Airshow Photography

[crazyfoo88]

For next year, I will be doing some of the airshow photography around ontario/southern states. I am wondering what is the best lens for the money, as it will be on my digital rebel.

Also, please realize that I am 16, and I can not remortgage my house to get some really big lens :lol: I just want to know what setup is best for the DRebel for aviaton photography!

Donations would be greatly accepted if you are in the festive spirit ;)

Thanks!

Andrew C :)

[BoySpot]

While the 100-400 would probably be the one to have, I guess from your message that it is going to be a bit over the top. One of the zooms to 300mm will be a good compromise. Recent reviews in a UK magazine (I can't remember which one) were harsh about the 75-300mm Canon lenses but quite favorable about the 100-300 Canon zoom. I have a far older version of this lens but it still seems to do the trick for me until I can summon the funds for the 100-400.

Hope this is of help. Enjoy the shows when the weather gets nice again.

[nosquare2003]

What lenses do you have now?

Anyway, I don't know the best lens for you. I hope others can help.

(Urr...IMHO, 2 bodies are useful for airshow...)

[crazyfoo88]

While the 100-400 would probably be the one to have, I guess from your message that it is going to be a bit over the top. One of the zooms to 300mm will be a good compromise. Recent reviews in a UK magazine (I can't remember which one) were harsh about the 75-300mm Canon lenses but quite favorable about the 100-300 Canon zoom. I have a far older version of this lens but it still seems to do the trick for me until I can summon the funds for the 100-400.

Hope this is of help. Enjoy the shows when the weather gets nice again.

Are you talking about this lens? 75-300 4-5.6 III USM?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/crazyfoo88/IMG_0632.jpg

If so, I already have it. I notice it isnt too sharp however.

Id love the 100-400L IS, but its too expensive brand new for me. I could probably get the money for a used one, so if anyone has one laying around, I would be really interested in it :D

[CyberDyneSystems]

There is not much between the 70ish-300mm lenses and the 100-400mm unfortunatelyu...

About the only thin thats in between would be the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 with a 1.4X T-con. (140-420mm f/5.6)

Otherwise I'd say your stuck with the 75-300mm.

[mjordan]

The first airshow I did with my D30 I had the 70-200 4.0L lens. It did a great job for most of the passes and stunts. I also made sure I got there earily so I could find a spot in the middle of the viewing area so I was right where most fly bys were centered on. And I had the sun behind me as much as possible.

But I got some excellent shots with the 70-200 4.0L. The next airshow I had both the 70-200 2.8L IS and the 100-400 4.5/5.6L lenses and I left the 100-400 on all the time, even though there were times when the 70-200 would have been a better lens for the distance I was shooting.

Mike

[Xtreme02]

I just shot an air show recently with my Drebel and 100-400mm lens and it work out well. I seen a few people with the 70-200mm lens. for the most part i was shooting at the 400mm range. I also seen a few people with the 300mm F4 and that would also be good. I also was switching between my 17-40mm lens when the jets flew right over head. Like sated in previous post. get there early to get a good seat as i'm sure more people will start to crowd and its hard to pan with out hitting other peoples heads. Good luck with the lens choice.

[johneo]

I bought my 100-400 specifically for the RI Airshow this past June. Expensive and may be hard to do at 16 but worth the effort to work and save if you are serious about your photography.

I'm sure there are other good lenses out there (as others have mentioned) and they may save you some money but not using those, I couldn't tell you anything about them.

Most of the photos, in the link (all sky shots, I think??) are with the 100-400 L

My Airshow Pics (http://www.riview.com/as04/airshow04.htm)

[Jon]

Generally if you're trying to zero in on an individual aircraft you're going to need 300+mm, even with the cra^hop factor. For formations, and sky patterns (smoke trails, etc.) it can go as wide as 35-50 mm.If you're willing to give up on tight shots on the aircraft, a 75-300 will be adequate, but you'll be limited in how far you can enlarge it. I'd say that IS is really useful here, too.

[mjordan]

Jon, actually, the IS doesn't work very well for airshows. I thought the same thing you did until I read the advice of another photographer that shoots a lot of airshows that said to turn IS off. I tried this with my last airshow this summer and he was right. With all the twisting and turning you do as you follow the planes and jets, it can confuse the IS and cause blur. For the more static displays and slow aircraft, gliders and parachutests it's probably ok. But I just left mine off the whole show.

Mike

[Jon]

Depends on who and where you're shooting. Crossovers, vertical climbs, or the like, low-speed fly-bys, quite a number of maneuvers are linear and can be anticipated, so IS in panning mode will help. It doesn't help for everything (does anything?), but it's certainly not something to shun.

[gramps]

I bought my 100-400 specifically for the RI Airshow this past June. Expensive and may be hard to do at 16 but worth the effort to work and save if you are serious about your photography.

I'm sure there are other good lenses out there (as others have mentioned) and they may save you some money but not using those, I couldn't tell you anything about them.

Most of the photos, in the link (all sky shots, I think??) are with the 100-400 L

My Airshow Pics (http://www.riview.com/as04/airshow04.htm)

those are some GREAT shots...........would you mind sharing what your settings were (shutter etc.)?

THANKS

[johneo]

I bought my 100-400 specifically for the RI Airshow this past June. Expensive and may be hard to do at 16 but worth the effort to work and save if you are serious about your photography.

I'm sure there are other good lenses out there (as others have mentioned) and they may save you some money but not using those, I couldn't tell you anything about them.

Most of the photos, in the link (all sky shots, I think??) are with the 100-400 L

My Airshow Pics (http://www.riview.com/as04/airshow04.htm)


those are some GREAT shots...........would you mind sharing what your settings were (shutter etc.)?

THANKS


Hi Gramps!

Not sure but I know I was shooting in shutter priority and probably 1/180th - 1/250th. I also had IS mode 2 on the entire day, figuring I'd be spending the day panning back and forth. It was the 1st real test for the lens and it made me one happy Canon camper! :D

[phili1]

I own the Cano 70 to 200 F4 L and it is a great lens. I also own the 100-400 L and like wise is a great lens but twice the price.

So thses are your alternatives.

Canon 70-200F4 L $600+
Sigma 80-400 OS ( new Image stablized) $890.00
Sigma 50 to 500 lens ( One of the sharpest on the market. $800+
Sigma 135-400 around $500+ but has great reviews
Tamron 200-500 around $800+

I tried the Tamron and was not happy with it but you may be.
I own the Canon and my friend owns the Ssigma 80-400 and both are good.

Another friend has the Sigma 50 to 500 and the pictures are awsome but it is heavy.

For air photos I think the Canon 70-200 and Sigma 135-400 are the lightest.

You can go to Fred Miranda and read reviews

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=181&sort=7&thecat=29

[crazyfoo88]

I own the Cano 70 to 200 F4 L and it is a great lens. I also own the 100-400 L and like wise is a great lens but twice the price.

So thses are your alternatives.

Canon 70-200F4 L $600+
Sigma 80-400 OS ( new Image stablized) $890.00
Sigma 50 to 500 lens ( One of the sharpest on the market. $800+
Sigma 135-400 around $500+ but has great reviews
Tamron 200-500 around $800+

I tried the Tamron and was not happy with it but you may be.
I own the Canon and my friend owns the Ssigma 80-400 and both are good.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=38564309 41&rd=1

Another friend has the Sigma 50 to 500 and the pictures are awsome but it is heavy.

For air photos I think the Canon 70-200 and Sigma 135-400 are the lightest.

You can go to Fred Miranda and read reviews

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=181&sort=7&thecat=29

So if I can get the 70-200L for say, 600 CAD (about 450 USD) it would be definately worth it? I already have the 75-300, but I want better quality glass.

[phili1]

At B&H Camera it is $579.99

[NickC]

So if I can get the 70-200L for say, 600 CAD (about 450 USD) it would be definately worth it? I already have the 75-300, but I want better quality glass.

If your primary purpose is air shows for your long lens, I think in the very short term you'll find that a maximum of 200mm will be too short to get spectacular shots. I've had my 100-400L since June 2001 on a D30 and now a 10D, and I go to 4 to 7 air shows a year. There is no way in my experience that you can get keeper air show shots with anything less than 300-400mm even on a 1.6 crop factor DSLR. Especially when you factor in the unknown and variable distance between you and the flight line from show to show.

Of course, I also understand that not everyone can afford the 100-400. If all you can get now is the 70-200 you can add a TC later, or trade up. Or if you plan to be made of money like some people here, simply add the lens to your collection later. :D

[adamsti]

100-400 hands down, I used it all last year. I also used the 70-200 but most of the time this is for taxi shots and walking around the pits at Reno.
Some pics are here:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=408679

[spearce6]

Andrew,

I've shot s few airshows around Berlin and in my experience, 200mm is a bit short for such work - even with the 1.6x of your digital rebel.

I understand your budget limited, but what about hiring a lens for the weekend or seeing if you can borrow one?

Try to get something that goes to at least 300mm - I think you'll be closer to filling the frame in more shots then. Obviously the 100-400 is a great choice, but it should be for the price.

Other general advice is to use a monopod or a closed tripod if you have one - you need faster shutter speeds with long lenses and some support will help you a great deal in getting some sharp shots. And/or up your ISO - I find up to 400 shows an acceptable level of noise.

Have fun,

Steve

[adamsti]

Forget the monopod, except for taxi shots. I find it useless trying to use a monopod and follow a plane. I only use a monopod on taxi shots, and ground run ups when I want full prop blur. Tripods stay home to, they just get in the way at shows and are imptractical to carry around.

As for shutter speeds, the faster the better for jets. For prop planes though 1/250 would be the highest I would go. 1/320 is ok, 1/500 just about stops the prop, something you definitely don't want to do. It makes the plane look like it is falling out of the sky. For taxi shots I never go higher than 1/125, engine run ups with full prop blur as low as 1/15.

As for ISO, 100 all the time, unless it's pitch black from storm clouds.

[NightEye]

I've shot s few airshows around Berlin and in my experience, 200mm is a bit short for such work - even with the 1.6x of your digital rebel.

For airshow photography, the crop factor shouldn't matter. Remeber that your magnification is ALWAYS THE SAME. 200mm is always 200mm - the 1.6x of your DRebel will NOT get you closer to the aircraft you're shooting - all it does it cut down your angle of view so that you have less space to frame the aircraft than you would on a 35mm camera. It may seem like its being magnified - but you're just seeing less than you would on a 35mm.

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but also don't want have someone make a huge purchase with this popular misconception.

Correct me if im wrong.

[phili1]

Andrew, Look into the sigma 135-400 is cheap and it got good reviews for sharpness. When you can you can upgrade to the CAnon L.

[Cadwell]

I've shot s few airshows around Berlin and in my experience, 200mm is a bit short for such work - even with the 1.6x of your digital rebel.

For airshow photography, the crop factor shouldn't matter. Remeber that your magnification is ALWAYS THE SAME. 200mm is always 200mm - the 1.6x of your DRebel will NOT get you closer to the aircraft you're shooting - all it does it cut down your angle of view so that you have less space to frame the aircraft than you would on a 35mm camera. It may seem like its being magnified - but you're just seeing less than you would on a 35mm.

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but also don't want have someone make a huge purchase with this popular misconception.

Correct me if im wrong.

:shock: X-Factor alert! Warning, warning! Women and children first! :shock: :P

[NickC]

For airshow photography, the crop factor shouldn't matter. Remeber that your magnification is ALWAYS THE SAME. 200mm is always 200mm - the 1.6x of your DRebel will NOT get you closer to the aircraft you're shooting - all it does it cut down your angle of view so that you have less space to frame the aircraft than you would on a 35mm camera. It may seem like its being magnified - but you're just seeing less than you would on a 35mm.

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but also don't want have someone make a huge purchase with this popular misconception.

Correct me if im wrong.

When a biplane is up high doing a hammerhead and I'm zoomed to 400mm (on my 10D/D30), the plane takes up maybe 5 to 10% of the frame (depending on how far up he is and how far the flight line is of course). That's not getting very close.

So, as most of us have already said, 200mm is generally too short for air shows -- at least if you want to be able to adequately shoot the wide range of maneuvers. 200mm will get you a lot of great shots, but not all of them, at an air show.

X-factor or not. :D

[mjordan]

400mm will get you a lot of great shots... but not all of them. :wink:


I have done real well with my 70-200 4.0L and 70-200 2.8L IS. Yes, I got a lot of other shots with the 100-400 that were better because I could zoom in to 400mm but there were still a lot of times I was zoomed out to about 200mm because I needed the space or the planes were too close.

If money is an issue, I would say that the 70-200 4.0L will do about 75% of the job and get outstanding pictures... with some qualifacations. One being you are going to need decent light to keep the shutter speed up there with the 4.0. Two, if the airshow is the type where you can get up near the runway where the planes do most of the runs and stunts. If it's like they had in Seattle out over Puget Sound or along the beaches where they do the show out over the ocean, then the 100-400 would be better and even that might be a bit short for many of the shots. I have been lucky that the airshows they have here in the Portland area they allow you to get on the airfield and not far from the runway itself. Then they do their flybys and stunts along the runway in front of the crowds. This works very well for a 70-200.

This was taken with a D30 and 70-200 4.0L lens:

http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/airshow/f14_0649.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/airshow/f18_0883.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/airshow/f14_0673.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/airshow/tb021.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/wing0792w.jpg

These were taken with a 10D and 100-400 lens:

http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/blue2704.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/blue2665.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/blue2627.jpg
http://www.sitnprettyphoto.com/display/blue2593.jpg

I wish I had had the 10D for the first airshow as the extra pixels would have been nice.

Both of these shows were at the same airport. I know not everyone is lucky enough to be able to get a spot this close.

Mike

[Brian B]

Hi Andrew,

The pictures I have posted in the Airshow section here (https://home.comcast.net/~breault/images//) were taken back in 2000 with a D30 and a Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&mode lid=7339). This is Canon's least expensive zoom in this range and was a good place to start for me. I have since replaced this lens with a 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Hope this helps.
Brian

[NickC]

Nice shots folks!

Here are a few of mine.

With D30:
http://www.deaddogparty.com/airshows/lemoore/lem_0219.JPG (biplane in his own smoke)
http://www.deaddogparty.com/airshows/lemoore/lem_0442.JPG (Blue Angels)
http://www.deaddogparty.com/airshows/moffett2001/moff0419.JPG (F/A-18 with transonic cloud)
http://www.deaddogparty.com/airshows/moffett2002/moff0221.JPG (Warthog & Mustang)

With 10D:
http://www.deaddogparty.com/airshows/moffett2004/moffett2004-01.jpg (Thunderbirds)
http://www.deaddogparty.com/airshows/salinas2004/salinas2004-02.jpg (P-38)

All shot with 100-400 with most lengths over 300mm (sorry, EXIFs got stripped out).

[Theo]

Hi Andrew!

For the Money, the 70-200mm f4.0L is Awesome!! Tack Sharp, Superb Color, Awesome Contrast and Fast AF!! New for $550(after $25 Rebate)! Add the 1.4 TCII and you will have a 280mm f5.6 setup that is very versitle!

However, If you can scrap up the funds, it will be hard to beat the Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS for Airshow Work! I had my Drebel + 100-400L for a week and went and shot for 6hrs-600 pics at the Sertoma Air Festival and Captured These Portfolios:

http://community.webshots.com/album/209734710gAUxtn

http://community.webshots.com/album/210587562CuOtts

Awesome Combination for the Show! Used the IS II for Panning and Handheld All these shots!

Good Luck with Your Decision!
Happy Holidays!

Ted

[donhdefl]

Re: photo enlargement. I have used an awesome product called Imagener. You can find this product at http://www.imagener.com. Hope this helps. -dh


Generally if you're trying to zero in on an individual aircraft you're going to need 300+mm, even with the cra^hop factor. For formations, and sky patterns (smoke trails, etc.) it can go as wide as 35-50 mm.If you're willing to give up on tight shots on the aircraft, a 75-300 will be adequate, but you'll be limited in how far you can enlarge it. I'd say that IS is really useful here, too.

[PhotosGuy]

I already have the 75-300, but I want better quality glass.
I can understand "wanting" one, but are you really "needing" one? If you're on a "student budget", Maybe you just need a Canon extender for it?
See my link below. The "in the air" shots were taken with a cheap 30 year old lens & tele-extender. Some lack of contrast can be made up for in Photo$hop. No, they won't look like Kenny's "Ls", but if you're trying to save some money, maybe what you have is good enough for this year & you can save up for the "L-of-your-dreams"?

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't think the extender fits on the 75-300... and he'd lose auto focus, if he's using a "student budget" camera.

[phili1]

Hey guys he is on a budget and I love my Canon 70-200 L F4 but for air shows it is to short so I think he might be better off with the /sigma 135-400 for $500 bucks it is a good lens, no IS but neither does the Canon 70-200.

All of you say he needs reach that has reach.