les_gyug

I just looked this up. Point your browser to the site below. It has links to all sorts of Mt. Robson park info. You can contact the park (or regional parks office, since the visitor centre isn't open in the winter) for specific info.

http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/mtrobson.htm

Les Gyug

The black bears sit on the railroad tracks eating grain that has fallen out of hopper cars (especially at sidings where those "low-priority" trains can sit for quite a while). It has been many years since I was there, but the Berg Lake trail to the backside of Mt. Robson is indeed spectacular (allow one day in, at least one day there and one day out), and is one of the few trails in the park. There are some fantastic wetland complexes (spruce bogs, willow deltas and the like), but bring a canoe if you want to get into them. Bird nesting should be peaking at about the time you will be there.

The rest of the park is (or at least was) almost completely undeveloped, which is great for off-trail bushwhacking, but not so great if you want to be led somewhere by a trail. The size of the park has grown in the last few decades, but I don't think much development has happened in the newer parts. Remember, this is a provincial park, and provincial parks have almost no budget for anything, at least compared to the national parks (although British Columbia provincial parks do have a web site that you may have already checked out). Jasper National Park adjacent just to the east has all the basic trail developments and tourist amenities that people have come to expect from "developed" national parks.

As to the birding get-together, I don't know, but there are both B.C. birders groups web pages and B.C. Wildlife Festival web pages that may refer to this event.

Les Gyug

I use the Gitzo 226 with legs that lock into 3 positions as they splay apart. With the centre column in, there is a definite limit to how low you can go. But you don't need the centre column. Just take it out and substitute a 3/8 or 1/4 hexagon bolt of the right length, put washers on the bolt so that it doesn't go right through the center column hole, and screw the head directly onto the bolt. It's cheap, it works, and you can "quickly" replace the whole centre column when you want it.

I also use the leg splaying for when I have the scope (and sometimes the camera) on the tripod and want to sit on the ground (especially if I am using the scope for long periods in one spot). Without the ability to splay the legs, I can't fit my own legs under the tripod when sitting (at least not very well).

I use the 100-400IS with both a Gitzo 226 and 026. On the 226, and if I know the shot will be steady, the IS gets turned off and the lens is used like any other lens. If I'm hand holding loose on the tripod head, then the IS is usually on since there is enough hand-shake to get the IS to function properly (and not be adding the extra drift that you get when the lens is TOO steady). The 026 is my backpacking tripod. I take the centre column out and bolt on a mid-size Manfrotto ball head (any other ball head would be too big). This means I can only use the tripod while sitting or kneeling since it only comes up to my waist, but the weight saving means that I will usually be bringing it with me. The 026 is not too steady and I usually use my hands to steady it when following something, at least when not taking simply static pictures (for which the IS isn't usually needed at all, and for which I usually use a macro lens anyway). Therefore, since my hands tend to add some extra shake, it seems the IS usually functions OK when on the 026.

I don't know where the 1xx series would fit in there. It seems to me that it might not be steady or tall(?) enough to be a main tripod, but it might have more uses when hiking than the tiny 026, albeit at a bit more weight.

Whether you should turn the 100-400 IS on or off on a tripod depends

on your technique. If your technique is poor, or the day is windy,

leave the IS on, and it will sense your minute vibrations and correct

them magnificently. If your technique is really good, and the lens is

absolutely still, that ugly IS wander comes into play, the view drifts

around, and that drift will show up as out-of-focus slides that look

like you had handheld 400 at 1/4 sec. Apparently this is fixed in the

new 300/2.8 etc big lenses, but I doubt that I'll be trying any of

them soon to actually test it.

<p>

In the meantime what I do when the 100-400 is on a tripod: if there

is absolute stillness that I can be sure of, then the IS goes off; if

I am sort-of-handholding on a loose ball head, or touching up focus

now and then, then I use the IS. If the IS is on and I notice it

drifting because now I am TOO still, then a very slight movement of

the hands (almost unnoticeably slight) is enough to get the IS working

as it should again.

I had an older (SD?) Tokina 400mm/5.6 lens for about 6 years. It had

Contax/Yashica mount. I bought it used for about $150 Canadian. It was a dog. I don't know if that was because of previous rough treatment which was not obvious (the outside and lens elements looked just fine, no scratches, dings or even obvious wear). The aperture levers/rings would stick, so I never knew if it was metering correctly, or if it would stop down upon exposure. Even when it did work fine, I would never call it sharp, no matter how fine the technique, and it was certainly not very contrasty (it had the same sort of washed out flare-like effects even with lens hood pulled out that my Tokina 300/5.6 also had). Stopped down 2 stops (f/11) it was better, but still not what I would call sharp, and who wants to use a 400mm lens at f11 all the time. It was somewhat on a par with my very very old 400/6.3 preset, and was about the same price too. Maybe other samples of this lens were better, but this one wasn't one of them.

I went down to the local photo dealer and (surprise!) they actually had one in stock, and at the same price as I would have had to mail order it from New York!, and without the hassle, customs charges, and duties (7% if its over $1500 CDN). Living in a small city (100,000 people) in Canada, I had no right to expect anything of the sort.

Anyway, I shot one roll (Sensia 100) in the parking lot, had it developed, and then bought the lens the next day. I already have a 28-135 IS so I knew what to expect more or less from IS. I've spent half a year slowly switching from Contax and still hadn't got any Canon long lens. I've used 300's (Nikons, Tokinas) and found them too short as a single length lens, so didn't really want the 300IS.

I took a sharp shot (under 20x loupe) of the cameras in the display case at 1/3 second at 100mm! At 400mm out in the lot, handholding at a distance only got really sharp at over 1/90 sec, but handheld at closest focus was sharp at around 1/30. I decided that was good enough for me. The quality is also head and shoulders above the old Tokina 400/5.6 (pre-ATX) that I had been using (and had given up on and already sold).

What I would really like is a Canon (or whoever) 400/5.6 IS, but I may have a really long wait for that one, in the meantime I'm hoping this one will do. I am still field testing this lens, but am kind of slow on this, it being winter here, evenings being very dark etc.

I just looked back to the 1996 lens issue, and this is the second time

they've tested the Canon 50/1.4. At 20X24, Wide open is a huge

discrepancy, but the rest of the numbers are within about 1 point. I

would guess that either their testing is plus/minus one point, or the

lens variation is plus/minus one point. But wide open it is plus

minus 20 points. I would guess that is lens variation. Is it normal

for lenses to have such huge variation in quality wide open? (Lower

quality, yes, but also higher variability lens to lens?). Being a

biologist and not a lens designer, I don't have any answer to that

one.

The problem with the tests (and they admit it right in the mag) is

that N=1, and you cannot decide anything on N=1 of each lens when the

spread of the data is unknown. They must know the actual spread (or

at least its approximation) since they admit there is no clear

winner given what they expect the spread (or standard deviation,

or etc.) to be. Then they go ahead and ignore their own warnings

about not scientifically accepting this data and declare a winner?!

This has been hashed and rehashed in many a forum and thread. I wish

just once those guys (from there or ANY other magazine) would actually

test 10 of the same lens and let all us in on what the spread of the

SQF or lp/mm really is for a given lens (or maybe even lenses).

I have this camera/lens combo and it works just fine. I haven't seen

any vignetting problems with this lens (although that doesn't mean

there might not be any with blank blue skies wide open at 28 mm), but

there is definitely a problem with the built in flash. The lens is

just too big, and the flash is barely useable because the lens creates

a shadow on the lower part of the frame at lengths less than about 50

mm. Consequently I use longer lengths, and then the flash is too

close to the lens axis and not even "red-eye reduction" can really

stop red-eye when doing portraits in dim overall light. This lens and

the built-in flash just don't work very well together in a lot of

situations (although there are certainly many situations where they do

work). My problem with this lens/camera combo is the camera and not

the lens. The IS works in dim forest light where I use it often and

can handhold really slow speeds successfully. Unfortunately I like

smaller cameras than the ElanIIe (Contax 139 size) and so am not

really happy with the camera in general. I also have a devil of a

time trying to make the eye-controlled depth-of-field thing actually

work, although I can control the focus points quite easily with my

glasses on.

I use the Yashica focusing rail. It moves in just the one direction

and will fit any camera with the standard 1/4-20 thread mount. I don't

even know if they still make it. It makes macro work with a macro

lens a joy instead of a chore. I just automatically mount it if doing

copy work, but don't necessarily use it in the field because it is

just one of those things I don't take with me very often.

I had the same problem a few years ago when buying a used Tokina

400/5.6 without any sort of tripod collar. My answer cost less than a

few bucks. I used a tiny wood platform (1/2 inch plywood stock,

about 2x4.5 inches), built up the ends in the right spots with

wood and cork cradles so they wouldn't interfere with focusing or

aperture rings, put a 1/4 T-nut through the wood platform to attach to

tripod head, and "locked" the lens into the cradle with elastic fabric

strips hooked into hooks on the wooden platform. Not exactly elegant,

but it was cheap (which is why I bought the lens, a custom job would

have cost more than the lens). I could switch to vertical easily

because the lens could twist within the elastics when they were

stretched. I no longer have that lens, and it turns out the platform

and cradle also fits my Zeiss 135/2.8 and Mutar II combination (which

is too heavy to rely on the camera body tripod support), so I still

end up using this silly little piece of equipment that weighs all of

an ounce or two.