Cardinal and a Blue Jay

[WifeKidsandDog]

Only have a 210mm cheapo zoom at the moment so I can't get close to the birds but I liked these three.

Cheers

Cheryl

[Steve Foss]

Well, in this case 210mm is close enough. Very nice environmental portraits. I especially like the color statement in the cardinal shot. Thanks for sharing with us.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Thanks Steve ...

I'm thinking of getting a 100-400 IS but worried it'll be too heavy for me to hand hold.

[Dbl]

Nice photos, I really like the dive-bombing Blue Jay.

[Steve Foss]

Well, Cheryl, that depends on how strong your wrists are. Tucking your elbow into your midsection when you hold the lens takes a fair amount of strain off the wrist/arm, or you can shoot sitting down with your elbow on your knee, and I shoot mine with a monopod a lot of the time.

[Swimmer]

Very nice shots! I'm partial to the diving Jay shot. Yup, the 'ol 100-400 L...maybe someday.

[Ely Lake Expert]

I gotta agree witha couple of others. That divebombing bluejay is my favorite.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Thanks guys :-)

I solved my lens dilemma -- I traded my 135 f/2 L for a 300mm f/4 IS which with a teleconverter will give me 420mm. Now I just need some better weather.

Cheryl

[Steve Foss]

Great glass Cheryl. Way to go. That series of 300 primes is tack sharp, and that 1.4 TC won't degrade the image enough to matter. Reckon you'll be using a strong monopod or a tripod most of the time, since that's a fairly weighty combo. Also, I cut about a 16-inch length from the leg of a pair of heavy twill camo coveralls that were worn out, sewed up one end of it, put in several pounds of small white pinto and other beans bought at the grocery store, and sewed up the other end. Professional quality beanbag for under $10. They're not expensive to buy anyway, and they're a great option. There are plenty of times when you need to hunker down behind a rock or a fence and you can toss the beanbag on top, anchor the lens on it and shoot away. It also works over the door of the car with the window rolled part or all the way down. Of course, unless you put a thick plastic bag inside the fabric and the beans inside the bag, you won't want to get it wet. Those beans will swell and you'll have a mess on your hands — and on your equipment.

Can't wait to see what you do with your sweet glass.

[Jim Almquist]

Cheryl I really like the diving Bluejay. I like the fact that you captured it before the wings did not come up yet. Very cool. My wife Loves the cardinal shot alot. I really think she is partial to cardinals cause growing up in Two Harbors she did not see them around very much.When ever I hear one I let her know so now she can recognize there call.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Thank you --

I love cardinals too, we've been lucky -- a pair have been hanging around our yard for a couple of years now. I like seeing the male when it snows. I'm hoping to get some good pics of him this winter, though he's definitely more camera shy than the Mrs.

Steve -- that's a great idea with the bean bags. I take a lot of shots from the car. In fact Rick always cracks up, I've been sitting in my car with my Starbucks and come home with a shot of an eagle, but whine how cold I was, LOL.

Cheryl

[Swimmer]

Quote:

---

Thanks guys :-)

I solved my lens dilemma -- I traded my 135 f/2 L for a 300mm f/4 IS which with a teleconverter will give me 420mm. Now I just need some better weather.

Cheryl

---

Steve or Cheryl: I printed out the Canon lens speck sheet and noticed that there is an EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM which is not "L" glass. How would this lense compare to the 400mm 5.6 L...both in terms of quality and price?

PS, just a little trivia, Cheryl your lens weighs in at 2.6 pounds. THe 100-400 is 3.0 pounds, the 300 f/2.8 L is 5.6 pounds...and the WHOPPER, the 1200mm f/5.6 L weighs in at 36.4 pounds!

[Steve Foss]

The 400 f4 DO USM is not "L" glass, because it uses a different type of glass technology, one that incorporates "diffractive optics" (thus the DO) and allows size and weight to be cut way down. It also pretty much eliminates lens effects such as chromatic aberration and others. Canon developed the new technology. The 400 DO is in all other ways an L, however, in that it's part of that same class of ruggedly built, top performing Canon lenses. It's listed as professional glass, and it carries a professional price, about $5,300. It hasn't gotten great reviews for its sharpness, though.

The benchmark L supertelephoto prime for clarity and speed is the 400 f2.8L IS (the earlier non IS version is actually a hair sharper), which runs about $6,500 and weighs a lot (12 pounds). The 400 f5.6L non-IS costs a bit under $1,100, and is as sharp and rich as the f2.8, as well as a lot lighter (just under 3 pounds), but no IS. And, of course, with supertelephoto primes, you're paying for the aperature range. I've shot the 400 f2.8, and there are occasional cloudy days in the shady woods when, if you can't open to f2.8, you won't get the shot. When I was shooting eagles and wolves over a deer carcass last winter, I was using the 1D MarkIIn and the 400 f2.8, the fastest digital combo Canon makes (in other words, the fastest in the world), and it was cloudy. Because the eagles in particular were moving very fast in some of the frames, if I'd have been limited to my 100-400L IS, which only opens to f5.6 at 400mm, I would have needed at least iso800 to freeze the action. The 400 f2.8 is the perfect lens in cases like that. I was shooting at iso200 and 400, with plenty of shutter speed. I even had a stop to burn, so I put on the 1.4 TC and got a power boost and still enough light.

But man, that's a lot of jing.

And, speaking of jing, there are very few copies of that 1200 f5.6 in the world. Mostly because they cost something like $75,000 or $80,000 and are custom made one at a time. Presumably not until Canon has the money in hand. Now THAT'S a lot of jing. But you can take the $7,000 600 f4L IS and put on a 2x TC and shoot at f8, which is a $70,000 savings. I can't see spending $70,000 for one extra stop.

And there's something else to consider when dreaming about supertelephotos of 600mm and up: The atmosphere. Those lenses give you tremendous reach, but that can come at a cost. You're shooting through so much air that any level of haziness or drizzle or heat waves in the air is magnified, and can degrade image quality to the point of uselessness.

[Swimmer]

Thanks again Steve. I kind of expected that 1200 was "special". I just read some more reviews and found that Cheryl's combo, the 300 IS with or without 1.4 TC, is pretty awesome. The specs and photos show it to be very sharp, contrasty, ect. It was also said that the "old" 300mm non-IS is a little sharper even than the IS version (though you would then need a tripod in most cases). I wonder if it would be worthwhile to shop around for a discounted 300mm non-IS L, say $700? I know it wouldn't be as versatile, especially compared to the 100-400 L IS, but on a tripod it would shine. Sorry to bother you with these seemingly endless lens questions, but as I'm sure you know, this is a important purchase.

[Steve Foss]

Swimmer, most of the time a person would use the 300mm f2.8L, IS or non IS, on a tripod anyway. It takes a very strong wrist/arm/shoulder to hold any lens that heavy steady for the length of time a person needs to trip the shutter at just the right moment. A tripod allows you to keep the camera awake with your finger on the shutter but with absolutely no strain to your arm/shoulder, and that allows you to concentrate on the perfect composition and the tiny speck of time when just the right exposure happens.

The only time the IS will be a big deal is when you're bombing around in the car and have a total grab shot and can't set up a tripod. And then you'll probably have a window/door to rest the lens on, so IS isn't that big a deal. Or, better yet, keep a monopod screwed onto the tripod ring and collapsed. Only takes five seconds to extend it and get the shot.

And, in general, the IS L prime telephotos aren't quite as sharp as their non-IS older siblings. That's because, as I understand it, the only IS lens Canon designed from the ground up was the 100-400L, which did not exist until IS technology, so it was designed specifically for IS. The other lenses were re-designed for IS, and that may make a small amount of difference in sharpness.

However, the sharpness of any of the L telephoto IS primes is tremendous, and there's no problem there.

If you can find a used non IS 300 f2.8L for a price you can afford, as long as it's in fine working oder and the glass is unmarked, go for it. And don't worry if the body is all scratched/scuffed up and looks like heck. Pros put those lenses through their paces, and all that matters is the works, not the skin. I think you're being a bit optimistic at a guess of $700, but you never know.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Quote:

---

If you can find a used non IS 300 f2.8L for a price you can afford, as long as it's in fine working oder and the glass is unmarked, go for it ... I think you're being a bit optimistic at a guess of $700, but you never know.

---

I just wanted to clarify I don't have the f/2.8L version, mine is the MUCH cheaper and lighter f/4 version. That's about all my wallet and my shoulders and arms can afford.

But, still, I'm happy with it. I was tempted to get the 400mm f/5.6, but I knew that the 300mm would be useful for other things, and I'd like the IS.

Swimmer, I paid $850 for mine, it's in good shape. I think they're about $1,150 new. I have heard the f/4 non IS is slighty sharper but I can't complain about the sharpness of mine at all. I think it'd be worth scraping together another $150 for the IS version.

Cheryl

[Steve Foss]

Ah, yes, he hadn't mentioned which version of the 300 he was talking about, but now I see it probably was the f4.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Quote:

---

Ah, yes, he hadn't mentioned which version of the 300 he was talking about, but now I see it probably was the f4.

---

Tee hee, an f/2.8L would be a bit of a bargain at $700. I'd be straight to e-bay with that.

Swimmer, I also wanted to add that I think the IS version is worth it because you'll be surprised at how hand-holdable the lens is. It's a bit of a shock when you make the move from consumer zooms but you get used to it. I'm only 5'2" and although I wouldn't want to walk around all day with it, I can handhold it easily enough. The worst thing though is camera shake at 300mm, not the weight, so the IS really helps with that.

[Swimmer]

Thanks all.

[JoeB]

I can not bring up the pictures, can you help with this? Thanks in advance.

Joe

[MT Net]

Those are some great pics! Anyone use a monopod? Sometimes a tripod is too cumbersome when in the woods and using an extra lens.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

Anyone use a monopod? Sometimes a tripod is too cumbersome when in the woods and using an extra lens.

---

I use one all the time. I find it better than handholding and easier than lugging a tripod around. If you are shooting low light than you are going to need the tripod.

[Steve Foss]

I use a monopod a lot too.

[WifeKidsandDog]

Quote:

---

Those are some great pics! Anyone use a monopod? Sometimes a tripod is too cumbersome when in the woods and using an extra lens.

---

I use a monopod a lot and never use a tripod -- too lazy to set it up. I like the monopod though, even good to use as a hiking stick when you're out and about. I have a mini ballhead on mine, which I like a lot.

Cheryl

[Swimmer]

I was looking at the Manfrotto monopods and saw one with a built in wire "stand", that would support/stabilize the camera about 10" off the ground. That seems like a great idea for macro/kenkos ect.(?) Update: the boss wants to wait on the 100-400L...but hope is still alive!