Variety pack: Snow, Lesser, Ross

[WifeKidsandDog]

Here's the snow goose and lesser from yesterday and another of the Ross (my favorite). I stacked my two teleconverters together to take these to try and get close. I think that converts to 560mm.

[Steve Foss]

Well, here's how I do the math. Someone check me to make sure I'm not out of my mind.

A 200 mm times 1.4 equals a 280 mm. A 280 times 2 equals 560 mm. A 560 mm times the 1.6 conversion factor equals 896, for roughly a 900 mm lens.

Of course, stacking converters on top of each other will cost a few stops (and will present challenges because of coarse grain when making prints), but with enough light, a decently high ISO and particularly a bright subject, it's doable, as Cheryl has so aptly shown. Nice work.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Quote:

---

but with enough light, a decently high ISO and particularly a bright subject, it's doable, as Cheryl has so aptly shown. Nice work.

---

And a monopod ... don't try this at home, kids, without a monopod. Shake, shake shake!

[jonny_redhorse]

GREAT SHOTS Cheryl!.........you certainly have "the touch"!...on the subject of tripods.....kinda funny cause I own 3 and find myself hardly using em!...one version is the "clamp on" that clamps to a car window or tree branch or whatever..other one is a small 9" high tripod for macro work and the big guy is a 60 incher for the panoramic and scenery shots....but.in the "real" world,I m finding that mother nature doesn't accomodate the small amount of time to capture a skittish bird or butterfly or animal to be able to incorporate the tripods...so far.......a "steady hand" has been the way I've taken the majority of my photos...Iuse T-CON 17 teleconverter and you do have to be "rock steady " or the "blur thing"happens...I don't really like the teleconverter that much and have noticed some "purple fringing" on some of my bird shots against a light background(what do you get for a 100 bucks right?....lol!...you get what you pay for! for sure!)...jonny

[Steve Foss]

Johnny: That purple fringing is called chromatic aberration, and results from a combination of lens and sensor, but mostly lens. I've seen it with the cheap 18-55 kit lens that comes with Canon DSLRs. Very little with the 20D, more with the original Rebel. Prime glass won't produce any, or almost none. It can be taken out in photoshop. When I use the 100-400 Canon IS, there's none at all, but I don't have a prime wide-angle zoom, and am stuck with the kit lens. If you're shooting RAW, Photoshop CS and CS2 will let you correct for it before you even fully open the image.

[jonny_redhorse]

yes Steve....I agree on the chromatic aberration from the cheaper lenses...I always send my photos taken with the teleconverter(actually,all my photos) through my photo elements and it certainly does get rid of the purple fringing..(well,makes it "better" anyway)...simply have to have a photo processing program if into digital(personal view point of course).......they go hand in hand...not to many "perfect " photos come straight out of the camera without some sort of photo processing..........As I posted awhile back...I prefer my photos to have an extra"kick" colorwise that the camera alone doesn't do..of course that's an entirely different area again as some cameras deliver more "vibrant" colors and saturation right out of the camera.....I actually enjoy the photo processing of each photo...gives me time to look at each photo "in depth" and study that particular photo...again...it's why I enjoy photography.....I enjoy "customizing" each photo I take and always try to get the best result from that photo...jonny

[WifeKidsandDog]

Jonny,

The shots I took on Sunday with my TC and also without had some ugly CA happening. When I tried stacking the two together the next day, I thought the images would be ruined with purple fringing, but there was none. The difference was I used the lens hood the second day and was able to shoot at a lower ISO. I was surprised at the difference between the two days.

Cheryl