Deer lens..any thoughts?

[IanD]

As the new owner of a 10D, I have been lurking in the back ground absorbing the information posted here. Great site with a lot of interisting and useful information. I thank everyone.
I already have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di and a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO, both of which I love. What I need next is a "deer Lens" that will not cause me to partake of a steady diet of Kraft Instant Macaronni for the next 6 months.
As folks know, the best time for deer photos is "deer thrity" the latter part of the day. This would seem to dictate a fast lens. However there is a budjet involved. I was thinking of the following- Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM (fast and not that expensive) with a Canon 2X converter. On my 10D that would give me 320 alone and 640 with the 2x. Still a reasonably fast setup.
I was thinking of using a 1.4 or 2X Sigma converter but that is not recommended by Sigma for the 70-300.
Any thoughts on this?
Many thanks in advance.
Ian

[scottbergerphoto]

IanD wrote:
As the new owner of a 10D, I have been lurking in the back ground absorbing the information posted here. Great site with a lot of interisting and useful information. I thank everyone.
I already have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di and a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO, both of which I love. What I need next is a "deer Lens" that will not cause me to partake of a steady diet of Kraft Instant Macaronni for the next 6 months.
As folks know, the best time for deer photos is "deer thrity" the latter part of the day. This would seem to dictate a fast lens. However there is a budjet involved. I was thinking of the following- Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM (fast and not that expensive) with a Canon 2X converter. On my 10D that would give me 320 alone and 640 with the 2x. Still a reasonably fast setup.
I was thinking of using a 1.4 or 2X Sigma converter but that is not recommended by Sigma for the 70-300.
Any thoughts on this?
Many thanks in advance.
Ian



The Canon 2x Extender II will rob you of two f/stops, pushing you to f/5.6. You will also lose autofocus unless you tape the bottom three contacts on the lens. I don't like the 2x. It makes the viewfinder much darker and reduces image sharpness.
Scott

[Phil Hall]

We have a lot of deer on the ranch and I use the canon 70-200 IS and the 100-400-IS. I also use the 1.4x extender with both lenses. I use the 100-400 the most, the IS helps a lot in low light but around dusk the 70-200 is better. It also depends on how close you can get to them.

[IanD]

Scott,
Many thanks for the imput. Scratch the 2x off the list. Guess we are back to square one...:)
Really want to stay with L glass, but the 100-400 is expensive here in Montreal.
Either going to have to save a lot more money or stop eating for a while.
Ian

[IanD]

Phil,
Can get real close to the does, but the big bucks are camera shy :)
Rare to have them out in the open. They usually hang back at the edges of the fields thus creating a very dark background. They 100-400 looks like the ideal lens but do not really need IS as I set up a ground blind and wait them out most of the time.
Would be sweet (read: cheaper) to have the lens in a non IS model.Many thanks,
Ian

[Scottes]

I just got the 70-200 2.8 L with 1.4 extender. I've been told by a few people that this isn't enough, even with the 1.6 crop of the 10D. To give you an idea:

http://www.itsanadventure.com/psma/Boston/Drumlin/Doe1.jpg

This was a controlled situation at Mass Audubon's Drumlin Farm. The doe is in a deer enclosure, and *extremely* used to humans. She was about 50' away. If you think you can get 50' from a deer in the wild, then you'll be all set.

Beyond that, I've looked into this extensively, researching a lot of lenses and pricing them out. Economically, the 170-500mm f/5-6.3 Sigma is $630 at B&H. It's big, slow, and very slow to autofocus. Mediocre quality images. A friend has one, and it's on my list to borrow.

Or the Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6. Slightly better rated than above, otherwise the same comments. It's $520, but you lose 100mm (160mm effective).

Seriously speaking is the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS L at $1400. Great images, very fast autofocus. Canon says it will work with the 1.4x (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lineup/supertelephoto/index.html) but I've got no other knowledge on this. But now you'd been taking some deer. 400 x 1.4 x 1.6 crop = ~900mm - not too shabby.


Scottberger:
Re: 70-200 f/2.8L + 2x... Canon states that the 2x will work on this lens without losing AF. Do you have direct experience with this? I've got this lens with the 1.4x and was hoping to add the 2.x at a later date.


Edit:
Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM (fast and not that expensive)

70-200mm f/28L + 2x is about the same cost as the 100-400 L ($1410 vs $1390 at B&H) - plus you get IS.

[iwatkins]

Ian,

Can I suggest the Sigma 50-500 EX ?

I've been out shooting with mine today (first chance since I got it) and I do believe this is a great wildlife lens.

OK, not a very fast lens but will give you the reach you are looking for without multipliers. For deer I would suggest that really fast isn't necessary anyway (IMHO).

If you are setting up in a hide, then this tripod mounted would be a great place to start.

Some discussion on long lenses from both Canon and Sigma, see this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20970)

Cheers

Ian

[IanD]

Ian,
With a name like that I have to believe you! :)
The 50-500 did enter my mind and I think I will head down to my local shop tomorrow and give one a work out.
You are right about speed. A lot of times I just up the ISO to compensate if needed. I am not doing anything over 8x10 prints. I have "heard" varying opinions about the Sigma's slow auto focus. Guess I have spent too much time at another site :)
The 100-400 Canon and the 50-500 Sigma seem to be the 2 most popular choices. I'll shoot some frames with both if possible and see what developes (no pun intended)
Ian

[scottbergerphoto]

scottes wrote:
I just got the 70-200 2.8 L with 1.4 extender. I've been told by a few people that this isn't enough, even with the 1.6 crop of the 10D. To give you an idea:

http://www.itsanadventure.com/psma/Boston/Drumlin/Doe1.jpg

This was a controlled situation at Mass Audubon's Drumlin Farm. The doe is in a deer enclosure, and *extremely* used to humans. She was about 50' away. If you think you can get 50' from a deer in the wild, then you'll be all set.

Beyond that, I've looked into this extensively, researching a lot of lenses and pricing them out. Economically, the 170-500mm f/5-6.3 Sigma is $630 at B&H. It's big, slow, and very slow to autofocus. Mediocre quality images. A friend has one, and it's on my list to borrow.

Or the Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6. Slightly better rated than above, otherwise the same comments. It's $520, but you lose 100mm (160mm effective).

Seriously speaking is the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS L at $1400. Great images, very fast autofocus. Canon says it will work with the 1.4x (http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lineup/supertelephoto/index.html) but I've got no other knowledge on this. But now you'd been taking some deer. 400 x 1.4 x 1.6 crop = ~900mm - not too shabby.


Scottberger:
Re: 70-200 f/2.8L + 2x... Canon states that the 2x will work on this lens without losing AF. Do you have direct experience with this? I've got this lens with the 1.4x and was hoping to add the 2.x at a later date.


Edit:
Canon 200mm F2.8L II USM (fast and not that expensive)

70-200mm f/28L + 2x is about the same cost as the 100-400 L ($1410 vs $1390 at B&H) - plus you get IS.
I should have been more specific. The 2X extender II will not autofocus with the 100-400 IS L without taping the contacts. It will autofocus with the 70-200 2.8 at the center autofocus point.
Scott

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 2X extender will autofocus on the 10D with any lens that is f/2.8 or larger. The resulting f/5.6 aperture will allow full autofocus finctioning.

The "Center point only" autofocus is reserved for 1D, 1Ds 1V and Eos3 with lenses of max aperture Greater than f/5.6

While you are looking at the zooms consider the 400mm f/5.6 prime as well.

[Scottes]

While you are looking at the zooms consider the 400mm f/5.6 prime as well.

Why is this, CDS? My first thoughts are that this is a big lens, only 400, and for $250 more I can get a zoom with IS. Are the optics that much better? Is it faster for AF?

Checking PhotoZone and PhotoDo they seem pretty closely matched overall.

[netadmin22]

This fall I shot hundreds of deer pictures with my new 10D. For most of the shots my Canon 75-300 IS was ideal. For a few environmental views I used the 18-55 lens that came with the camera.

For my location and my deer the 300mm was more than enough with most shots being at 200mm or so. THe only problem I experienced was early morning when light wasn't sufficient for the 5.6 lens.

I am looking at the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS for next years deers shots.

[Belmondo]

netadmin22 wrote:
This fall I shot hundreds of deer pictures with my new 10D.........For a few environmental views I used the 18-55 lens that came with the camera.

How did you get the 18-55 with the 10D? I honestly though that was a Rebel-only lens that wouldn't even fit the 10D without hacksawing the rear end off.
Whazzup?

[robertwgross]

I will not claim that this is the very best lens in the world, but it is affordable and it works (most of the time) for me. I use the Sigma 170-500mm zoom. I stated "most of the time" since it has already made two visits (in 11 months) to the Sigma repair shop for warranty repair when the AF crapped out.

But I digress. I find the 170-500mm range to be very effective. Sometimes wildlife is far off, and sometimes it is close in. Sometimes it is large (like deer) and other times it is tiny (like deer mice). However, this is quite a bear of a lens to wander around with. That reminds me, I need to get the rear axle lubed on the trailer for that lens.

I've shot wildlife shots without a tripod, but it sure isn't any fun, so I routinely carry a 3.5-pound tripod along with the lens mounted on the tripod when I go out walking in the red-tail hawk park.

Just the other day, in the space of nine miles, I snapped shots of one deer, one coyote, and one bobcat. They were relatively distant, so I ended up getting just a good center crop from each overall image, but with 6.3MP, you do have those pixels to deal with.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

scottes wrote:
While you are looking at the zooms consider the 400mm f/5.6 prime as well.

Why is this, CDS? My first thoughts are that this is a big lens, only 400, and for $250 more I can get a zoom with IS. Are the optics that much better? Is it faster for AF?

Checking PhotoZone and PhotoDo they seem pretty closely matched overall.

I'm not saying that it is that much better.. in fact I don't know, I've not used a 100-400mm IS personally..

I'm just suggesting that the primes not be ignored.

I shoot wildlife and I have just found that primes are amazing! I used to use a zoom... a good one,. but once I got my hands on a 500mm prime,. that was all it for me. The zoom is for sale.

On the other hand I have read that the 100-400mm is just as sharp, if not sharper than the 400mm f/5.6 at stopped down apertures.. but I find this hard to imagine :)

The 400mm f/4.5 is VERY fast auto focus,. faster than the 300mm f/4 IS and sharper images too. Again I can't compare it to the 100-400mm

Although I like many of the Sigma lenses,. I am not a huge fan of any of the zooms listed above. (135-400mm & 170-500mm) Therefore take anything I say with a grain of salt.. as others seem satisfied. Personally if a zoom was a requirement,. I would restrict my choices to the 100-400mm IS, 50-500mm Sigma EX or even the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma EX.

[IanD]

In a perfect world, the deer would be standing about 20-30 ft away. Then I could get away with a 70-200 2.8L and take pictures of them at midnight. Alas this will not happen unless someone ties em up (highly illegal)
or they get really stupid real fast. (in which case they will end up as someones supper real fast).
The deer I shoot (camera) are wild, big and very smart.
(hence the bigness)
For the heck of it this afternoon I went out to the local football field ith my Lab retriever (small deer size) and walk out to varing distances and looked at her using the 70-300. The result? The dog realizes now that her master is nuts. I think she even blushed. But I know now that I will need something longer than 300 (with 1.6 10D crop) for my shooting.
Would love to make it a prime with a 2x but the 300L is out of my range.
Looking like the 200 2.8L (non-IS) is leading the list. I'm going to visit the local tomorrow and check out a few lens. Going to check my lottery tickets first cause you never know.
Many thanks for all the opinions.
Ian

[Scottes]

IanD wrote:
For the heck of it this afternoon I went out to the local football field ith my Lab retriever (small deer size) and walk out to varing distances and looked at her using the 70-300. The result?

Ian, I'd love to see the results of that test if at all possible.

[netadmin22]

My mistake....... Rebel is correct. Mixed up the cameras.

[IanD]

Scotts,
None of the hots of my Lab/deer were keepers so I flushed them. Sorry. I'll get back out during the holidays and post a couple.
Ian

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ian,.. Does it need to be such a fat lens,.

I guess it does for the dusk shots.

A Canon 300 f/2.8 goes for like $4,000.00... the 400 f/5.6 is about $1,000.00

Are you hoping to get to 600mm? (ie 300mm f/2.8 X2 teleconverter = 600mm @f/5.6)

Or is it the late evenings shooting that requires the fast f/2.8

Anyway,. if f/2.8 is a pre-requisite, and cost is a factor,..

then look at the following Sigma lenses.

300mm f/2.8 EX Prime
120-300mm f/2.8 EX zoom

Both priced about $2,000.00 (or less) and both offer that f/2.8 at 300mm (Again,. the reviews for the zoom claim it is as good as the prime if not better)

But to get that f/2.8 we have doubled the price Vs. the 400mm f/5.6.

On the other hand,. both can be used with Sigma's excellent and inexpensive 2X (and 1.4X) t-cons giving yu the option of 300mm at the fast f/2.8 or 600mm at f/5.6 with the loss of some image quality, and 420mm f/4 with the 1.4X retaining most of the original lenses image quality.

[IanD]

CDS,
I guess I'm trying to kill 2 birds with one stone. (Have bird/stone license) :)
I figure that a 600mm would be the right length for 95% of the shots I will be taking.
About 20% will be in the early morning/late evening where a fast lens will help. The rest of the time, there will be enough light for reasonable exposures. 99% of my shooting is done on a tripod so IS is not really needed.
Because of the fact I use a ground blind a lot, the deer can get in rather close, hence the reasoning behind the 200mm 2.8L. With the 2x on, I would have to bump up the ISO but from what I have seen on some of the prints I've put through, the 10D handles 800 ISO very well.
With the 1.6 crop factor, I'd have a really fast 320 and toss in the 2x, a reasonable 640 5.6.
The 200 would be a great lens when I'm taking pictures of my mountain bike team. Hence the 2 birds deal.
My only concern is wether or not the 2x will darken the viewfinder too much.
I could not make it to the local shop today so tomorrow morning i'm heading down and taking a few shots with the lens to see how it works.
I am really happy with the Sigma lens I have now, but the models mentioned are expensive as hell up here in Canada. Canons are not given away either...lol
I must admit that your Sigma 50-500 is very tempting but I really want the fast 2.8
Many thanks for the input. I'll let you know the results of the "test"
Ian

[Jim_T]

I like my 100-400L with the 10D.. I really enjoy photographing wildlife.

True the lens isn't that fast, but the camera gives decent results at ISO 800.

You never know how close your subject is going to be. The ability to zoom from 100-400 without having to add a TC is a bonus.

The only time I think speed would be an issue is if you're shooting a running deer in low light. Then 2.8 would be a necessity. If you plan to snap them browsing on grass or standing around, then a slower lens will probably do.

Below is a fairly low light shot I took with my 100-400L at ISO 800.. It was overcast and the deer was in the shade of some bush. The image has been cropped and shrunk a bit so as not to take up too much bandwidth for dialup users. 330mm 1/250 @ f/8 ISO 800

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/deer.jpg

[robertwgross]

What kind of deer is that? I'm just curious.

---Bob Gross---

[IanD]

JimT,
I have a picture of that deer too! :)
Excellent picture.
The 100-400 is around $2300 CDN, kind of high. I can get the 200 + 2x for $1500 CDN. The extra $800 cna buy a lot of other camera goodies:)
Many thanks for the picture.
Ian

[IanD]

That be a doe whitetail if I'm not mistaken.
Ian

[RichardtheSane]

I notice you keep talking aobut the 2x convertor. It would be a shame to put that convertor behind a great piece of glass like the 200mm F2.8. The images would be noticably softer for one. I can't vouch for it personally bu is has been noted you would get better image quality (and a stop more light) with a 1.4x convertor and cropping the image if need be. You would save on the ISO speed then.
:)

[Jim_T]

IanD wrote:
That be a doe whitetail if I'm not mistaken.
Ian

Yes.. It's a young white tail doe..

[billfranklin]

Have you considered the Sigma 100-300 f4 lens? I use this lens on a D60 and it is a very sharp lens. It also does well with the 1.4 externer, giving you the equivalent of 672. Here is a link to some pictures I have done with the 100 - 300. I have not done any deer, but these birds might give you some idea of what the lens can do. http://www.picturecd.com/system/login.cgi?username=bfphoto&album=40238
Bill F

[Wildman]

I'd suggest a bag of cracked corn. Most deer would sell their souls for a cup of it. I regularly take pix with my Canon Pro90 of these guys in my driveway once they're used to being fed. Lots cheaper than most of these lenses you guys are talking about

[Belmondo]

Good lenses take a lot of doe.

Sometimes, though, you also need plenty of bucks.

(It seems I should be able to work 'fawn' into this, too, but it's late and I'm tired.)

I really enjoyed the pictures posted in this thread---thanks for sharing them. Merry Christmas everyone.

Tom

[IanD]

Tom,
With a lot of doe or a bunch of bucks you can fawn over L glass :)
(very early in the morning...no coffee yet)
Ian

[Belmondo]

Thanks, Ian!

That's just what I was looking for! I'll bet you're frightening when you finally get that coffee in you.

Tom :)

[IanD]

Wildman,
I would love to be able to use corn and draw the deer in close. Unfortunately up here that is called baiting out of season and would then limit me to pictures taken of a small/barred room with a large hairy cell mate by the name of Bubba.
I have to rely on my natural cunning to get close.

Bill,
Great hummingbird shots The lens is truly great.
I am off to the local shop this morning to try out a couple of lens.
70-200 2.8L (trade in my 700-300 APO)
1.4 extender
Sigma 50-500
Sigma 100-300 F4
Hope to come home with a Christmas present to myself....:)
Ian

[IanD]

Tom,
Wife keeps a bag over my head before and after coffee.
Keeps my mouth taped as well. Only allowed to type...lol
Ian

[sjprg]

Here is a handheld with the Sigma 50-500 at about 150 ft. Other 50-500 images are previous and next. The hawk is about 50 ft up in the tree.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23755020

[sjprg]

You can "fawn" over the images.

[MrKickalot]

sjprg wrote:

Here is a handheld with the Sigma 50-500 at about 150 ft. Other 50-500 images are previous and next. The hawk is about 50 ft up in the tree.

http://www.pbase.com/image/23755020



Were all the images in the Ed Levine Park gallery taken with the 50-500?

[IanD]

Went to my local photo shop this morning and tried out the following combos
Sigma 100-300 f4 EX
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX
Sigma 1.4 TC
The 70-200 is real fast, even with the 1.4 stuck behind it. What floored me was the 100-300 f4. This lens is sharp and very fast focusing. Add the 1.4 and it is still very sharp and fast. There is a fresh delivery coming in tomorrow morning and I am going back down and picking out one. I believe I will get the 100-300 for now and then replace my 70-300 APO with the 70-200 2.8 later on. The 100-300 is a wee bit of a beast size wise and therefore I will be looking into aquiring a small donkey or other such pack animal. If anyone has such a beastie for sale or rent, please contact me. :)
Ian

[Belmondo]

IanD wrote:.......therefore I will be looking into aquiring a small donkey or other such pack animal.

Those of us who can't afford such luxuries will just have to be content with making asses of ourselves. :)

Tom

[IanD]

Tom,
I have tried to come up with a real smart reply to your ass.......nope, the ol brain is not working...must be because I'm laughing so hard!
:)
Ian

[CyberDyneSystems]

ROFL,

I have allways been content with making an ass of myself.
In fact,. I went Pro some years back.. (P.A.I.N.Ass. Professional Asses International Network Assocoiation)...so I am afraid I can not compete with any of you....


.../I wouldn't want you to loose your amateur standing! :D

[IanD]

Not going to spell that one out for you. However I am accepting applications for charter membership. One time fee only of any old L glass (preferable in a working lens) that you have lying around.
Now where did I leave that donkey????
P.S.
Any thoughts on my lens selection or are we all out in the barnyard looking for beasties of burden?
Ian

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have admired the 100-300 f/4 EX for some time. I think it is a superb lens,. it is a newer design than the excellent 70-200 f/2.8 EX and thus seems to be an even better design. I have read nothing but rave reviews. That lens and Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 EX are in a class by themselves. No one else makes a really top notch 300mm zoom.

[IanD]

CDS,
I'm packing up my as..donkey in the morning and heading downtown to pick it up. I will definately pick up the 70-200 f2.8 in the future but feel the 100-300 to be what I need now.
I'll post some shots during the holidays.
To everyone who has responed to my questions, many thanks. Your input has been appreciated.
To all, my you have a happy and safe Holiday Season
Merry Christmas!
Ian

[Belmondo]

You'd better get your ass down to the camera store. You can't handle that thing by yourself.

Have a happy.

Tom

[billfranklin]

Ian,
Glad you liked the hummers, but if you did not get to page 3 and see the sea gulls, you missed the best shots. I know you are going to enjoy this lens. It is as good as any L glass I have. It is big and heavy, but it can be hand held. All the gulls were shot while hand holding the camera. The hummers were shot while on a tripod in less than ideal light, so shutter speed was a little slow. Good shooting and happy Holidays.

Bill F.

[IanD]

Folks,
Christmas will be delayed while I borrow the ass to help me carry home my new lens, unless of course Tom volenteers his ass to help. In which case if I decide to keep it, his ass is mine.
I will however agree to lend his ass back to him when ever he needs it. But remember Tom, if it bites me, your ass is grass and I'm a lawnmower.
Merry Merry
Ian :)

[IanD]

Bill,
I just went back and looked at all the shots with the 100-300. Excellent. The front on shots of teh gulls are really nice. I cannot wait to use this lens on snow geese in the spring. There is a spot not far from Montreal where they pile in on their way back up North.
In the mean time, I'll have to trudge through waist high snow in search of deer. Either that or put out more wild bird seed and relax in the family room with the window open and see what flies by. I am really glad that you took the time to offer those shots. Much appreciated.
Merry Christmas
Ian

[Belmondo]

Ian:

First point.....My ass is always available, especially to friends.

Second point.....If my ass is grass, I guess that answers the age-old question: "Is there plant life on Uranus?"

I think we've got this all worked out now. I'll be thinking of you tomorrow......

Have a happy.

Tom

[IanD]

ROFL
Tom,
You win.........I bow to the master of quickies. Can hardly see the monitor for tears.
Off to make a cup of tea and watch American Chopper.
A good night to all.
Ian

[sjprg]

All Ed Levine Park shots were with the Sigma 50-500mm

[Belmondo]

Paul:
I'm trying to picture in my mind where Ed Levine Park is. The pictures look like the hills east of the Evergreen area, but that's only a guess. Enjoyed the pictures.

Tom

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I have admired the 100-300 f/4 EX for some time. I think it is a superb lens,. it is a newer design than the excellent 70-200 f/2.8 EX and thus seems to be an even better design. I have read nothing but rave reviews. That lens and Sigma's 120-300mm f/2.8 EX are in a class by themselves. No one else makes a really top notch 300mm zoom.

You would not believe the 120-300 F2.8EX! What's really wild is stick a 2x TC and you have out to 600mm F5.6 before the 1.6 crop then 960mm w/ it, all said and done at F5.6!!! Only one problem, it weighs in at 5.75 lbs and takes a 105mm filter which aren't cheap! Have a look at topic #17977 if you want to see what it can do. The moon pic was taken Large, Fine JPEG, and the Tenby pic was a RAW pic turned JPEG. I think you can get the idea. It rocks!! I have nothing but good stuff to say about it!

[robertwgross]

belmondo wrote:
Paul:
I'm trying to picture in my mind where Ed Levine Park is. The pictures look like the hills east of the Evergreen area, but that's only a guess. Enjoyed the pictures.


Yes, it is Ed Levin Park, and it is in the hills east of San Jose and Milpitas.

---Bob Gross---

[Belmondo]

Many years ago, before all the traffic, we used to have Porsche Club rallys in that area. I had more than a couple 'white knuckle' trips up and down Mt. Hamilton Road.

But I was young and foolish them. I'm no longer young.

Thanks, Bob.

[robertwgross]

The deer were out in the rain today, from Ed Levin to Mount Hamilton to Henry Coe. They were running in front of the car several times. I kept trying to get my camera up fast enough, but they are too quick for that. Wild pigs were out in the rain also. I couldn't get a shot at all. Worse yet, the trailer for the wildlife lens got bogged down in the mud. They had to bring up the heavy duty wrecker to snatch it out. Terrible thing.

---Bob Gross---

[Belmondo]

Maybe you need my beast of burden (see exchange with IanD earlier in this thread.)

Merry Christmas, Bob. Try to stay dry.

Tom

[robertwgross]

belmondo wrote:
Try to stay dry.


The first priority was to keep my camera and lens dry. So I had to keep it in the holster with a plastic bag over it. Then when the wild pigs were spotted, it took me some extra seconds to whip it out, and the damned pigs were gone by then. I could have used them for my wildlife photo collection. Not only that, but I hear they are good eatin'.

---Bob Gross---

[IanD]

Well the delivery guy delivered it to the store a 10am this morning. I think he had a hernia carrying it into the store.
A brand spanking new Sigms 100-300 f4 + 1.4 TC is now sitting on my desk. Only problem is that it is foggy and rainy as all get out here. Not the best conditions in which to try out a new lens. Oh well, can always take pictures out the back door of something!
To all who offerd advice on this selection, many thanks. To all a Merry Christams. I'll try and get some shooting in tomorrow and post a couple of pictures.
Ian

[Belmondo]

Okay, you've gotten your lens. Can I have my *ss back? I need him for the nativity scen I'm setting up in the yard. Don't rush, though; I'm having a hard time finding a virgin.

Merry Christmas, Ian. Enjoy that lens.

Tom

[IanD]

Christmas was cancelled here in Montreal cause we could not find 3 wise men and a virgin. :)
*ss in in transit. Had second thoughts. Would prefer to have a small lackey. *ss would fumble lens changes and would probably smell a little if it got wet.
A small (4'10") lackey would make an ideal mobile mono pod. Was thinking of using the grandson but he is only 2 months old and has as yet not mastered the art of standing still let alone standing on his hind legs. Plus he would probably leak body fluids all over the new lens.
If anyone has a lackey they are not using, please forward to moi.
Ian
:)

[CyberDyneSystems]

robertwgross wrote:
belmondo wrote:
Try to stay dry.


....So I had to keep it in the holster with a plastic bag over it.....

....it took me some extra seconds to whip it out, and the damned pigs were gone by then.....

---Bob Gross---


For some reason I just can't seem to get Ned Beaty out of my head now???

[sjprg]

belmondo wrote:
Paul:
I'm trying to picture in my mind where Ed Levine Park is. The pictures look like the hills east of the Evergreen area, but that's only a guess. Enjoyed the pictures.

Tom

The park is off Calavaras Road, behind the golf course, just east of Milpitas, CA.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Merry X-mas IanD :)

[Belmondo]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
For some reason I just can't seem to get Ned Beaty out of my head now???


Oh, that's gotta' hurt.
It's hard to hear 'Dueling Banjos' and not think of poor old Ned.

[Belmondo]

sjprg wrote:
The park is off Calavaras Road, behind the golf course, just east of Milpitas, CA.


Okay, now I know 'xactly. Thanks, Paul.

[IanD]

Merry Christmas CDS
Ian

[Canuck]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
robertwgross wrote:
belmondo wrote:
Try to stay dry.


....So I had to keep it in the holster with a plastic bag over it.....

....it took me some extra seconds to whip it out, and the damned pigs were gone by then.....

---Bob Gross---


For some reason I just can't seem to get Ned Beaty out of my head now???


I can't get Kylie Minogue's bum "outta my head"! Even at 34, she's still incredible! Hey she's only 9 yrs my senior. It's all good!

[Phil Hall]

I use both the 70-200 IS and 100-400 IS with or without a 1.4x or 2x extender. I usually do not shoot with a tripod, the camera is handheld from inside a truck. Low light in the evening sometimes presents problems with long shadows from mountains and oak trees. Here are some examples.

http://www.pbase.com/image/24477284

[IanD]

Phil,
Nice shots. The big buck (3 rd pic I believe) looks to be a monster. Any weight guess on him?
Ian

[Phil Hall]

The big buck is probably between 500 and 700 lbs..just comparing him to cow size, he usually moves slowly to get another deer or tree between you and he..then he takes off in a straight line so that you can't see him. This time of year they go up into the hills ut this year there are not many acorns, so he has been dining in the alfalfa fields. The white doe had twins this year, the white one being a buck. The white is caused by a failure to grow an outside coat, so just the undercoat is there. She is not an albino and has been around for about 4 years. There are between 300 and 500 in the herd.

[IanD]

Phil,
That is some kind of buck. Would love to pick up his sheds in the winter.
We finally have a half a** day here and am heading out this afternoon to a deer yard and seeing what the Sigma 100-300 can capture.
Many thanks for the info.
Ian

[Belmondo]

Ian.
Don't let BoB get cold (BoB= Beast of Burden).

Good luck with the new lens.

Tomn

[IanD]

http://image.pbase.com/u36/giant001/medium/24549216.deer.jpg
Tom,
Here is the result of todays deer safari. Gitzo cramped up in his only rear leg just a few feet from the truck. Had to carry him and the equipment all afternoon. Real deer laughing too hard to be able to pose. This one how ever stayed fairly still.
Ian