Some Wildlife

Hey guys I am new to this forum. I have been reading the reviews for a long time but just now signed up to the community. I have been in photography for about six months now starting with a 1000D kit then realized how much fun it was :) Now I own a 50D and have a 70-200 f/2.8 on my way for a christmas present to myself. Anyway, the following pictures were taken with a 70-300 f/4-5.6 i borrowed from a friend. The loss of sharpness above 200mm in this lens is obvious (to me at least)... definitely in the first picture.





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.66/IMG_5F00_2201.jpg[/img]


Canon 50D ISO 200 f/5.6 1/200 @ 300mm





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.36.66/IMG_5F00_1715.jpg[/img]


Canon 50D ISO 250 f/5.6 1/800 @ 300mm





I've been debating between the 300mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L and decided to go with the 70-200mm because of the extra stop. Im trying to get into some sports photography (woo snowboard season!) and figured I can always get a 1.4x extender to give me a 280mm reach when needed.

Unless you shoot indoors often, the 300 f/4l is usm is by far a better choice for wildlife AND snow sports. Yes, you get the f/2.8 aperture, slightly better IS, and weather sealing, but as I said, if wildlife and outdoor sports is what you do than the 300 is the way to go.


Why? The 70-200 is considered to be a sharp zoom from 70-135mm. But 200mm is the lens' weak spot. Many cheaper lenses produce better image quality at 200mm (including its younger cousin the 70-200mm f/4l is usm). If you think you would constantly use 200mm, get the 300mm f/4.


Your second photo is really good. I am a wildlife photographer myself and have never really gotten that sort of photo out of a white-breasted nuthatch.


hope this helps...[H]

I was wanting the 300mm but I know I would really miss the focal range. (My only other lens at this point is the 50D lens kit, 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6). This spring/summer I really want to do some car photography (mostly at the track) and from what I can tell this is a great lens for that. I think eventually I will end up getting the 300 prime maybe in a year or so.

Welcome to the forum, Alex!


Let's talk about the images first [:D]. First one, your main subject is underexposed, the background and forground have a lot of distraction, one positive thing is that the deer is looking at you. 2nd one is better in term of lighting compares to the 1st one, but I still think the lighting is too harsh. In my opinion you need to crop tighter for more impact and I also find the branch infront of the bird is distracting. Keep shooting, learning about exposure andpay attentionto the invironment around your subject before you pull the trigger [:D]


For general wildlife, the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L ISis the most versatile lens. With your 50D it becomes160-640, at 160mm you'd never worry about your subject getting to close to you, at 640mm you can do bird photograpy, and of course if you have good lighting this lens can be a good outdoor sport lens.


For bird only, the 400 f/5.6L is a good choice, usually when shooting bird you'd need to use your longest focal length.


IMO I think it is impossibleto have ado-everything lens, my suggestion is to pick up one lens for one discipline and down the line pick up another lens for another discipline.


Good luck


Nate,

Okay, here is a photo for which I'd like some critique. Sorry about the hardware, but I need to sell it before I can get a 300mm f/4 L IS plus a 1.4x TC or 400mm f/5.6 L for my 40D. Any takers? [:D]


[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...awaii/utility/http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l...opped_jpeg.jpg:800:0]


Handheld Nikon D100, Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO TeleMacro @ f/5.6, 1/1500 sec, ISO 400, -0.3EV.





My original has room to open up the framing, or recompose with more above or below or left or right. This is probably half the original image area.

Alex, for wildlife life photography one of the best lenses out there is Canon's 100-400mm. It provide a great range for telephoto work and superb image quality. While primes provide excellent image quality, I prefer the versatility of a zoom.


Hope this helps,


Caleb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Why? The 70-200 is considered to be a sharp zoom from 70-135mm. But 200mm is the lens' weak spot. Many cheaper lenses produce better image quality at 200mm (including its younger cousin the 70-200mm f/4l is usm). If you think you would constantly use 200mm, get the 300mm f/4.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

That's news to me - although I've not used other high-end 200mm lenses, I did endless research before buying my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and I've not read anyone else saying that. I mean, many think the f/4 is marginally sharper, but from what I gather only pixel-peepers would notice any difference. Besides as I read it you're implying comparisons with non-L lenses and general image quality which I find very surprising...?


While the 300mm prime might be a better candidate for some applications I can't believe anyone would be unhappy with the IQ and sharpness of the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm unless they have a defective lens.

Alex, great pictures!


Yes the out of focus tree or whatever it is is a bit distracting, some cropping might be good. I don't think the main subject is underexposed though...I like it, your photo's are natural, I like that! Colors are great as well. It isn't studio-photography so exposure can and should be natural in my opinion. The deer stands in the shadow, so it should be a bit underexposed I believe. I think a flash to clear the exposure on the deer had ruined the natural feeling of the picture. The second one is a nice picture as well. I love it how you keep bright and colorful pictures, but keep them natural at the same time.


The second picture for me is quite boring, just a bird on a stick (BOAS), that's probably because I don't know the bird species and the effort it takes to make one, so don't be bothered by my opinion :P I couldn't make a better one myself :D


Keep on going!





At hifiguy, your picture looks good to me, again (BOAS) :P but it's a nice natural look. I like it!


More and more I get the feeling that there is a big difference in general nature/wildlife and bird-photography :P I hope one day I will understand it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

@ f/5.6, 1/1500 sec, ISO 400, -0.3EV.

---

I noticed that you were using 1/1500th secat ISO 400. You could have used ISO 200 and still get avery handholdable shutter speed. Unless you are like me and don't pay attention all the time and use less than ideal stettings.[:P]


Overall I really like your image, besides that its kinda loosely framed. But pratice helps alot,a whole lot!


That picture is definitely worth posting in the "Post your best bird shots"thread.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

While the 300mm prime might be a better candidate for some applications I can't believe anyone would be unhappy with the IQ and sharpness of the 70-200 f/2.8 at 200mm unless they have a defective lens

---

I agree that the IQ of the 70-200 is great. however, most people use the extremes of a zoom range. If shooting wildlife, much focal length is needed. The "extreme" of the 70-200 is from 160-200mm. From 175-200, many cheaper lenses are noticeably better.


Don't get me wrong, I love my 70-200. I just love my 300 f/4 more.[H]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

@ f/5.6, 1/1500 sec, ISO 400, -0.3EV.

---

I noticed that you were using 1/1500th secat ISO 400. You could have used ISO 200 and still get avery handholdable shutter speed. Unless you are like me and don't pay attention all the time and use less than ideal stettings.[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]


Overall I really like your image, besides that its kinda loosely framed. But pratice helps alot,a whole lot!


That picture is definitely worth posting in the "Post your best bird shots"thread.


John.

---

So John, what would I have improved specifically by using ISO 200? I used ISO 400, to be honest, because I was trying to emulate the success, to some extent at least, that is evidenced by Nate's shots, and I see him using 1/1000+ a bunch with his 400 f/5.6. That is the primary reason the ISO is higher, to get the shutter speed up. You're probably right, 1/750 would have given me comparable sharpness and hand-holdability with that same shot. I didn't have confidence that I was good enough to handhold that slow with that lens. I'll try to crop a little tighter and re-post, but I kind of like the fence as a compositional element. Let me know what you think.


EDIT:


Okay, here is a tighter, recomposed crop.


[View:http://community.the-digital-picture...awaii/utility/http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l..._3206tight.jpg:800:0]

Well I don't think ISO 400 is really a problem. The picture looks nice as it is. Maybe at 100 percent the iso-noise would be more visible then with iso 200. And yes it would still be a good handholdable picture, probably even at iso100. But then the bird flies away and you manage to take one more picture while it's in flight....would you be more happy with iso200 1/750 or iso400 and 1/1500? [:D]

Welcome Alex....this a great area to get info w/many various opinions on how to's.


Suggestion for bird photography; use your Highlight Tone Priority when shooting birds w/white coloring....note the over exposure on the Nuthatch's head and neck areas. The HTP will help w/this and also w/the rest of frame's exposure. On a 40D it's located at C.Fn ll-03...I don't know if this will help in locating on your 50D


You'll find the 70-200mm fine for controlled birding settings, e.g. backyard feeding stations, but you'll soon discover when you're out and about, it will prove to be too short even w/an extender. The 300 w/an extender would have been a better choice as well as the 400mm and 100-400.


bburns; I'm looking at purchasing the 70-200 2.8 IS for photographing hummingbirds in my HB garden this spring.....also gymnasium and hockey rink shooting. Would you kindly post the links for info concerning the statements you've made regarding; IQ sharpness 175-200 and many cheaper lenses are noticeably better.


If I can find a lens that will be cheaper w/better IQ (no pixel peeping articles, e.g. 70-200 f/4 IS) that would be great and less stressful on my wallet.


Regards


Bill

Bill W. This is a quote taken from Brian's review of the 70-200 F/2.8


"I have received some comments on the ISO 12233 resolution chart samples for this lens - some think they are too soft at f/2.8. As I get time, I retest questionable results - Or even buy another copy of the lens to insure accurate but expectable results. I re-tested this lens and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS USM Lens at the 200mm focal length using AF, MF and bracketing - obtained results were identical. The chart is tough on optical performance, and real life images do seem sharper. I use this lens wide open much of the time - the results are quite satisfactory to me. Stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 will show a difference - and will make this lens very close in performance to the remarkable Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens at the same aperture."


From this I take it that at 200mm wide open it is a little soft. I don't have this lens but have the F/4 version and it is really sharp. I am wanting this lens though for some of the same situation you are talking about. Think I will be waiting though to see if they come out with a version II this year as rumors have it since they are supposed to be upgrading the IS and fixing that wide open softness, as rumors have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

So John, what would I have improved specifically by using ISO 200? I used ISO 400, to be honest, because I was trying to emulate the success, to some extent at least, that is evidenced by Nate's shots, and I see him using 1/1000+ a bunch with his 400 f/5.6.

---

You guessed it right, I was talking about shutter speed. Since there was no action and that you were cropping heavily and you probably would seenoticble differance in noise. Well, mabye.[:D] But definitely you would want to use a high shutter speed when you are shooting action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Okay, here is a tighter, recomposed crop.

---

Love it, love it, love it! That is much better. Now you can confidently post itin the "Post your best bird shots".


Keep up the good work and enjoy the fruits of your labor!


John.

Wow! I'm blushing. Thank you so much for the encouragement. I will post it right away!

Thanks Wes....I've read this review more than a few times and the lines I take away are; "The chart is tough on optical performance, and real life images do seem sharper. Stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 will show a difference - and will make this lens very close in performance to the remarkable Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens at the same aperture." My take away is the capture, by either lens, would be difficult to differentiate w/my eyes w/out pixel peeping.


I used the 2.8 lens a few weeks ago (at 200mm) and I thought the result was excellent, until I saw the same bird taken (at approximately the same time and angle) w/a 300 2.8 (prime)...wow (but the price tag falls into WOW)....feather detail (soft at 200 in comparison) was noticeably different (sharper w/300) w/out the post processing.


I need the 2.8 (and want a zoom) for my HB garden falls into the shade early in the day....so I'm assuming bburns' statement about price and "noticeably different" IQ means cheaper than the 2.8 w/better (?) IQ at 200mm. I would like to read these reviews and make my own decision on the matter.


Alex....I apologize that this post is veering off your topic line, but this may be helpful down the road.


Also Alex, another recommendation; pay attention to Sinh Nhut Nguyen's, a.k.a Nate, entries....good pix and good advice for birding.


Regards


Bill