70-200/4L
and a Canon 1.4x convertor f5.6 all the way through the range, and super quality too.
Or the 2.8L.......

If you're on a budget try S/H and/or the Canon 75-300/4.5 - 5.6 IS

[UK_Terry]

codeglue wrote:
Hi,


So here's the question. I've learned the lesson(s) about the 75-300 and I will be looking to get a better zoom. Lee
Overland Park, KS


so what were the lessons learnt?

i found the 75 - 300 on my 10D very good at a recent airshow

http://robinsfc.topcities.com/aircraft/cas2003/index.htm

i used a 100 - 400L IS on a D30 last year but found most of my shots were in the 200 - 300 range.

it was an excellent lense but extremly expensive.
an alternative would be Sigma 135 - 400.

[codeglue]

Lessons learned -

The rest of the story. Got a good deal on a Canon 200mm 2.8 L. Telephoto. Scary sharp. 75-300 simply isn't. Now the 75-300 is never really good enough. It does a great job for the price, but ...

As for the 70-200, what about the older 80-200 2.8L lenses? I like the fact that they are NOT cream colored, I get enough attention over my camera as it is....

1. How does it compare to the newer lenses?
2. Can it be used with the 1.4x converter?

How do I post pictures straight to the forum, like the Champ cars/ sprint boats? Is that not recommended as there is a gallery page?

Thanks,

Lee

[Longwatcher]

You probably have the best lens for shooting airshows from the looks of your pictures. If you don't have the IS version of the 75-300, that would be a low cost improvement.

Otherwise there are only two zoom lens I can think of that might work better

1. Canon 100-400L IS. I have this great lens, but it is twice the weight of the 75-300 IS and 3 times the non-IS versions. Weight will probably make a difference in handholding over an afternoon.

2. The Sigma 50-500. I don't have, but that would be an alternative maybe.

You could go fixed focal length, but that may make catching the shot you want difficult. Also I don't expect you would see much difference from the 100-400 unless you go to the over $5000 dollar lenses.

[codeglue]

longwatcher wrote:
Also I don't expect you would see much difference from the 100-400 unless you go to the over $5000 dollar lenses.




Not clear on what you are saying. 100-400 won't be much different than the 75-300?

Say it ain't so.

[UK_Terry]

codeglue wrote:
longwatcher wrote:
Also I don't expect you would see much difference from the 100-400 unless you go to the over $5000 dollar lenses.



How do I post pictures straight to the forum, like the Champ cars/ sprint boats? Is that not recommended as there is a gallery page?


Not clear on what you are saying. 100-400 won't be much different than the 75-300?

Say it ain't so.



1. this is how to post...if you reply with quote you will see how.

http://www.courtforms.com/personal/Photos/diamond6%20enhanced%20LR.jpg



2. I agree, i cannot see much difference between last years D30 100 - 400L IS and this years 10D 75 - 300.

But maybe that is because of the 10D...have a look at my website and go to Aircraft, you will see photos with the 100 - 400L IS from last year (16/6/2002 RAF Kemble)





.

[rdenney]

codeglue wrote:
longwatcher wrote:
Also I don't expect you would see much difference from the 100-400 unless you go to the over $5000 dollar lenses.




Not clear on what you are saying. 100-400 won't be much different than the 75-300?

Say it ain't so.



Remember that the 10D only uses the sweet spot in the center of the lens. I'm looking into a 75-300 IS myself now that I finally understand that.

Rick "who thinks the IS plus a kilobuck might be worth as much as the wider aperture" Denney

[CyberDyneSystems]

Not clear on what you are saying. 100-400 won't be much different than the 75-300?

Say it ain't so.

:)

No,.. Longwatcher was saying that the 100-400 IS is the cream of the crop and it would take a $5000.00 Prime lens at F/4 to find a lens with any real noticable improvement in visual quality over the 100-400 IS.

In other words,. NO the 75-300 isn't the same as the 100-400mm IS

(not my words,. just my interpretation of Longwatchers post,... but i would tend to agree :) )

Lee,
Do you have the 200mm f/2.8? Thats a tremendous lens! It doesn't have the Zoom fleixibility,. but as you say, 90% of your pics were at the extreme end of your Zoom range (I find that is allways the case with all my telephoto Zoom lenses)

That 200mm prime with a 1.4X converter will give you 280mmm. That may be just the ticket.

If you have that 200mm prime I'd look at the 1.4X and then maybe the 100-400mm IS ,.. and skip the 70-200mm for now.

[Longwatcher]

Sorry for the confusion
Cyberdyne got it right.
100-400IS would only be beat by 400/f2.8 or bigger prime, all of which cost over $5000.

The 400/5.6 is only about $1100 on my cheat sheet, but looks like it would not be noticably better the 100-400L at 400mm and you won't get the flexability of the zoom. But since I don't have the 400/5.6 can't say for sure, just looking at the chart. So few elements, such lousy aperture - does not bode well for the lens. Not to mention no image stabilization.

Just to confirm.
My 100-400L beats my 75-300 IS. Except right at 300/f8 (which seems to be the 75-300's sweet spot at least on my lens) and for weight/size when travelling. So at 300mm (and 75-100mm) I give it to the 75-300, but at 100-250 and obviously 300+ It goes to the 100-400 hands down.

Plus the white lens attracts more attention ;-)

[Jeppe]

It is with some grin to my face i read this thread.

The EF 75-300 delivers good for its price. But it should not even be compared to L-glass. Its more than it than meets the eye. An EF 75-300 IS will not be much improvment over th non-IS version. It just adds the possibility to handhold on longer shutter.speeds. The optic remains the same, or even worse since Canon now added another lensgroup with two elements.

But.. still it delivers for some people. But dont expect to do a sharp 20x30" with it.

Also.. just the center of the glass, yes thats somewhat true, but bad glass is always bad glass, center or no center.