Canon 1D mark III + EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM
148mm, f3.2, 1/2000, iso500
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Canon 1D mark III + EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM
148mm, f3.2, 1/2000, iso500
The FD version was 150-600/5.6. So should this be. 300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough. Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.
You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.
The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking. Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.
I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.
Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.
It's unfortunate that third party manufacturers seem to sell more lenses with a big zoom range than high quality primes, or good zooms with a short zoom range. I guess we need more people birding. All it would take is a good 600f5.6 lens and most of the large supertelephoto lenses would become practically obsolete (or at least redundant), but it sounds like there will never be a big enough market for that without company pride on the line.
I dunno. Personally, I'd still buy the 600/4 over a 600/5.6 (or even a 300-600/5.6). I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra stop of light, which is really the primary draw of a lens like the 600/4 (and often essential to get good IQ, especially in the kinds of circumstances you frequently find with bird photography). Same reason I would buy the 300/2.8 over a 300/4. The 300/4 is certainly cheaper, but the 300/2.8 cannot be beat for the balance of sharpness & AF speed vs. portability...not to mention it's versatility with teleconverters. It is the ideal wildlifers lens if you have a few thousand dollars to spend.
It seems to me that stopping down on big whites is actually fairly common (as seen above). I'm constantly surprised at the high apertures people actually use when shooting wildlife. Sometimes you even see relatively extreme apertures that, on paper at least, I would want to avoid due to diffraction.
I'm sure the option of using f4 comes in handy every once in a while, but in practice it looks like the wide apertures get used for TC compatibility more than anything. Options are nice but getting the lens at the focal length you want is still the best choice. The 600f4+TC is top dog for birding right now, but if/when a new 800f5.6 comes out I don't think many people will miss the extra stop of light.
The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.
The point of an f/4 lens isn't that you always shoot wide open (although in the evening, it isn't uncommon...I tend to be around f/8 aperture for shooting during daytime, and f/4-5.6 for shooting around sunset, for wildlife.) It's that you ALWAYS AF wide open (by design.) And yes, with an f/4 lens, when you slap on a 1.4x TC, you still AF at f/5.6, which is still better than AF at f/8, no question.
These are point and shoot of Fun Animal shots.
Great Crested Fly Catcher with Damsel Fly...
You always underestimate yourself when you are one of the best photographers I've seen. They picked you because of your great portfolio. Relax.
Just call the client and tell them you want to make sure you provide them with the files they need. Ask to talk to whomever is doing post-processing and find out how they envision accomplishing this. (They'll probably be so amazed that a photographer actually talked to them before the shoot that they'll love you forever.)
You can explain that you see several possible approaches and you want to talk about how he or she envisions the final product. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the ND filter approach because it's kind of a one shot, roll the dice sort of thing and the risk of getting "ghosts" is really strong. (See the first ever recorded picture of a human being: Niepce's Paris Street Scene, where the guy getting his shoes shined shows up because he was standing still while the rest of the people on the street were moving)
I've never tried the approach recommended by Martin Evening, but it seems to me that would be a lot safer provided the person doing the processing understands what they are doing.
Honestly, I'm a little worried about not knowing their expectations. It's very possible that the only post-processing they intend to do is converting and tweaking the images for CMYK. He/she may have a heart attack if you give them 50 or 60 files that need to be merged without talking to them first.
As far as cameras, any full frame will be more than adequate. Heck, you could probably shoot it on a 7D and be fine. Remember, the major limiting factor is going to be the output resolution, not the capture resolution.
yeah man, adorama is the worst.. I have experience the same thing.. Didnt get my 18 dollars refund.. support sux. by that experience no more adorama for me. sticking to bnh
Thank you all for the valuable insights. I have learnt a lot. Still bit confused, but clarity is coming in.
Am attaching a photo of roughly where I will be. Not exactly here but similar situation.
If you're paying $15k tax on such an income, you've seriously got to consider moving to another country. No wonder there is so much interest in the TEA Party. In Australia, with those figures, you'd pay no tax (depending on assumptions on depreciating camera gear). Worst case scenario, $2k tax.
Adorama split up my orders and shipped them separately for a rebate deal...The paperwork looked a little strange, but it worked and I got my rebate.
Too late now, but I think you pulled the trigger too quickly on cancelling the order and refusing receipt, forcing them to incur added shipping costs and muddying the waters. If you really wanted the camera and printer and your card company refused the charge when there was plenty of credit on your account, then you probably could have gotten that straightened out. Since it was a package deal from Adorama, I don't think there would have been any problem getting the necessary paperwork to demonstrate it was all one purchase.
How do you like Snapseed? I recently installed but have not had a chance to put it through its paces. Do you have any workflows you can share?1dx 24-70 2.8ii
Edited with snapsed on my iPad.
These Siberian Huskys are great dogs. And when they have one blue and one brown eye, like this one, they look really cool.Well something different a bored dog on the streets of edinburgh
Ahh !! This I understand, Wildlife, Edinburgh Version.
Looks like a close Cousin to Eldar's Wolf.
A friend of mine is breeding them and the last time I was there he had 60(!) dogs. He lives on a Very limited budget, in the middle of nowhere, but he's the happiest man on the planet.
Definitely not as Pretty as Bornshooter's young lady, and I'de imagine not often found on the streets of Edinburgh.
And decidedly poor table Manners, I shot this after she had pulled her head out of the chest cavity of a Tsessebe Antelope.
1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/9.0 & 1/80th ISO400