Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Some Wildlife

  1. #1

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    763

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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]

  3. #3

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    741

    Re: Some Wildlife



    Welcome to the forum, Alex!


    Let's talk about the images first []. 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 []


    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,



  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    465

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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? []


    [View:http://community.the-digital-picture...awaii/utility/: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.



  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    12

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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

  7. #7

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,304

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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


    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

  9. #9
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,175

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    763

    Re: Some Wildlife



    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]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •