Zooms vs. Primes (Rant)

AlFooteIII wrote in post #17353436
Out of curiosity, have you tried starting at 100, then zooming in once you've acquired your subject?

No, I have not. My gut feeling is that this is a better approach.

Now to the plus side of the 100-400mm II. This being a cloudless night, I took some shots of the Moon with my 100-400mm II@ 400mm and my 100mm, both at f/5.6. The 100mm shots are, well, crap (fuzz, lots of CA)! So much so that I'm not even going to bother posting any of them. The 400mm shots I took, while not as sharp as I think they could be (judging by what I saw on the LCD), came out OK.

We all know that bird photography requires some serious gear, loooong lenses first of all.

But, you can make up for the lack of focal length with some skills and planning. I know you mentioned you don't have time/patience to sit in one spot and wait for something to happen and I totally understand that. But sometimes (most of the time) that's how great shots are taken. If you know where to go, or how to control your environment, you can set up stuff to capture great shots even with a 400mm lens and a Rebel.

I used to own the 100-400L IS (Ver I) and got some magazine cover shots with it, and funny thing is that cover shot just happened in a park while my fiancee and I were consuming some Jimmy Johns sandwiches. But true, most of my best shots came after sitting and waiting.

To demonstrate the you don't always need a 600mm lens for a good shot here is this one, taken in 2008 with a 40D and a 55-250 IS:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/5P7v​CC

... or this one was taken with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS + 2x TC at 400mm (which is more like 370mm):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/bD3R​cd

So what's the verdict on the 100-400mm II? I will walk it on day trips (so log as it's not in the city, the elevation gain is under 1000 feet and there is a reasonable chance of encountering willdlife). I will take it on my trip out West in the late Summer next year (Yellowstone, Tetons, Glacier), thogh I might have to leave it in the trunk of my rental car (and cross my fingers that it doesn't get stolen!) when taking off on more than a 1 hour hike. I'm definitely not taking it to Europe in June. I get enough looks around a small town like Concord -- just Imagine the looks I would get in Berlin!!!

Nice shots, gabebalazs! I used to own a 55-250 IS. For the price, this is a sweet lens. I'm guessing you were <6 feet away. This being 2014 (almost 2015), I call it a 1 in 5 years shot

Thanks

Yes, I think I was sitting about 6 feet away. Waited about an hour in the sun to get this shot.
Yeah, the 55-250 IS is one of the best values out there. I picked one up for my mom a few months ago for $100 I think.

akadmon wrote in post #17353419
Continuing on. Coming from a 200mm lens, I find that even 400mm is not good enough for bird photography. If your really want a Nat Geo shot, you need an 800mm lens comboed with a camera that will let you shoot at 1/1000s without excessive noise. So no, my 100-400mm II (perched on an EOS 70D) is NOT a bird lens!

ever think of this...the 100-400II on a 70D could get you a Nat Geo shot, and is a bird lens...you're just not the photographer that can pull it off...

Totally agree with Dre.

akadmon wrote in post #17353419
Continuing on. Coming from a 200mm lens, I find that even 400mm is not good enough for bird photography. If your really want a Nat Geo shot, you need an 800mm lens comboed with a camera that will let you shoot at 1/1000s without excessive noise. So no, my 100-400mm II (perched on an EOS 70D) is NOT a bird lens!

I don't know why you say 400mm isn't long enough. In your 3 examples, the 400mm certainly got you close enough to your subjects. So, in these examples, its a perfect length. The 3 photos have other issues like the subject being in a shadowed area or the lens wasn't held steady enough, but the focal length seems fine. How much closer to your subject do you want to get?

Yes it's true Dre.

Getting a Nat Geo shot requires hard work, preparation, sacrifice, dedication, and/or sheer luck; sometimes all of the above.
One of the world's best bird photographers Bence Mate worked with a 300mm 2.8 Nikon lens for years and won a bunch of awards. Of course there were always hundreds of hours of patience and hard work behind each of his award winning shots.

More recently he's ventured into more and more experimental and new ways of bird photography. One of his recent award winning shots was taken with a super wide angle lens on a remote controlled camera floating close to some pelicans. So he never used an 800mm.

Currently he has switched to Canon and uses a 1DX and a 200-400 f/L and he loves it.

THIS is the pelican image I mentioned. Copyright Bence Mate.

http://api.ning.com …ATSJwCtJz/10820​80897.jpeg

nightcat wrote in post #17353879
I don't know why you say 400mm isn't long enough. In your 3 examples, the 400mm certainly got you close enough to your subjects. So, in these examples, its a perfect length. The 3 photos have other issues like the subject being in a shadowed area or the lens wasn't held steady enough, but the focal length seems fine. How much closer to your subject do you want to get?

All three photos were cropped.

akadmon wrote in post #17353983
All three photos were cropped.

So? Cropping does not alter their quality.

Yeah, my comment may have come off more rude than i wanted to...but I look at sample images, and see tons of great shots with all kinds of lenses, it's not just walking around and pointing the camera at a bird, and taking the shot...it's all the preparation, ability to get close, to wait, all kinds of factors...the good thing is when i see other shots that are great with the gear i have, i know it's not the gear that's holding me back, so no need to think of upgrading

The 70d and 100-400 II can easily get you award winning shots. I have very little patience. I hike and shoot most of the time and I don't typically do it in city parks where the birds are used to humans.

I use a 7d and 100-400 v1. My setup is actually inferior to yours and I have cover shots with it, I can crop nearly 100% and retain great details if I do my job correctly.

Long lenses require technique that most short lens shooters aren't used to yet.
Bump your shorter speed to 1/640th and set the aperture to 6.3 or 7.1 If you really want sharp. Float the ISO up to 800 or 1000 of needed.

You can check my Flickr site for shots I've done with my old 100-400. Almost every shot in there is with the thing and a 7d or 60d.
Just give yourself a few weeks to get used to the lens. It's really not very heavy either. I hike 8-10 miles at a time with mine no problem.