jim_mueller2

>>Nice series of bird shots! Any tips on how you get so close?<<

 

You must stalk most wild birds. With Image Stabilization I don't need a tripod. This makes stalking, sometimes on my hands and knees, much easier.

 

Also the extra reach with a 1.4X TC and 1.6X cropping factor helps!

 

Of course the typical penguin in the typical zoo requires no stalking.

I was at the Milwaukee County Zoo event called Zoo Ala Carte yesterday.

Numerous food vendors sell a variety of cuisine while bands perform a wide

genre of music. It's a casual affair. So brought my old Canon 300D DSLR plus

300/4 IS and 1.4 TC II along for some casual shots. It was an overcast day,

not the greatest for animal shots.

 

Still, I am always blown away by the above lens combination. It never ceases

to amaze me, even after 3 1/2 years.

 

An original untouched jpg right out of the camera (below).

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/image/65365005/original

Your CF card is similar to a hardrive. Give your assistant a CF card reader that plugs into the USB port of his/her computer. After taking photos you can then simply give the assistant the CF card out of your 300D. Buy at least one spare CF card. That way you can continuously rotate CF cards.

I own the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro and love it. This is my first non-Canon lens so I was a bit leary. After using it for a month I can report it has exceeded my expectations in optical and build quality. Focusing is faster and quieter than my EF 50/1.8. The the Sigma 17-70 is light years ahead of the Canon 18-55/4.5-5.6 kit lens. The only negative I have to report is that the focus ring turns while auto-focusing. I do a review here: http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report

::::::was probably not due to the lens originally either:::::

 

No, it was the Camera all along. I gave the lens a ride to the New York Sigma Factory and back for nothing! Oh well. It works great and I just love it. HIGHLY recommended especially if you're on a budget.<div></div>

I've been getting Err 99 with a Sigma 17-70 lens. It's an awesome

lens but what good is it if it causes Err 99? I sent it back to

Sigma for repairs. I got it back and it still gave Err 99.

 

I was pissed to say the least. After I calmed down, I looked at my

300D (D-Rebel) and found one of the 8 contact pins (within the lens

mount) recessed with very little spring. I pulled the recessed pin

out with a miniture needle-nosed pliers and now the lens works fine!

 

The wierd thing is that none of my Canon lenses gave the error but

seem to autofocus wierdly now that I think about it.

 

I noticed that this "8 pin group" is a one piece unit that is

attached to the camera with 2 screws. Can this part be purchased

somewhere?

 

BTW: Here's a review of the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 Zoom...a truly

awesome lens for the price.

 

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report

If anyone is interested, I am doing a test report on the Sigma 17-70

Zoom. The Sigma has turned out to be quite a nice lens. Check it out

if you are interested.

 

http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report

The tests I read showed a miniscule improvment in optics on the EF 2X II. It's not worth much so if you can buy the EF 2x I at a significantly lower price, I would choose version I.

Image Stabilization reduces camera shake by "wobbling" a lens element within the lens group at high speed to compensate for camera movement. Camera shake is minute movements of the camera caused by the unsteady action of your body.

 

I.S. shifts the image slightly, but does extremley fast so as to optically move the image in the opposite direction of your "shaking".

 

This technology gives a damping effect to the camera shake movments. It doesn't completely eliminate shaking but slows the movement down so a slower shutter can be used. It's VERY effective.

 

With my 300/4 IS + 1.4X, I can hold the effective 420mm lens steady down to about 1/90 or so (with a little luck).<div></div>

Just for grins you may want to check out this test: 100-400/4.5-5.6, 400/5.6, 300/4 IS + 1.4X Kenko TC, 70-200/2.8 + 2X, etc.

 

I found it very interesting though not necessarily 100% valid. It's a fun read that demonstrates that the 100-400 zoom can actually be sharper due to sample variation and perhaps the type of tele-converter used etc.. Draw your own conclusions.

 

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/teletest

::::::::rules out the 300/4IS optionally with Extender 1.4x, and incidentally the Photozone test does not rate that combination as highly as many users seem to regard it::::::::

 

Actually, Photozone conducted the test a second time and found 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC II to be sharper than the 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom. I've been using the 300/4 IS + 1.4X for a couple of years and find it to be very very sharp. I've also read and seen tests that show the 100-400 zoom to be sharper. I don't think there's a diffinitive answer as to which of the two is sharper.

If you already own an XT I'd say no, selling it to upgrade to a 20D is not worth it. You'd be better off keeping the XT until the next generation after the 30D, at least another year away.

 

I still have the original D-Rebel, the 300D. It's a fine 3 year old camera and I plan on keeping it another year. Upgrading d-bodies too often is expensive and really doesn't gain you that much.

 

Buying lenses OTOH opens up many more photo possibilities. Plus lenses hold their value far better because they don't go obsolete like d-bodies.

I agree the earlier version non-IS of the 300/4 is a good lens.

 

But don't generalize that the new 300/4 IS is necessarily inferior. I have an excellent example of the 300/4 IS. It works with the EF 1.4X TC II very well. I find the advantages with Image Stabilization far exceeds the slight advantages of small optical advantages.<div></div>

I've been looking for a walk-around lens in this range for vacations. The review looks pretty good, both in build quality and optically. Focusing is reported to be slower than the Canon 17-85 but still good enough it seems. I may order one.

I use the 300/4 IS and 1.4x TC for birding with very good results. The 400/5.6 is even sharper but has no IS. From the reviews I've read the 400/5.6 is sharper than the 400/4 DO.

 

The 400/4 DO is about the same price as a 500/4. If I could afford either, I would choose the 500/4 in a heartbeat.

I own and love the 300/4 IS. I've never owned the non-IS version but have read online that it is slightly sharper. This may be splitting hairs though and in real world use the differences may be nothing.

 

 

I can tell you that "IS" is essential for me. I have found that a steady FOV is more important than slight differences in optical quality. I use the 300/4 IS + 1.4X for birding. I hate stalking birds carrying a tripod.<div></div>

Thanks to my dealer, I've tried demos of the 70-200/2.8, 70-200/4, 70-300/4.5-5.6 IS. Of the 3, I found the 70-200/4 to be the right size, really nice build, great optics and the rht price so I bought that one. I've used a 1.4X with the 70-200/4 and found the results pretty good but did not compare with a 70-300 directly. But the 70-300 is not that great at 300 anyway.

 

The 70-300 was pretty soft above 200mm, plus build was average. Plus it didn't have the white finish that "L" lenses have! Plus, I already own the 300/4 IS so the 300mm end wasn't that important to me. I liked the optics of 70-200/2.8 but the size/weight/price turned me off. YMMV!

The 70-200/4L is superior to the 70-300 IS in everyway, superior optical quality, superior buid, superior resale value. Plus it focuses faster and is faster optically.

I use the 300/4 IS + 1.4X without a tripod. It's light enough to carry long distances and with IS it's hand holdable down to about 1/100 sec. It's quite a good lens combination to stalk birds and other wildlife without a tripod.<div></div>

Here's a typical shot with a 300/4 IS + 1.4X TC II with a 300D. I like this combination. It's sharp and the IS is indespensible for me. I like stalking birds without a tripod. It's just more fun.

::::obsolesence of the D60 significant enough to outweigh the cost-benefit of acquiring one second-hand?:::

 

It all depends on price. I consider the 300D a better camera than the D60. You can buy a used 300D for $400. How much are d60's selling for?

I agree that the 500/4 is the ideal bird lens. I can't afford one so I make do with an EF 300/4 + an EF 1.4X. Results have been pretty good when I keep the effective aperture to F/8 . The main advantage is that it this lens combination relatively small and light. Plus it has I.S.. I don't own the 100-400 Zoom so I can't comment.<div></div>

::: it was horrific::::

 

Actually, I also own the 18-55 and find to be fairly good! It's really not a bad lens at all.

::::::::::::::and put my $'s into getting pro-grade L lenses:::::::

 

My strategy exactly.

This would not be a wise trade up in my opinion. I own the 300D as well and consider it a great, but not perfect, camera. The 350D is only slightly better. Even the 20D is not that big of a step up in technology IMHO. Next year you'll be tempted to do the same thing all over again. I'm waiting for at least one more model year.