Obligatory Duck Shots + Bonus Box, Can, Flower & Leaf Shots

[fWord]

Just yesterday I had the good fortune of getting a 300mm f/4L IS from a gentleman at the local forums and now I feel that I'm ready to get back into zoo photography again. Previously I had the 100-400mm, but sold it and almost promised myself never to do tele work again since it was so expensive.

But the wildlife bug has bitten me. There aren't any wild, large mammals of the furry variety running around in my country, so I can only get them at the zoo.

Today I took this prime lens out for a trial shoot and was amazed by the resolution it's capable of achieving, even wide open. There's a little CA in some shots, but not so much that I'll worry about it. But it is the sharpness that really surprises me.

So here are a couple of the duck shots which I felt obliged to shoot, plus a few other randoms/ 100% crops. No post processing. Straight from the camera, unless cropped. Only the crops were shot from a tripod.








It does pretty nice closeups, even by itself, and with nice bokeh.


At f/4 this lens is a full stop faster than the 100-400mm lens at the equivalent focal length allowing me to handhold shots in even lower light, and this was somewhat empowering, combined with the closer minimum focusing distance. But I really miss the versatility of the zoom.

And for some 100% crops:


Look between the 'R' and the 'E'.


Check out the sharpness of the left half of that first '0'. However, I also noted what I thought was CA in this shot. But I could be wrong, and it's just an effect resulting from an OOF detail under tungsten light.

So the first impressions of this lens have left me reeling so far. It has surprised me, pleasantly. But I must also give credit to the 100-400mm lens which I previously used. Weighing up the pros and cons of each lens, I'd be hard-pressed to choose between either one. But for those who are looking to buy, just remember that it's a prime vs a zoom. That might make things a little clearer for you.

[baybud]

Congrats on the new purchase , I have the 2.8 but i have used the f/4 and its a gorgeous lens, so light! lol Post more when you have them

[fWord]

Thanks. The f/2.8 is a monster compared to the f/4, even going by weight alone. I doubt if I could handle that unless it were on a tripod most of the time.

[condyk]

It's a nice lens. I liked the design and my copy way excellent, but I just prefered a zoom for wildlife shooting in the end.

[baybud]

Originally Posted by fWord

Thanks. The f/2.8 is a monster compared to the f/4, even going by weight alone. I doubt if I could handle that unless it were on a tripod most of the time.

I tend not to use tripods alot of the time, i don't liek the restrictions. Your right though it isn't the easiest thing to hand hold, i find after about 10 mins with it up i need to have a break lol.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by condyk

It's a nice lens. I liked the design and my copy way excellent, but I just prefered a zoom for wildlife shooting in the end.

That's very true...at the end of the day, getting the shot is worth a lot more than sharpness alone. The 100-400mm I used in the past was just about perfect, only that there's always the wish it were a constant f/4, or that it had faster AF.

For a while I was considering the Sigma 100-300mm, but it was so hard to find second-hand. I had to buy new if I wanted it, and would then be forced also to work from a tripod/ monopod.

Speaking of design, I feel the prime looks more handsome/ pretty than the zoom. But it also draws more attention. That's just the aesthetics of it though.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by baybud

I tend not to use tripods alot of the time, i don't liek the restrictions. Your right though it isn't the easiest thing to hand hold, i find after about 10 mins with it up i need to have a break lol.

Previously I hardly ever used tripods either. But after getting something decent recently I should perhaps make it a habit to use one where possible...supposed to improve a person's photography by quite a margin.

[condyk]

Absolutely. A tripod shot and a handheld shot, if you compare over many shots, just don't compare in terms of sharpness and pop. You may get many decent handheld shots but it's hard not to get 100% keepers on a tripod if you know how to expose and compose. A lightweight CF tripod can be a boon at a zoo. Even a monopod will generate much better results with the longer stuff.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by condyk

Absolutely. A tripod shot and a handheld shot, if you compare over many shots, just don't compare in terms of sharpness and pop. You may get many decent handheld shots but it's hard not to get 100% keepers on a tripod if you know how to expose and compose. A lightweight CF tripod can be a boon at a zoo. Even a monopod will generate much better results with the longer stuff.

Yeah, I was thinking (hoping is a better word) to get a CF tripod as my first and hopefully last. But I couldn't bear to fork over so much money at a time with the nagging feeling at the back of my head that I might not even use the tripod.

So I ended up getting a conventional aluminium one...the whole thing already comes to 3kg, and that's minus the camera and the lens! Good thing is that it seems sturdy as anything, and puts the camera viewfinder at roughly eye-level with only the legs fully extended. But because I'm such a shortie I need to stand quite straight to look into the camera, and even tip toe at some angles.

I bet it'll be a funny sight, and should ask my friends to photograph me against a huge tripod one day.

[Livinthalife]

That IS sharp! Also nice duck shots! way better than mine!!!

[fWord]

Originally Posted by Livinthalife

That IS sharp! Also nice duck shots! way better than mine!!!

Well, a 'duck shot' is still a 'duck shot'. I didn't post any down here the last time I got a 100-400mm. But this time I just could not resist. Plus, it's a great excuse to get out the house instead of lying on the bed and wasting the afternoon away.

[SuzyView]

Very nice. The duck is really cute, but the flower is very beautiful, yes nice bokeh. I'll have to look into trying that with my 70-200.

[fWord]

Originally Posted by SuzyView

Very nice. The duck is really cute, but the flower is very beautiful, yes nice bokeh. I'll have to look into trying that with my 70-200.

Thanks. On the first visit to this place there were many of these lotus (the pink one) plants in bloom. This time unfortunately they were just like spotting amongst a sea of leaves, many of them not in good shape. I think it'll need a third visit. Still not sure what the red one is though it's very common throughout the park.

The 70-200mm f/4 will give very flattering bokeh too, especially wide open at the 200mm end. This one was perfect for photographing dogs at a 'dog walk' we had at a beachside park sometime last year. It's very mobile and yet gives good working distance.

[fWord]

Update: UV filter appears to degrade performance to a greater extent than does a 1.4X TC!

Just yesterday, I plugged a 77mm UV filter over my lens and took it out for some real shooting, covering an event featuring many games during an anniversary celebration at a military camp.

At the end of the day I was very perplexed to find that all my photos were uniformly soft, even in images where the camera had obviously locked focus based on the relative sharpness of details within the photo. I thought it was entirely my fault since I knew the quality of the lens and my camera far surpass my skill. I shrugged it off and today I shot a bunch of test shots with my Sigma APO EX 1.4X TC to see how far it really degrades performance.

Check out the results below and it may surprise you. No, this is not a scientific test, and neither does it come remotely close to what fstopjojo does, but I hope it provides sufficient information for you to appreciate the difference.

The following set was taken with the Hoya HMC UV-Guard filter on, using remote shutter release on a tripod. No mirror lockup (because I was lazy). Notice the uniform softness in all the images, in some cases resembling camera shake:

1. Without TC


2. With TC


3. Without TC


4.With TC


Now check out the next set of images, taken also from a tripod using remote shutter release and no mirror lockup. The filter was removed for these photos:

5. Without TC


6. With TC


7. Without TC


8. With TC


cont'd...

[fWord]

I attempted a few shots outdoors with IS switched on, handheld, with and without the TC and got very similar results. Here is one example taken with the TC on for both shots. Notice the improved definition in all that dirt on my car when the filter is off:

9. With Filter


10. Without Filter


Interestingly, note also how the Sigma TC seems to subjectively improve image quality with improved resolution and somewhat reduced CA by comparing pictures 5 with 6, and 7 with 8 in the post above.

In closing, these are interesting findings I've had from this test. It's nowhere near perfect, but I'm certainly convinced. In fact I am very surprised that the filter has had this much effect on the quality of a lens. If anyone here is using a 300mm f/4 IS with a filter on, and thinks that the lens is soft, try taking off that filter and photograph again.

Anyone else with a similar experience? Would love to discuss.