Long Lens Lessons

[shots worth sharing]

<p>When I acquired the A* 400mm, Peter Zack suggested that I get off my...um...<em>porch</em> , put on my hiking boots and go shoot birds in the field so I've been working on that. Let me tell you, it's a very different experience than setting the tripod up on the porch and hanging around in my slippers waiting for the birds to show!<br>

The first issue is where to go and I've been doing some scouting around. Because the 400mm is such a load (about which more later) I've taken to do the exploring with the DA*300/1.7x AF TC combo. Here are some shots I took with that set up on the fringes of a golf course.</p>

<div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>And a BIF (these small birds are so quick!)</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>So far, when I've taken the 400mm out, I've put it on a monopod, wanting to stay somewhat mobile. Maybe I'll get better with that arrangement but, based on my experience so far I doubt that's really workable. Trying to shoot with a 13lb lens balanced on a stick is a work-out: throw MF into the mix and it's a <em>serious</em> challenge.</p>

<p>For another thing, I guess I should say I'm always using the 400mm with a 1.7x or 2x TC: I figure I can get good 400mm with the DA*/TC so there's no reason to wrestle with the 400mm unless I'm looking for reach into the 560-800mm range. Once you get into that territory, I guess, a solid tripod is pretty much mandatory.</p>

<p>Here's my best shot taken with the 400mm + 2x TC + monopod this morning. Given the circumstances, I'm pretty pleased but I want to do much better. I think Cedar Waxwings are really beautiful but their plumage is really smooth so a good shot has to be <em>very</em> sharp.</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Oh, and another thing: picking up the "target" in the viewfinder at these FLs is <strong><em>hard</em> </strong> :--I sure wish my 400mm had a gunsight like the 1000mm does!</p>

<p>In sum, I guess the drill will be: explore with the 300mm and, when I find a good location, go back with the 400mm & tripod. So...I'll conclude with a shot from the porch with the 300 & 1.7x ;~) </p><div></div>

[personalphotos]

<p>Dave, It's a very different experience. A greater physical workout, uneven ground for the tripod and a lot more time involved etc. A big difference from street shooting etc. I've ruined clothing and gotten a few wasp stings, wet feet and frozen a few body parts while waiting for the "perfect shot" (that often never comes).</p>

<p>I remember discussing with Marc L about his Texas experience. Sitting in a blind in the summer heat with a tripod, camera and 500mm lens waiting all day for 1 shot. He said it was over 115F inside that thing at times.</p>

<p>But then you get shots like the one you posted and the day is completely worth the effort.</p>

<p>Btw, I completely agree on the CW's. Beautiful birds in a subtle way. I have a few shots this year I really like and want to do much better next season.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>It <strong><em>is </em> </strong> different!  It's sort of like the difference between fly fishing and bait fishing.  Given my short attention span, I tend to prefer the more mobile and active approach, but there's always the lure of hookin' that big'un :~)</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Good start on the photos and great intro on the challenges Dave! Adapting to non-tripod technique is one thing, the other side of the coin is learning to get closer to your usually unwilling actors & actresses. To me it seems not so much a matter of learning to become invisible (that would be a bit hard at best of times) but more of learning to be there and be ready for surprise encounters at shorter range. They do happen more often as you get into it, luck is always a big part of it, but there are ways of improving the odds while you're at it.</p>

<p>Two years ago I pretty much gave up on tripods and now would only use one if there's a very definite "pinpoint opportunity" like a fountain or feeder where the same birds come back over several days. Moving around is so much more fun: once you get of the -um- porch, it becomes really interesting to get to know your local parks and wild places from the specific angle of birding photo ops, figure out the best times of days and year to be in each place, and develop some gut feeling on where to sit or stand when one or more birds hop around you or fly by.</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Dave,<br>

You are developing a great skill and certainly too much of a challenge for me. Your Resident Mockingbird is a painting. Beautiful.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I think one of the advantages of the porch, btw, is that the birds (like that Mockingbird) are used to me: birds are more skittish at "off the beaten path" locations. </p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>Dave, seems you forgot to rotate the first one...</p>

<p>:)</p>

[garry_young1]

<p>Very impressive Dave! If you keep this up you'll have a good excuse to invest in something really scary, like the <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3">Sigma</a> 200-500mm f 2.8! It only weighs 15.7 kg! Imagine the healthy workout that thing would give you on a walkabout! Your doctor and loving family would love you for buying that!! Only bad thing is that you wold have to get a canikony body. :)</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Dave, I think what you have done with your birding is great!. If I could sit and shoot birds off my porch, I sure would. But for me to find any good bird locations I have to drive about 2-3 hours..When the Southern California fires hit, they hit all the cool trails and are still closed...</p>

<p>I do have a wazzo carbon fiber tri pod and mono pod but caring that around with my Sigma 500F/4.5 got real old real fast...</p>

<p>Still, I really miss using the beast. Maybe I will go shoot some ducks. :)</p>

[stemked]

<p>With a lens like that I would think you might be thinking about a Wimberley Head. Isn't that a better option?</p>

[shots worth sharing]

 

<blockquote>you might be thinking about a Wimberley Head. Isn't that a better option?</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I<em> am</em> thinking about a Wimberly, Doug--pretty pricey though. The Manfrotto Gimbal on my tripod seems to be at least adequate. Do you mean mount the Wimberly on the monopod?</p>

[stemked]

<p>I can't say I've seen anyone with a full Wimberley on a tripod. There is another option though:<br>

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/MH01onGM5540.gif&imgrefurl=http://reallyrightstuff.com/tripods/04.html&usg=__JjIL_SrFLmMrqXPr4WClhrmped4=&h=614&w=350&sz=57&hl=en&start=33&um=1&tbnid=8qmfaZjppHlQUM:&tbnh=136&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwimberley%2Bmonopod%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1</p>

[daniel_tong1]

<p>Hey Dave<br>

<br />I borrowed a 400mm and what you said about the lens + gear as a weight lifter combo is 100% correct. That I have found out first hand.<br>

I end up only use a 300mm and zoom with my feet or slip in as close as possible to get to the subject. If it flies away I learn more (their habitat & behavior) the next time. I have to say majority of the time I ended up empty-handed. <br>

You are off to a spectacular start. But my suggestion to you is to stick with your mono not another Wimberly. I am biased as I am only interested in birds in motion/flight. Improve your panning and focus skill of a manual gem. Your 2nd in flight image has convinced you are more into motion shots rather than stationary ones. It took me 20k shots to improve my in flight shot skill with an MF 300mm. Your 400mm is definitely more challenging. But it is more gratifying/rewarding if you can make it with higher keeper rate.<br>

Just did a couple today at<br>

<a href="http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=15463">http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=15463</a><br>

I am 60 and wear glass with a MF300mm. That is the max (in terms of gear weight) for me already. Good show and keep up with the good work. I did not know that you want to get into wildlife shooting too. But your skill in other areas helps a lot<br>

Daniel </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>I really appreciate all the encouragement and advice! I'll keep after it--it's an interesting challenge.</p>

<p>Those are interesting head options, Doug, but I think I need to get more experience before I look for a gear solution: I suspect there are no magic bullets. I'm not totally writing off the monopod but I think the tripod really is indicated in most situations above 500mm. I think I made a "rookie mistake", btw, starting out with the 2x TC--like the newbie fisherman who measures success by how<em> far</em> he can cast. Next time, I'll try it "naked" or with the 1.4x TC. </p>

<p>The good news is the spot where I shot the CW seems to be a good location for a variety of birds and it's nearby so I've got a decent place to practice. These things can be transitory though--they'll eat all the fruit on that tree sooner or later (they finished off the dogwood berries in about two week) so I guess I need to keep exploring.</p>

<p>Oh and that was a sort of inadvertent BIF, Daniel. I've been following your progress on that front, though, and hope to start working on that soon--at least with the 300mm. </p>

 

[stemked]

<p>I agree, tripods are the way to go. I have a carbon-fiber Gitzo legs that work well too (can't recall the name), but I think the I use a Markins head for my 500mm f4.5 Takumar which isn't ideal. I think if I had a huge lens like yours I'd have to get full Wimberley (or similar offering from RRS). </p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Dave, when I saw your waxwing photo I was going to recommend you tone down your noise reduction...until I realised there's a reason it's called a <em>wax</em> wing :-D</p>

<p>I'm glad you got off your arse (let's call things by their proper names) and ventured out into the Wild. It's paying off already! My favourite from today (they're all very good!) is the mockingbird—it's so simple yet charming all at once. The only thing is I would have cropped it differently; I hope you don't mind my meddling, but here's my framing idea:</p><div></div>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Thanks Mis. These photos are...shall we say, "uneven"--intended to demonstrate the ups & downs. The woodpecker is ok,I guess (though cropped more than I'd like) but the other two pretty much suck. I didn't do any NR on the Waxwing btw--it's just a crappy shot (and I also just made the connection between the name and the uncannily smooth plumage.) The mockingbird was just to demonstrate that, given a cooperative bird, I can produce something fairly decent. </p>

<p>I'm not sure about your crop--in part because I'm on a "Save the Pixels" regime but also because it seems to somehow emphasize the "blank" space on the left. I'll take another look later--I'm certainly not wedded to mine. What I'm more concerned about is the "painterly" quailty Tony mentions: on the one hand I kind of like that look (and it shows in some other of my bird shots), but I don't know how it happens exactly or how I could make it look less like a painting and more like a <em>photograph</em> [scratches head].</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure about your crop--in part because I'm on a "Save the Pixels" regime but also because it seems to somehow emphasize the "blank" space on the left</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well...I actually <em>liked</em> the blank space! :-) It's a nice pattern and hue, which complements the mockingbird well IMHO. But what <em>I</em> would say with a photo is not necessarily what <em>you</em> would say with it—if I made you think twice about it, even if you stick with your original framing, then my goal was accomplished ;-)</p>

[Tony Evans]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>I think it comes from diffuse, soft, pastel tones, speaking as a non-artist.</p>

[marclangille]

<p>Yes, Peter is correct - sometimes I seriously questioned my sanity in those temps while in a blind... 8-) However, because the wildlife there rarely see people, you have fewer choices on how to get the tight shot, even with 500mm.</p>

<p>Dave, keep the faith and stay the course - this takes time! You've added an extra element too, MF makes it more of a challenge. A lot depends on your long lens technique and how you locate and photograph the subject(and subject compliance of course). That is where timing comes in to play. Those birds (Red Bellied Woodpecker, Waxwings, etc.) are very tough subjects!</p>

<p>I'm not quite ready to regularly use the above lens on a monopod, but I'll know soon enough, since it really does take a lot of practice to use 500mm+ on a monopod. The good part is that once you go back to shorter FL lenses, you'll see a big improvement on the image sharpness (assuming it's in focus, etc.) with them. The discipline and technique needed to obtain sharp shots with longer lenses will only benefit you when shooting shorter FL.</p>

<p>Not to hijack the thread, but this is for Douglas Stemke: this one's for you! The FA* 250-600/5.6 with Wimberley WH-200 head:<br /> <img src="http://www.marclangille.com/photos/720165493_qcxFT-L.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> Front view:<br /> <img src="http://www.marclangille.com/photos/720165312_nRP9c-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Regards,<br /> Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Oh, good! Thanks Marc--I was just about to solicit your perspective. I'll keep at it but will lean more to the use of a tripod (and either no or a milder TC on the monopod.) I don't think of myself as temperamentally suited to sitting in a blind for hours but my wireless netbook may help and I'm hoping to find some camo netting under the Christmas tree.</p>