Air show lens ?

[Blue Deuce]

I looked through a couple of other posts regarding which lens to use at air shows and no mention was made of the 500 f/4. Most were recommending the 100-400. Is there a reason why there is no mention of the 500 ? I hand hold it for BIF and the quality is consistently beyond anything I have ever gotten from the zoom. I just want to take one body and lens to the upcoming space expo I am attending.

[malla1962]

I have seen a lot of people at airshows with the 500 ,I use the 300f2.8Lis and am very happy with it,:D

[mxwphoto]

One of the major reasons for 100-400 is for the flexibility and length. IQ wise, it definitely doesn't beat a 500 prime, but it gives you the option to zoom in and out, which can be important when you want to frame formation shots. Of course, that depends on how close you are to the planes. Also, I find hand holding the zoom for 4 hours is tiring enough (you really do need to hand hold if you want all the angles), much less a 500mm. I was in the crowd for Fleet Week, so even with a 100-400, I had to be very careful not to whack anyone in the head with my lens when I try to track the planes. A kind old man had to duck twice because I got a bit caught up chasing the jets... so again, a 500mm in that situation would just make it all the harder.

[Pete-eos]

At a guess, its a case that there are more 100-400 owners than 500... :)

[Sp00ks]

I see a lot of 100-400 users at air shows. I use my 70-200 2.8 and get some nice results. I am doing some pretty extreme crops but the image quality of that lens allows it. You can check out some of my shots in the links below if you like. My opinion but I don't think you will get as many low altitude pass shots with anything over 300mm.

Pope AFB Air Show (http://www.shutterup.net/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=23)

Angier-Fuquay Air Show (http://www.shutterup.net/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=26)

[Blue Deuce]

Thanks for the help. I like the aspect of flexibility that the zoom affords in this instance. My main reservation is it's lack of speed in focusing compared to the prime.

[malla1962]

I don't mis my 100-400 for airshows but what does bother me is it trying to get my 300f2.8 to florida next year for the air and sea show;)

[JC4]

Thanks for the help. I like the aspect of flexibility that the zoom affords in this instance. My main reservation is it's lack of speed in focusing compared to the prime.

No problems with focus speed on the 1-4. Like above, it's all about the flexibility.

That said, I went to 3 air shows this year with my 1-4. And every time, I wish it was longer for 50% of my shots. I'd probably miss IS, but a big-mama would be even better than the 1-4. If you want great shots, of single plans, and you're willing to give up formation shots, the 500 would be a fantastic air show lens. Not sure which I'd take if I owned both.

JohnC

[In2Photos]

Thanks for the help. I like the aspect of flexibility that the zoom affords in this instance. My main reservation is it's lack of speed in focusing compared to the prime.
I rented the 100-400 a few weeks ago for the Pope AFB Air Show. It was worth every penny! IMO the 500 only would seriously limit the shots you could take. Using the Rebel XT I had very few focus issues with the 100-400. Out of 812 shots I deleted about 10 for focus problems!

I doubt you could get some of the formation shots with a 500.

280mm no crop

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/86900371.jpg

And then there is the runway shots which are rather close.

200mm

http://www.pbase.com/madawson/image/86900364.jpg

The rest of my processed shots are here (http://www.pbase.com/madawson/pope_afb__2007).

[rang]

One of the major reasons for 100-400 is for the flexibility and length. IQ wise, it definitely doesn't beat a 500 prime, but it gives you the option to zoom in and out, which can be important when you want to frame formation shots. Of course, that depends on how close you are to the planes. Also, I find hand holding the zoom for 4 hours is tiring enough (you really do need to hand hold if you want all the angles), much less a 500mm. I was in the crowd for Fleet Week, so even with a 100-400, I had to be very careful not to whack anyone in the head with my lens when I try to track the planes. A kind old man had to duck twice because I got a bit caught up chasing the jets... so again, a 500mm in that situation would just make it all the harder.

Hi, are you from SD, CA?
Where abouts were you? There was a group of us shooting just west of the last chalet in the "blanket" area.
-rang

[thebigphil]

...
The rest of my processed shots are here (http://www.pbase.com/madawson/pope_afb__2007).

Wow Mike!

I loved the shots - especially the one of the F-16 going through the shock cloud (2007_10_06__MG_4026_Web.jpg)! :cool:

-Phil

[TMR Design]

I recently shot the USAF Thuderbirds in Atlantic City with a 70-200 and 1.4x TC. 90% of the time I was at the long end of the lens or just shy of it. A 100-400 without TC would have worked very well but I think that anything longer, much less, a longer prime would absolutely make it impossible to shoot. There were times that I had to pull back to have the various stunts and multi-plane shots all in frame, so I know that if I had a 300mm prime (or longer) it just woudn't have cut it.

[Kennymc]

300 f/2.8... This will be my next lens... :lol:

[malla1962]

I recently shot the USAF Thuderbirds in Atlantic City with a 70-200 and 1.4x TC. 90% of the time I was at the long end of the lens or just shy of it. A 100-400 without TC would have worked very well but I think that anything longer, much less, a longer prime would absolutely make it impossible to shoot. There were times that I had to pull back to have the various stunts and multi-plane shots all in frame, so I know that if I had a 300mm prime (or longer) it just woudn't have cut it.That may be the case on a 1.6 crop body but what about a 1.3 or full frame?;)

[TMR Design]

That may be the case on a 1.6 crop body but what about a 1.3 or full frame?;)


Good point! With the 1.3x crop, obviously there is a small difference. With full frame, big difference :D

[Steve Parr]

I've shot air shows with both the 100-400mm and the 400mm f/2.8.

Hands down, the 100-400mm was the better choice due, primarily, to the zoom capability...

[In2Photos]

Wow Mike!

I loved the shots - especially the one of the F-16 going through the shock cloud (2007_10_06__MG_4026_Web.jpg)! :cool:

-Phil
Thanks Phil. I have some more with the shock cloud but I haven't had the chance to process them yet. Check back tomorrow as I might have some more up after tonight.
That may be the case on a 1.6 crop body but what about a 1.3 or full frame?;)
100-400 is effectively a 160-640 on a 1.6x crop.
500 is effectively a 650 on a 1.3x crop.

Yeah, I still think the 100-400 is a much more versatile lens for an air show.

[malla1962]

300 prime and 1.3 crop body.

[TMR Design]

300 prime and 1.3 crop body.

Very nice indeed malla1962. Of course, distance to the subject is a factor as well.

[Kennymc]

malla1962... Excellent shots, tack sharp...
In2Photos... Also excellent...
I still think the 300 prime has the edge and you can always use 1.4x and 2x TC's to alter the focal length... :)

[malla1962]

malla1962... Excellent shots, tack sharp...
In2Photos... Also excellent...
I still think the 300 prime has the edge and you can always use 1.4x and 2x TC's to alter the focal length... :)The 300 prime is all I will use at airshows, I used to use a 20d and 100-400 and don't miss the loss of length.

[In2Photos]

300 prime and 1.3 crop body.
I see we had similar skies. :) The day of th eshow at Pope it was overcast all day until the Thunderbirds started up. The skies seemed to part just for them.
In2Photos... Also excellent...

Thanks!

[malla1962]

2 more with the 300,no its not as versatile as a zoom but I doo find that the 300 will focus and get the shot while the zoom is still thinking about it.

[Blue Deuce]

Thanks every one for their input. Maybe this thread will serve someone else down the line. You have all posted shots to be proud of and I really appreciate from those that know this genre. In this instance I am a little outside mine but am confident I can pull this off.

It looks as if the one lens ( 300 2.8 ) folks are getting the shots I want is with the next lens on my wish list. Probably will go with the 1-4 next weekend.

Malla, I would be jumping for joy if I got one like the one posted above.

Anyone for some tech tips ?

[RPCrowe]

Some airshows have the runways and the flight operations areas relatively close to the spectators and some airshows are waaaaaay off in the distance.

I visited an airshow at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland many years ago. All of the activity was relatively close to the spectators. The air clarity was also very good. This made a good combination for shooting and I was able to get some very good imagery with a full frame 35mm film camera and a 200mm lens.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the air show held at the Marine Corps Air Station (formerly Naval Air Station) Miramar, near San Diego, CA. All of the activities occur at relatively long distances from the spectators.

When I visited that airshow earlier this month, I decided to be lazy and to just carry my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens with a 1.4x TC. This would allow me to forgo the use of a tripod. I regretted that decision and wished that I had brought my 400mm f/5.6L and my tripod.

Even sitting in the very front row of spectators seating, the 280mm maximum focal length was really too short for a lot of shooting.

The lighting direction and air clarity was pretty crappy also. However, the air clarity was heck of a lot better than it is today with the smoky aftermath of Firestorm 2007.

[mxwphoto]

Hi, are you from SD, CA?
Where abouts were you? There was a group of us shooting just west of the last chalet in the "blanket" area.
-rang

Sorry, I went to the SF, CA show. Nice weather, but SF's always kinda hazy...

Here's my contribution.

[rang]

Sorry, I went to the SF, CA show. Nice weather, but SF's always kinda hazy...

Here's my contribution.

Nice shot with the GG Bridge in the background!
This year Miramar did not have the Angels. The Thuderbirds flew instead.
I have to say...they were good. However I think the Angels are better.
Seems like the Angels flew for longer and did more stuff.

-rang

[TMR Design]

Sorry, I went to the SF, CA show. Nice weather, but SF's always kinda hazy...

Here's my contribution.

Ahh the Navy Blue Angels. 2 years ago in Atlantic City both the Tunderbirds and Blue Angels were there. It was pretty spectacular.

[Z3rocool]

Here's a couple I took with the 400 5.6. Great for single jets but no good for formations...

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n293/z3rocool_2006/REHEAT.jpg

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n293/z3rocool_2006/F-117-1_filtered.jpg

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n293/z3rocool_2006/F16_filtered.jpg

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n293/z3rocool_2006/HG_filtered.jpg

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n293/z3rocool_2006/Hawk_filtered.jpg

[jj_photography]

I would the 400 2.8IS would be good. Or if you want to save a bit I would suggest you get a 70-200 and put a 2x converter but only at 5.6 aperture with a 1.6 body.