# Your thoughts please



## dicklaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

I have an application for some close in bird shots,Purple Martins.The distance from camera lens to object will never be more than 50 feet with most being less than 40 feet and a lot at 25 feet.

I am looking at a Canon f/4.5-5.6,100-400mm IS. I can make this deal from Amazon @ $1250 .Better yet who has a good used one they are willing to part with? I can't afford bigger and better but can do with out if the above plan is not a good one.

Whats your take on,,,, if this is the right thing to do? Let me put it this way what would you do under these conditions?

dick


----------



## dicklaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

*Thinking*

Now I'm thinking the f/5.6 400 its a little cheaper but doesn't have IS, Most of my shots would be about 90/10 (perched/inflight) so maybe it would behove me to go with the 5.6 and learn to operate from a Mono Pod. Whatcha think about them apples?
dick


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

For the perched shots I think the 400 would be a good deal (on a monopod or tripod), but for inflight, your gonna need the IS. So with that said, Id go for the 100-400 IS. Keep looking on POTN. I saw one yesterday for approx 900.00. Another thing to consider is the Sigma. both the 150-500 OS (which I have ) and the bigma 50-500 are pretty good lens for the money (both for under 900.00 new). the 50-500 dosent have Optical Stablization, but the 150-500 does.
Maybe someone else will chime in with there thoughts
Fred


----------



## MakoMike (Feb 21, 2008)

I think the IS is a luxury you can proably do without. Use a tripod for the perched shots. For the flight shots you're going to have to pan the camera anyway and probably have to turn the IS off to get a decent image.


----------



## Arlon (Feb 8, 2005)

Might look into lens rental or borrow one for a weekend unless you want to shoot a lot of similar images.


----------



## madf1man (Jan 28, 2005)

Canon IS works with panning also, can't say on others. and can gain your a stop or 2. As far as the lens goes, 400mm and 5.6 can equal some slow shutter speeds. I would consider it a bright day lens only. Clear skies and no shade. These days with better high ISO abilities this is getting better but can still be a factor. Depending on your camera but if you have one of the new 15 or 20 meagapixels models you can get by with smaller glass because you have the ability to crop further. By the way its alot easier to chase a bird in flight around with a shorter lens. When your zoomed way in and have such a small feild of vision its very hard. So I guess I'd say start of with a 200mm 2.8 add a 1.4 converter or similar. Maybe a 70-200 2.8 and converter.


----------



## sandybottom (Jun 1, 2005)

Lens rental would be a good idea. But if I were to buy one today I'd buy
the Sigma 150-500 OS. 
My longest lens is and older Tamron 200-400mm. I paid 199.00 for it used.
I found it at Houston Camera Exchange in Houston.
A lot of my flying pictures are taken with 55-200mm VR Nikon too. $249.00 lens.
I have a lot of cheap glass and you would never know by looking at some of my flight photos.
Why not buy a cheap lens and see what you can do with it first.
Then maybe later get a good IS lens.

Here's one that will fit on your camera.

http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/5...cicamera-lenses;cislr-lens;cilenses-for-canon

Here's one I took with my $199.00 Tamron Lens. Not a IS lens either.

You know a friend of mine told me a Lens is just a tool. It's what you do with it that makes the picture.


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

Most sports shooters turn of IS, so I don't know if it would actually be that much help when panning. I shoot in-flight shots with my 600mm all the time and it doesn't have VR (IS). Practice and good technique goes a long way.


----------



## madf1man (Jan 28, 2005)

Not at 50 feet or less do you? If so you are good,real good. Oh and thats not meant to sound mean! It's meant as a compliment! I'm just thinking that since he's so close to his object and on a budget that there are much cheaper alternatives than a 1000.00 peice of glass that will yeild great results. Sandy's suggestion is pretty good to.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

I used BorrowLenses.com to rent a 135 f/2.0 for a couple of weeks. Smoth transaction and no problems encountered.

Also, here is a pic taken at the Rookery in High Island a year or so ago. I used the Sigma 50-500 w/1.4 extender. I was a long ways off. Canon Rebel XT, f/8, 1/320, 700mm

Mike


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

The Canon 100-400L is a good lens, but suffers in IQ when used with the 2x TC. The 1.4x TC is not so bad. For birds in flight and airshows, it is ideal. I bought mine used on CL and am very happy with it. For the distance you are working, the 70-200 with a 1.4x TC will give slightly better IQ in my opinion based on using and owning both.


----------



## dicklaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

What a great bunch of ideas and cost savers. I guess its time to go shopping,let your fingers to the walking via the net and I can visit some of the in town shops ,other than Houston Camera Exchange what are some reputable shops that deal in possible used .

Thanks a bunch guys and gals

dick


----------



## madf1man (Jan 28, 2005)

Camera Co/op http://www.cameracoophouston.com/ handles used also but HCE is the largest.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Dick, if you are really considering the Canon 100-400, I think you should get your hands on one to check out the feel. It's pretty big and heavy and the zoom function is push/pull, not the twist type normally.

With that aside, I have seen some very good shots taken with that lens and a Canon 30D and 40D. Tim T of League City posts some very good pics on the TPF.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Im with Mike...Its a whole different beast.....dang good lens though.


----------



## sandybottom (Jun 1, 2005)

MT Stringer said:


> Dick, if you are really considering the Canon 100-400, I think you should get your hands on one to check out the feel. It's pretty big and heavy and the zoom function is push/pull, not the twist type normally.
> 
> With that aside, I have seen some very good shots taken with that lens and a Canon 30D and 40D. Tim T of League City posts some very good pics on the TPF.


Hey, I know Tim! Nice guy btw.


----------



## dicklaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

How about just putting a 1.4 Tele Con on my 70-300 IS and see what happens,do you think this would be a comporable match to a 5.6 400?If that is acceptable is the Canon a better TC than a Kenko,I know we have a name to deal with but is there a noticeable difference. I don't mind paying more if the IQ is better.

What about using a TC with the Sigma 150-500,I guess I need to go lok at the aperture on that lens.

dick


----------



## MakoMike (Feb 21, 2008)

I don't use an extender, but I thought I had read that the Canon extenders only work with the "L" lenses?


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

> How about just putting a 1.4 Tele Con on my 70-300 IS and see what happens


Hmmm...with the 1.4x, you would be shooting at f/8 when your lens is zoomed out to the 300mm setting. That could make for some slow shutter speeds (or require a higher ISO setting).

I have a Sigma 1.4 and 2x TC. I don't use the 2x very often except for wildlife that is way over yonder, like the dude pictured.
Canon 20D, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 w/2x tc. 1/800 sec, f/7.1, ISO 400, 600mm

Mike


----------



## madf1man (Jan 28, 2005)

Yes the Canon 1.4 is better, yes its a worth while investment in the long run no matter what you do. Why do you feel your 70-300 is not working by the way?


dicklaxt said:


> How about just putting a 1.4 Tele Con on my 70-300 IS and see what happens,do you think this would be a comporable match to a 5.6 400?If that is acceptable is the Canon a better TC than a Kenko,I know we have a name to deal with but is there a noticeable difference. I don't mind paying more if the IQ is better.
> 
> What about using a TC with the Sigma 150-500,I guess I need to go lok at the aperture on that lens.
> 
> dick


----------



## dicklaxt (Jun 2, 2005)

I think its more me and my shooting techniques than a lens(70-300) that is not serving me well. I think I'll put the desire to purchase on the back burner and concentrate on learning and using the equipment I have.Thanks for all the comments and advise, it has been very helpful,

dick


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Dick, To answer your question, I have used a 1.4x on the sigma...I loose auto focus, but not very much in image qual. IMHO, Ive had both the canon and now the Kenko...I really can not tell the difference...The canon is very nice but limited to canon as where the kenko, I can use on all my lens. BTW a 1.4 on a ultra wide angle lens is a very strange view, LOL.
So effectly 500mm x 1.4 (converter) x 1.6 (crop) = 1160mm. Thats plenty for me
Believe me to shoot at 1160mm, you need a good tripod, use mirrow lockup and a remote trigger of some sort. At that range even to wind can mess you up. LOL.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Dick, I found a lens for you if you change your mind.
MIke


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Not to hijack dick's thread but I have the 55-200 f4-5.6 II USM non IS and I would like more reach. Should I just consider another lens or the 1.4x?


----------

