Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Rear AF button

« on: May 26, 2013, 04:55:16 PM »

It's very useful for bird and nature photography.
1. I use the telephoto as instead of a telescope. So, I can focus with the back button without wasting battery on IS.
2. I use A1 servo for focussing. There are a couple of situations where it is useful to uncouple the focussing.  Sometimes it is difficult to lock on to a small target because the AF darts backwards and forwards from the subject to the background. You can lock on to the target and then release the back button and them take the photo.  Or you can sometimes want to focus on a branch on which the bird is standing and then hold the focus as you recompose. Similarly, if you think the bird is going to take off sideways, you can focus on the static position and not worry about losing focus as it leaves its perch. 

I generally feel more in control being able to focus independently and I know it has increased my keeper rate. 

17

Lenses / Re: Help with Long Lens + Backup Body choice for Iceland

« on: May 26, 2013, 10:09:04 AM »

For serious travel and bird photography, I second fegari as I do use the f/2.8 300mm II with both series III extenders because less than that does not give the quality I want. For convenience, I used to travel with the 100-400mm L, but as written at length, in the SX50 threads, I can get along with the SX50, which under good light and static subjects outperforms the 100-400 on a 5DIII. The SX50 is a good back-up camera altogether as it goes from 24-1200mm equivalent and has a very good lens. The 1.4x on the 70-200mm f/4 is pretty good if you don't need the length, and I use to to use it a lot.

18

Lenses / Re: Help with Long Lens + Backup Body choice for Iceland

« on: May 25, 2013, 11:39:56 AM »

I took a 7D with a 100-400mm L, and got a couple of bird keepers. Here is a tern feeding its young.

19

Lenses / Re: Help with Long Lens + Backup Body choice for Iceland

« on: May 24, 2013, 06:17:58 PM »

The worst weather and the highest priced food anywhere. They charge you a fortune to go on a whale spotting boat but don't tell you that they defy all international sensibilities and hunt whales to extinction so the fish/mammals avoid the place. I went on a boat trip where most most were sick after about an hour. As we didn't see any whales, they extended the trip for an hour and the sick people went deep green.
Don't think I am joking - that was for real.

20

Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?

« on: May 23, 2013, 10:00:17 AM »

The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster.  Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight.  So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.

While not as straight forward as some postings would indicate, the basic fact that a typical flat black object will reach a higher temperature  in the sun that a typical white painted object is correct.  The black traps more of the suns energy, the white reflects it.  That is why things like propane tanks are painted white.  You can verify this yourself on a sunny day.  Put one hand on some ashphalt surface and the other  on same grass alongside it.  The asphalt will be much hotter than the grass, guaranteed.

Near-white concrete will also feel far hotter than grass. Try it - also guaranteed. The transfer of heat is far more complicated than just colour.

21

Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?

« on: May 22, 2013, 05:04:20 PM »

The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster.  Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight.  So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster. 

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 20, 2013, 06:23:31 AM »

Someone please explain this f/8 brouhaha to me: my 5D3 + Kenko 1.4x tele-extender + 400 & 70-300 auto-focus (at f/8, pre-firmware update) all day long. I just downloaded the firmware update and will install it later today, but I've been auto-focusing just fine at f/8 for some time. Am I missing something?

The Kenko locks up the 5DIII when used with the latest generation telephotos, and you have to remove the battery to restart.

23

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

« on: May 17, 2013, 02:38:57 AM »

 If you are not doing professional work and you are travelling light on vacation, take an SX50 and enjoy your trip without any worries.

24

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 16, 2013, 02:57:19 PM »

Carl
The kingfisher is only 300 pixels high and 190 pixels at its widest! I didn't sharpen it at all. Here it is again with moderate sharpening with USM at 1 pixel and 100% at a 100% crop of 439x438 pixels^2. I made a mistake with the exposure for this and had it at 1/5000 s and iso 1000. At 1/500 s and iso 100 I could have sharpened it more with low noise. Attached is something more representative, a 739x534 100% crop of the head of a sparrow at iso 640, 1/1250 s and f/5.6 with the the 2x TC on the 300mm.

25

Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?

« on: May 16, 2013, 12:19:54 PM »

I originally did not like the idea of a push-pull design, but have changed my mind after using my 400L for a few years.
Some of the advantages that this design made available when it was designed are:
 
     Short Storage length, shorter than the 70-200mmL
     Close focusing, for filling a frame with small birds which often let you get close.
     Is has worked for me down to 1/20 sec, far better than the IS on my 400mm f/5.6.
 
 
Newer lens technology now allows for shorter lens designs, better IS,  all with close focusing.  I'd certainly welcome a new model that  had those attributes, push pull or not.  I'd prefer the smallest one, whichever it is.
 
My 400mm f/5.6 is too long to easily store, and won't focus closely, plus a lack of IS can be a issue for stills where light in not its best.  Having to use a high shutter speed requires high ISO's unless I have bright light.

+1

26

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 16, 2013, 12:06:47 PM »

Carl
See my shots with the 2x TC III in http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14878.0

The combination with the Series II telephotos is fantastic.

27

Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:32:45 AM »

Finally, nothing special - just a photo I took over the weekend at 600mm and f/5.6 of a kingfisher. The bird is just a small blob in the centre. A 100% crop gives a reasonable photo. With the 100-400 or the 400mm f/5.6, it would just have been a blur as a crop.

Well, as far as I am concerned, the lens was worth the price as the improvement over existing lenses was more than incremental. And, it is good enough for me and I shan't be buying the 200-400mm or the bigger whites. But, a new 100-400mm might tempt me!

28

Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:26:32 AM »

Normally, I use the 2x TC for bird photos. You'll see from these examples that it was opinionated twaddle that all 2x TCs are rubbish. The pair here are of a Dunnock. The first was taken last year with the 100-400mm on the 7D. It was the best of 10 shots and passable, but the fine details are lost. The second is with the 300m x2 at f/5.6 on the 5D III. Both are 100% crops.

29

Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:20:24 AM »

The sedge warbler was taken as a jpeg with no sharpening or processing. The next are all from RAW files form my 5D III, with minimal sharpening and noise reduction. This pair of full size then 100% crop are of my grandson playing cricket last weekend. I used the 1.4xTC and f/4. Every shot was focussed spot on. For those of you who don't know cricket, the boundary is quite a distance from the wickets and you need a super telephoto lens.

Again, the full image reduced to 1200x800, followed by a 100% crop. This is a good 420mm lens for sport.

30

Lenses / What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:14:09 AM »

Justin, after some forthright comments from me, challenged me to do a review of the 300mm f/2.8 II. I am not up to writing a review but I will say why I bought the lens and give a few examples of how it has performed for me. Perhaps this thread will encourage others to submit their thoughts and photos.

I drifted into bird photography after going on safari 3 years with a 7D and brand new 200mm f/4 L IS, then progressed to a 400mm f/5.6 L and then 100-400mm f/5.6 L. After a birding holiday in Brazil, I was introduced by a Belgian to the birdpix.nl site where I submitted photos. Most were rejected for being too soft, and I was astounded by the quality of the mainly Dutch amateurs with their big white primes, usually 500mm but with the occasional 600mm or 400mm f/2.8, plus teleconverters. I needed to upgrade my gear.

After much thought and studying all the websites I plumped for the 300mm f/2.8 II, which is not the favourite lens of bird photographers, for my personal following reasons. Firstly, I do not use a tripod but always do hand held as I like to wander around with my camera swinging from my hand or sit in a hide.  The 300mm is far lighter than the big 400, 500 or 600mm and is very easily carried all day. It is heavier than the f/4 400 DO but that is the same price and has little better IQ than the f/5.6 400mm and only two stops of IS. Secondly, the Canon MTFs and the TDP tests showed that the lens was exceptionally well matched to the new 1.4x and 2x TCs. So, the 300mm with the 2xTC is an exceptionally light and effective 600mm lens, and f/5.6 isn't too slow.

I collected the lens from Jessops on a Saturday morning a year ago and immediately rushed out before AFMAing and took some bird shots. The following full size (reduced to 1200x800 for uploading) and 100% crop from the middle (800x880) was about the 10th photo I took and just blew my mind as I had got no where near this quality before. It is of a sedge warbler collecting insects for its nest - 300mm, f/2.8 Canon 7D. I'll follow these with examples with the 1.4x and 2xTC.

I hope these show that the 300mm f/2.8 II provides us with outstanding 300, 420 and 600mm primes.