andrew_hardacre2

I have both lenses and have travelled quite a lot with each of them

but never both. The 100-400 is of course more versatile but I find

the quality of the 300 f4 IS is much better and I always regret not

taking it. I also take the 1.4x converter. My other lenses on

travel always include a f2.8 wide angle and the 28-135 IS. Personally

I find the 100-400 tends to 'soft' images with very close up shots

whereas the f4 prime is sharp from every aspect. The 300mm f4 is

great for bird flight shots.

I have done some searching on the subject of whether or not you should use Image Stabilsation with a tripod mounted lens - in my case its the 500mm f4 IS. The answers seem to be conflicting but one suggested that the latest lens - inc the 500mm f4 - have effectively 2 sensors with Mode 1 so that the IS can sense whether the lens is tripod mounted or not. This sounds great but does it actually give any benefit using IS on a tripod mounted lens and if so, is there a shutter speed at which this benefit is noticeable. Is it sufficiently good to offset mirror slap at say 1/15?

 

<p>

 

TIA

 

<p>

 

Andrew

Maybe my trials will be over on Saturday as I have bitten the bullet

and the 500mm f4.5 gets traded in for the 500mm f4 IS version. I am

also going to see how much benefit I get from lithium batteries.

 

<p>

 

Andrew

My EOS 3 seems to get through about 30+ rolls of film when I am using it with 8 AA Alkaline batteries and my 300mm f4 IS lens - I am quite happy with this. When I put the 500mm f4.5 + 1.4x TC on i struggle to get 4 or 5 36 exposure rolls through it. This is usually using one-shot not AI servo and a mixture of manual and AF. Is this normal? Any advice on how I can extend battery life or do I just have to keep paying out? Is it worth getting rechargeable batteries?

 

<p>

 

TIA

Bob, you say "If you add a TC to give greater magnification without

moving closer, you lose DOF". However my aperture has reduced from

f4.5 to an effective f6.3 [iIRC]. This led me to believe that I

would actually have more DoF despite the greater magnification.

Clearly I don't understand the physics (no surprise to my old science

teachers, I suspect) but I had always thought that reducing the

aperture increased DoF.

I tried out my 500mm f4.5 at the weekend with the 1.4x TC and using both the 12mm and 25mm extension tubes. The shutter speed was very slow but I did get a few reasonable images in the poor light. I was photographing small garden birds on the feeders. What I noticed was how shallow the depth of field seems to be - even though the eye is sharp, in most pictures there simply is not enough DoF to get the whole bird sharp. Does the use of the extension tubes impact on DoF?

What did amaze me was how much difference the 37mm of extension meant in image size - much greater than I imagined. I need to practice with them a lot more to make sure my manual focussing is spot on but I'm sure going to put them in my bag for Galapagos in November.

The tubes are Canon's own. They are far from cheap. In Britain I

paid £150 for a 12mm and 25mm set. I did not look at the Kenko ones

on the basis that I thought it better to match the tubes to the body

+ lens if possible.

Thanks for the reassurance - the instructions I refer to are in the

pamphlet that comes with the extension tubes not with the EOS3

manual - I briefly tried the extenders last night stacked round a

1.4x converter on the 300mm USM IS lens - it would not autofocus but

with manual focus there seemed to be no problem. (The AF does hunt

but does not find focus).

 

<p>

 

Tomorrow, Saturday, I'll have a more lengthy try.

 

<p>

 

regards

 

<p>

 

Andrew

I have bought a set of extension tubes to use with my EOS3 and telephoto lenses. The instructions say quite specifically that a) you can't use 2 extension tubes together and b) you should only use MF. From practical experience is this correct - my recollection from looking at Artie Morris' book was that he regularly uses extension tubes combined.

 

<p>

 

TIA

 

<p>

 

Andrew

I received my copy of BBC Wildlife last weekend which has a special supplement on this competition. I do not think the photos are as spectacular as in the past but they are still well worth seeing. The Natural History Museum is expensive if you only want to see photos but if you wantr the whole experience its good value. I like looking at all these sort of photos simply to see what others produce and I try to learn from them but I'd rather buy Art Wolfe's new book I'm afraid

 

Andrew

I came to nature photgraphy after starting birding in my 30s. Frequently on field trips there were others carrying photographic gear and I started to get interested in what sort of results could be achieved. I started to photograph more than birds when I discovered how much commitment bird photography needs and I simply don't have the time to be that dedicated. Now I photograph for several reasons - to identify specimens I don't recognise (and thats most things not bird-related) - to get better shots of a species I have already photographed, so once the record shot is in the can I go for something better, and finally because I like the aesthetic result of maybe 1 or 2 shots on each roll (though sometimes I ditch the lot). It has given me a new wider interest and its an antidote to the world of finance. I just love it. I don't know now whether I am a birder who photographs or a photographer who birds!

I got hold of Niall Benvie's book after seeing Rene de Heer's recommendation and it is indeed a good book. Morris' book is superb but makes me jealous! My advice is to have a quick read of one of these but spend as much time as you can in the field shooting and getting experience; re-read the books at intervals based on what you have done and understand why you are getting things right or wrong. There is a lot to absorb in the books but there's no substitute for doing it.

 

Andrew

I would imagine that it will depend too on what lenses you will be using, whether you AF or MF, if you use one shot or AI Servo and whether you use IS at all. The simple answer is take more film than you expect to use and a lot more batteries. If its any consolation I ran out of batteries in Nepal and managed to get replacements in Kathmandu. But since then I have always over rather than under estimated battery needs.

 

Andrew

I regularly see photos taken in Israel by people such as Hadoram Shirahai and Dave Cottridge and I would think the opportunities are good. I have been once to Eilat in the Autumn but to bird, not photograph and I can't say I was really thinking about the photo opportunities. Certainly it is a great birding spot and if you can get up into the Negev, do so.

 

Andrew Hardacre

As Hans says - it depends on what you want it for. I would say that if you want it for birds, the 500mm f4.5 is arguably still a bit limiting - fine for big or tame birds but for small passerines, waders etc most bird photographers end up wanting a 600mm f4 (myself included if anyone in the UK has a Canon one for sale!). The 300mm f2.8 is great for safari pics and making images pop as you can throw the background out of focus. With a 2xTC you can have a 600mm f5.6 for birds - losing only one stop.

 

Personally I would take the 300 f2.8 but its your call.

 

Andrew

"I agree that the 300/4 with 1.4x is a great 420 but I don't agree that the AF is "slow". It is probably slower than the lens alone, but it is not "slow". I've used this combination a lot and I have to admit I can't really tell the difference in AF speed in practical use. I wish I had a scanner so I could show you a flight sequence I took last year of a great egret with the EOS3 and 300/4 with Canon 2x (600/8) because every frame in the sequence is very sharp (and two of the frames are two of my favorite shots I took in the last year). The AF speed does suffer a bit with the 2x, especially initial focus acquisition, but it is still very useable."

 

I guess my definition of 'slow' is relative but I do think there is a noticeable difference with and without the Canon 1.4x TC - the 300mm f4 IS really snaps into focus on its own - the TC does not have that instant snap and occasionally it tends to hunt. With a 2x (again Canon) TC there is an appreciable slow down.

 

My big problem is getting decent shutter speeds with an effective f8 lens as I don't like to use film faster than 100 ISO and ideally I like Velvia. I did try Provia 400 and hated the grain. I tried Ektachrome E200 and found it lacked punch so now I'm back with Provia 100 or Velvia.

 

I am quite surprised you can get good flight shots with the 300mm + 2x TC; are these hand held or off a tripod?

 

Andrew

"I wish Nikon made a similar zoom, it would be a neat option (too bad the Tokina 80-400mm is fastest return I ever made).

 

Andrew Kim, January 2, 2000"

 

Andrew - why did the Tokina go back so quickly? I own one and although it is gathering dust as I have moved on to primes I never felt it was a bad buy at the time and I remember reading very positive reviews when it came out.

 

Andrew Hardacre

Bob Atkins is right - the 300mm f4 with a 1.4x TC is a great 420 but the AF is a bit slow even with the EOS3 - for flight shots a 400mm f5.6 prime is better if you can get one, maybe second hand?

 

Andrew