There is no known cure! Started with a 30D and 28-135 kit lens, sold the 28-135 and got a 100-400. Sold the 100-400 and got a the 300 f/4 IS. Also got along the way, 17-40, 70-200 f4 IS (great glass!), 200 2.8 (also killerglass), 5D (super IQ wit all this glass), getting a 35 f/1.4 for Christmas, a 135 f/2 (for birthday in Feb.), No Known Cure. Learn to live with it! Maybe a 1Ds MkIII now that the MkIV is here.
JeffersonPoster
Okay you guys, not exactly helping me out here... At this rate, I think it's terminal. LOL
Here's what happened today. I've been practicing shooting hummingbirds in my backyard for months now, off and on. I was using the 70-200/2.8L IS, but the problem was I couldn't get close enough, or I didn't have the range. Now that I got my flash off-camera thanks to the PocketWizards, I have been at it some more. They continue to be skittish around me and I feel like I could definitely get some nice images with the 300/4L IS.
In the meantime, I thought why not slap on the 100/2.8L macro IS if the MFD is the issue here. I was very doubtful that I could be let so close to these guys. I hung my feeder right outside the patio door and used my umbrella as a sort of makeshift blind. My lens was positioned about a foot away from the feeder. And guess what I got:
5D Mark II, 100/2.8L macro IS @ 100mm @ f/7.1 @ 1/40s @ ISO 320, ETTL flash on PW, 100% crop:
I could NOT have done this with the 70-200/2.8. No way. Not only would it not have been this sharp, it wouldn't be this big. And now my mind is thinking, "imagine what I could do with the 300/4L IS + 1.4x TC...."
And not too long ago I went to the zoo and got a shot of this sparkling violetear:
5D Mark II + 70-200/2.8L IS @ 200mm @ f/4 @ 1/50s @ ISO 320, 25% crop:
And it absolutely *kills* me to know that I wasted a lot of pixels because I could not get close enough, and that I was literally cantilevered over the railing, hands shaking, to get as close as I could. And so the image is soft. If I had the 300/4L IS, I could have done a much, much better job. You have to understand. I NEVER expected to develop an obsession with photographing hummingbirds, of all things. I bought this camera to take photos of people, not wildlife. And yet, I have found wildlife (and macro) so much more rewarding and comfortable than portraiture that I am starting to wonder if I would be more successful shooting animals than people.
So tell me, am I crazy for wanting to spend another $1200 on a lens, without having any expectation that I can earn something back for it? Am I unworthy of this lens?
wickerprints:5D Mark II, 100/2.8L macro IS @ 100mm @ f/7.1 @ 1/40s @ ISO 320, ETTL flash on PW, 100% crop:
wickerprints:I NEVER expected to develop an obsession with photographing hummingbirds, of all things. I bought this camera to take photos of people, not wildlife. And yet, I have found wildlife (and macro) so much more rewarding and comfortable than portraiture that I am starting to wonder if I would be more successful shooting animals than people.
wickerprints:So tell me, am I crazy for wanting to spend another $1200 on a lens, without having any expectation that I can earn something back for it? Am I unworthy of this lens?
Call it what you want, a hobby, passion, job, etc. For those of us who don't pay the bills with our photographs we do it because we love it (not that you pros don't love it too!). It's hard to put a price on the things we love. Some people have extravagent home theater systems. Some people have fast cars. Some people don't buy their clothes at Target . We invest in photography gear. If nothing else, you will always have a support system here (enablers!) to help you make these decisions :-)
wickerprints: I hung my feeder right outside the patio door and used my umbrella as a sort of makeshift blind.
I hung my feeder right outside the patio door and used my umbrella as a sort of makeshift blind.
wickerprints, this is an outstanding shot. (you could always photoshop out the catchlight, of course).
Would you be willing to post a shot of your makeshift blind set up? This really sounds intriguing and inspirational.
And, show the position to the feeder, too.
Thanks!
Okay, I can't take it any more!!!!! There are limits to my willpower. Dropped coin on the 300/4L IS. *shakes head*
I'll try to show off my setup when I get around to shooting more of these guys. Bear in mind, it's nothing fancy. Just hang the feeder on the awning just outside the doorway, let the hummingbirds get used to its location. Hang it low so that you can sit down. Get the camera + tripod super close, put the umbrella and OCF to the side, blocking most of your body. Then sit and wait. As soon as they fly by, bring your hand up to the camera and shoot.
Now I'm hearing rumors of an EF 70-200/2.8L IS Mark II...this makes me want to sell my 6 month-old Mark I and spend even *more* money. Help. Please. This is TERRIBLE.
It's a terminal disease called "gearlitis"..but what the hell, you seem to be doing ok
Julius: It's a terminal disease called "gearlitis"..but what the hell, you seem to be doing ok
AKA "Gear Acquisition Syndrome" (GAS)... and if you ask my wallet, it would most definitely be telling you that I am NOT doing okay.
I just heard about a price drop on the EF 300/2.8L IS. I could get one for just under $4000... the reptilian part of my brain is literally screaming "I do not want to lose out on this deal!!!!"
My 300/4L IS arrived yesterday. It's just about perfect right out of the box. No need for microadjustment.
But seeing as how this is the longest focal length lens I have used so far, during testing of this lens I discovered some interesting behavior.
As I was checking for focus accuracy, I had the 5D2 + 300/4L IS mounted on a tripod and took some shots with IS off. I saw vertical blurring and quickly concluded that mirror bounce was causing the problem. FWIW I did not observe this with the 70-200/2.8L IS mounted on the same tripod with IS off.
Next, I repeated the exposure with IS on. No change whatsoever in exposure, which makes me wonder if this lens' IS system is tripod-sensing, because with the 70-200/2.8L IS, if I turn on IS while on tripod, I get much blurrier images in all directions. This is confusing since the 300/4L IS was designed before the 70-200/2.8L IS.
Anyway, to confirm the issue with mirror bounce, I enabled MLU and repeated the two exposures, one with IS on, one with IS off. (All four exposures were taken on 10s timer @ 1/30-60s shutter speed.) In this MLU test, I saw a sharp image in each case--IS mode again made no difference.
Because the influence of IS was not yet observed, I unmounted the camera from the tripod and repeated the experiment handheld, MLU disabled and enabled. Again, exposure was about 1/50s, so more than 2 stops slower than 1/300s. With IS on, I was able to get a very sharp exposure, no directional blurring, both with and without MLU. So the IS system does work.
Based on this result, I conclude that 5D2 + 300/4L IS + tripod = MLU at intermediate shutter speeds (1s - 1/300s). The reflex mirror on the 5D2 induces a great deal of shake. Perhaps the tripod I am using is too light to damp the vibration, but these were my findings. My next step will be to try IS mode 2, to see if the panning mode will permit the IS system to recognize the vibration from the mirror.
Comments, questions, thoughts welcome
Great bird shots.
I don't have that lens!
I'm not buying more lenses, I'm not buying more lenses, I'M NOT BUYING MORE LENSES!
:(