Morning at Grey Lodge (7 photos)

Well, After saving for 3 years, I finally got a chance to take out my new 500mm f/4L IS this last weekend. I should not have waited this long, but run tests (I'm not normally a tester type guy) as soon as I got the lens. The bad news is that the lens just ain't right I eventually did run the tests and found that under very controlled circumstances my 400 f/5.6L blew it away. The tests were done with mirror-lockup, locked tripod and cable release and multiple images were taken with IS on and off. The best of these images did not come close to my 400. The good news is that the 500 is being exchanged at B&H and I'll ahve a new one next week. Let's hope it's better. But, enough about that...

While the story about the lens is really a pity, it was otherwise a real banner day. I had planned to shoot the Snow Geese there against the sunrise on the Sutter Butte. Unfortunately, it was a really misty morning and the sunrise against the Butte didn't happen. Add to that the fact that the warm weather has caused many of the Snow Geese to leave early. All this aside, we saw many different birds, especially lots of raptors. I was able to salvage some of these images (with more PP than I prefer to use) despite the lens. So here goes:

1. Sunrise at Grey Lodge - This really belongs in Landscape but it sets the scene

WOW!!!

Excellent capture!

Everytime I see shots like yours, it helps motivate me to learn more about photography.

Thank you very much!

Yanis

The keepers you have posted are excellent, I hope you have better luck with the 500 replacement.

Well these images appear good. What kind of support you using on your 500? Were the tests done indoors? mirror lockup and cable release might not be a good idea outdoors. Were the tests at 1/500th or above? Just asking because many a folk have trouble with super-teles that they aren't used too. It's a whole different game.

Pardon me for being contrary, but I don't see what you're complaining about! Those are incredible pictures.

morehtml wrote in post #2639647
Well these images appear good. What kind of support you using on your 500? Were the tests done indoors? mirror lockup and cable release might not be a good idea outdoors. Were the tests at 1/500th or above? Just asking because many a folk have trouble with super-teles that they aren't used too. It's a whole different game.

Thanks for the thoughts. I am used to super teles as I have borrowed some from friends and have been using SLRs for over 30 years now, with lenses up to 500mm on other bodies in the past. I had the 500 on a locked-down, full Wimberly, on a Gitzo 1325 tripod, in a wind sheltered area, on a windless day. I let the lens cool down to the (approx) 15 degrees difference between where it was stored and the outside temperatures.

It's amazing to me how many people (on another forum) have immediately looked to find fault with my testing technique. First of all I didn't test the lens just to test it. I'm not into that kind of thing. I tested it because of the results that I got (and yes, I am familiar with proper long lens technique and was using it during my outing for these photos). There were only 3 or 4 images out of over 200 images that I took that day that I would would call "clean", the BCNH being one of them. So after suspecting the lens, I decided to run a test. The differences between the 500 and my 400 in identical circumstances were not minor at all. The 400 showed not only to be much sharper, but the difference in contrast was also significant.

I also took a number of images with the 500 using a flash (in manual at 1/250th and f/4) to further eliminate the possibility of any camera/lens shake as an issue. The images were consistant with what I got without the flash.

So, to answer your question, for the non-flash images, the 500 was at 1/50th and the 400 was at 1/25th. Given the care I took, I don't believe that shake was an issue. But thanks for thinking of me!

= Ed =

village idiot wrote in post #2639683
Pardon me for being contrary, but I don't see what you're complaining about! Those are incredible pictures.

Thanks for the kind words. With the exception of the BCNH, and to a lesser extent the sunrise image, they all required a lot of post processing and benefit greatly from the size reduction. When you spend as much for a lens as the 500mm f/4L IS costs, it needs to be right - period!

= Ed =

WOW Ed!!! These are beautiful images.

These are all wonderful images... I'd be proud!

Bummer that the lens isn't working out for you - just make sure that you take enough time to get used to it and figure out the sweet spot before you send it away. Sometimes it just takes a little practice. Trust me on this!

I love #6, but I don't think it's a Cooper's. The chest is looks barred, not streaked. My first thought was RS, but I could be waaaay off.

Good luck!

LazyPhotographer wrote in post #2639764
These are all wonderful images... I'd be proud!

Bummer that the lens isn't working out for you - just make sure that you take enough time to get used to it and figure out the sweet spot before you send it away. Sometimes it just takes a little practice. Trust me on this!

I love #6, but I don't think it's a Cooper's. The chest is looks barred, not streaked. My first thought was RS, but I could be waaaay off.

Good luck!

It might be an RS, but most of our RS hawks have a more solidly colored, cinnamon breast. The feather pattern is consistent with what I've seen of Cooper's though the head is not quite right either. It might just be a juvenile of one or the other. I'll do some more looking.

I knwo that every long lens takes some getting used to, but as I said above in another post, the differences here were startling under very controlled circumstances. Also, it was only through the kindsness of B&H that they were willing to exchange it as I was a bit outside their return policy limit. If I did not have a shoot planned for February 10th I would just have sent it off to Cannon for them to calibrate. I know I'm a picky guy, but like I said, this one just wasn't right.

In any event, B&H has it now and hopefully I'll have my new lens next week.

= Ed =

The ones you did save are excellent, and well taken.

I have zero faith in any IS lens after my 100-400L couldn't perform. I sent it to Canon, they had to replace the whole IS unit. Got it back and I still felt it wasn't 100%, so I sold it and bought the 400L non IS. I got a dollar says yours had a bad IS unit.

Ed Rotberg wrote in post #2639717
Thanks for the thoughts. I am used to super teles as I have borrowed some from friends and have been using SLRs for over 30 years now, with lenses up to 500mm on other bodies in the past. I had the 500 on a locked-down, full Wimberly, on a Gitzo 1325 tripod, in a wind sheltered area, on a windless day. I let the lens cool down to the (approx) 15 degrees difference between where it was stored and the outside temperatures.

It's amazing to me how many people (on another forum) have immediately looked to find fault with my testing technique. First of all I didn't test the lens just to test it. I'm not into that kind of thing. I tested it because of the results that I got (and yes, I am familiar with proper long lens technique and was using it during my outing for these photos). There were only 3 or 4 images out of over 200 images that I took that day that I would would call "clean", the BCNH being one of them. So after suspecting the lens, I decided to run a test. The differences between the 500 and my 400 in identical circumstances were not minor at all. The 400 showed not only to be much sharper, but the difference in contrast was also significant.

I also took a number of images with the 500 using a flash (in manual at 1/250th and f/4) to further eliminate the possibility of any camera/lens shake as an issue. The images were consistant with what I got without the flash.

So, to answer your question, for the non-flash images, the 500 was at 1/50th and the 400 was at 1/25th. Given the care I took, I don't believe that shake was an issue. But thanks for thinking of me!

= Ed =

OK hope the new lens works out for you. If you have trouble with it PM me and I'll help you.

Well for all your trouble these images look better than fine on my monitor Ed. But then you are the one seeing all the images so I am glad to hear a replacement lens is on the way. I would be quite happy with any of these photos including #6 which I am convinced is not a Coopers hawk. The Coopers is a Hawk i have had the pleasure of seeing and photographing more than any other hawk and I am sure this is something else...and its a beauty. Nice work...especially under the circumstances.

Lovely shots. Great mood throughout and as much as I love the bird shots, the first two are really amazing. You have a juv. Red-shouldered hawk there. Typical buteo-bulky body and shorter tail than a Coop. Good luck with the replacement lens. If you did this well with a defective one, I can't wait to see the shots with the new one!

Ed The 500 is on my wish list then you publish Magnicent photos like these it is twisting my arm hard.