l_j_cappleman

<p>I found the 055's too light for my purpose. I purchased a 755CX3 and couldn't be happier. I use it with up to a 300 f4 lens but anything larger like my 500 f4 is too much for a reliable steady platform and I have a heavier tripod for that.. The built in 50 mm ball allows me to make leveling correction without having to do leg adjustments and still gives me a column lift if I want it .</p>

<p>I would have to agree with Greg S- the 300 w/1.4 extender. I have the 70-200, the 300 and the 500 for wildlife. I have also used the 100-400. Before I got my 500 the 300 was my most used lens for wildlife. The 70-200 is a very versatile lens but is just too short for most of my wildlife shooting. I found the 300 to be much sharper than the 100-400 at the 300 setting. It seemed to me that my 300 w/1.4 extender was slightly sharper than the 100-400 at the 400 setting. Nearly all my lens are f4 with IS. Perhaps I have been lucky with my lens but that has been my experience.</p>

<p>I have not been to that area in the spring so others will have to give you that info. I have been to Yellowstone/Grand Teton area numerous times and can say that there is no definite time for the best fall colors. We are at the mercy of mother nature. I have been there when the colors started changing in the second week of September and, like this year, it was the third and fourth weeks. I left this year on September 25th and the Canyon Maples in the Snake River Canyon had just started to turn. The Aspens in some areas were changing and not in other areas. They had unusually warm weather later than usual so things were set back a week or two. If you have to make plans now I guess late September would be your best bet-unless we have an early or late fall. It is still a beautiful place regardless of the time of year.</p>

<p>Tony,I said this would bring controversy and I agree with a lot of what you said. However it is my personal opinion that the ranger who gave the goat information was not truly familiar with the area. When I asked her what condition the road to Polebridge was, she replied "Its all paved". Not true. <br>

I have photographing and hunting wildlife since the mid 1950's. I have been going to the Grand Teton/Yelowstone area since the mid 1960's. Granted, I have been to Glacier only 3 times but the first two times I saw at least 10 goats at Goat Lick and that was at the same time of year. I may have just been lucky the first two times and may have the wrong impression but that is my experience,<br>

As to the bears. I was just commenting on the berry crop and expressing a hope that the lack of which would not adversly affect mortality. <br>

In my original statements I listed the primary animals that I got pictures of. I got the pictures-it just seemed harder to get what I wanted. I am not a professional photographer but I thoroughly enjoy my hobby and wanted to share my concerns that people returning to especially the Grand Teton/Yellowstone area might have to work harder to get pictures than they have in the past.</p>

<p>I returned from a vacation/wildlife picture taking trip that lasted the whole month of September and covered the Grand Teton, Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. I also spent a few days in northeast Utah shooting some Indian pictographs and petroglyphs This was my first trip to that region since I acquired my 7D and 500mm lens. My most used lenses were the 500, 70-200 and 24-105. The 17-40 was used for some scenic shots and I shot some wildlife with the 300 (just for old times sake). I got shots of elk, moose, wolves, grizzly bear, black bear, mountain goats, bighorn rams and ewes, coyotes and, of course, buffalo. I had been to that area many times but had not been able to get shots of bighorn rams so that was a great addition to my “collection”. <br>

Now for the bad parts. The berry crop in that area had a late frost and it killed most of the berry buds. I got that from numerous local sources and, from what I saw, it must be true. This is bad for two reasons- the bears will have more trouble fattening up for hibernation and the photo opportunities were greatly reduced.<br>

Next, the Goat Lick at Glacier was not productive at all. It appeared to me that they had mud slides that covered many of the places where goats went to lick minereals in the cliffs and where they were previously plentiful. A ranger said that they only came in the spring but that has not been my experience. Most rangers seem to know what they are talking about and are very helpful but some few feel like they have to say something whether it is right or not.<br>

Now for the really bad news. The elk and moose photo opportunities were greatly less than I have experienced in the past. There appeared to be fewer animals and those that were there seemed more alert and extremely cautious. In the Madison River valley of Yellowstone(where elk are usually plentiful) the population may be down as much as 90%. According to one ranger, if the elk population continues to decrease at the current rate, within three years there will be no elk in that valley. The same was true , but to a much lesser extent, in the Grand Tetons. The universal answer as to why is wolves. According to some of the wildlife people the wolf population in the area is seven times what Parks and Wildlife deems appropriate. As usual, when we try to “fix” something we go overboard in the opposite direction.<br>

I know this will stir some controversy but I thought people planning trips to that region should be informed as to what to expect and could make their own inquiries.</p>

<p>We need to know if you are after wildlife or panoramas. If you are after wildlife then get the longest lens you can. I shoot mostly wildlife and my most used lens is a 500mm, followed by 70-200, 300mm, 24-105 and 17-40 in that order. Even with the 500mm I sometimes use a 1.4 extender. </p>

<p>First, I will leave the macro to someone else who is better informed than I am. I started off with a 10D, 17-40, 50, and 300 w/ 1.4 extender but that was over 10 years ago. That combo was a good starting point for me then. I currently have the 7D and lenses that range fro 17mm to 500mm. For nature it depends on what you are wanting to shoot. For trips to the zoo a 70-200 w/ 1.4 extender is a good starting point. For birds I use the 500 and sometimes wish I had gotten the 600. A compromise might be the 300 f4 with the 1.4 extender ( I am not fond of the push/pull of the 100-400). One good thing about the better Canon lenses is that the resale value is quite high and, if you are careful, you probably can sell without losing too much money. Without knowing specific interests it really is hard to make good recommendations.</p>

<p>Christal-I am surprised no one has commented on the advice to get the Sigma 150-500 lens. I do not believe that it will reliably autofocus at 6.3. There are many competent camera store employees out there but , if he didn't point this out to you, I would be very cautious about taking his advice.</p>

<p>If you are lucky Sigma will re-chip it for you. If not, you have few options: sell it or use it with limitations. I know Sigma makes some good lenses but I no longer will buy one since I buy high quality lenses and want them to continue to work when I buy a new camera.</p>

<p>I have the Lowpro Lens Trekker 600 AW. I looked for some time and finally decided on this one. It was the only pack that I could find that would meet my needs. The bag will hold the 500mm f4 lens with 1.4 extender and camera attached. It did not have enough space for all that I wanted to carry but there are attaqchments you can get to customize to your needs. I think this Lens Trekker bag is smaller than the Pro Trekker.<br>

The 500mm lens plus camera is heavy. I looked at a few shoulder bags but decided that the backpack style allows me to carry my equipment with ease and I did not need the ability to carry a dozen extra lenses. Everyone is different-You have to weigh your requirements, decide what you are willing to compromise and make your decision accordingly. </p>

<p>If you are having problems with sharpness with the 300mm then I seriously doubt that the 500mm will be the answer to your problems. I have the 500mm, the 300mm and the 1.4 extension. I was getting good pictures out of my 300 w/1.4 but moving up to the 500 required a lot of practice and a new tripod to get back to the level of quality I wanted. Normally my advise is "lens first-then camera"but in this case I think a move up to the 7D might be the better answer. I moved up to the 7D from the 30D and was amazed at the speed, accuracy and versitility of the 7D focusing and metering. Bear in mind that lifting a 500mm plus camera is not difficult but holding it steady enough to squeeze the shutter is not. It sounds like you might need to analyze your current problems before moving up in equipment.</p>

<p>It would be great if a simple question could get a simple answer. The problem is that we don't know all the things that are important to you. There are many things that are important besides image quality( even though it is of prime importance to many of us) For example; the 17-40 is a constant lens and the front lens does not rotate when zooming. This is importaqnt to me because I use filters and do not want to reset filter orientation when zooming. The simple answer is-Get the best lens you can afford)</p>

<p>I had the 40D and currently have the 7D. I feel that many improvements were made in the 7D that greatly assist wildlife shooters. The spot focus is now a "real" spot focus and the metering has a similar improvement. Normally I skip camera versions and prefer to spend my money on glass but the 7D had so may features I couldn't resist. I do very little macro work so you need to get feedback from someone who does.</p>

<p>Andrew, you can look at the parts diagram on the Manfrotto website. put in your tripod number and a screen should come up with Description and Parts selections. Select parts and check the Adobe file. Unfortunately, and unlike some of their heavier duty tripods, it does not look like there is anything to adjust. If a part is worn and is causing your problem you should be able to order the part and replace it. The alternatives are to send the tripod back to Manfrotto for repair or purchase a heavier duty tripod with tension adjustments.</p>

<p>I also have both. I found the 28-135 to be a fun lens and used it as my walk-around lens. If you, as I do, use the lower end of the f stops, then I think you will find the constant apature 24-105 to provide superior pictures.</p>

<p>David,<br>

Us nature/wildlife guys want to know which images come out best due to the crop factor and higher mm advantage of the 7D versus the lower crop factor and lower mm of the 5D. Many of us are looking at getting the best picture we can at the best value. My 7D, 500mm F4, and 1.4 extender is sometimes still not long enough so we explore other possibilities.</p>

<p>I hope this works to get the picture accepted</p><div></div>

<p>There is no picture because I am having problems gettin the picture reduced to a size accepted by Photonet</p>

<p>Recently I have been doing some photography of petroglyphs (images pecked into rock faces) and am having difficulty getting some of the more faint images to come out. Has anyone used any special technique to get this kind of image to stand out. I don't think I have to say this but going over the images with chalk is not an option-it is a hanging offense. Attached is a picture of what I am talking about. The Indian is life size </p>

<p>We have taken numerous long trips to Yellowston/Grand Tetons and to Glacier in September. We saw the most elk in Yellowstone but one year no big ones showed up until late in the season. Most years the Madison to West Yellowstone road has been the most productive for elk and black bear. Probably The Canyon Intersection was second and then the Mamoth area was third. The problem with Mamoth is that the elk tend to gather on the freshly mowed green lawns and it is hard to get pictures in natural surroundings. Also saw mountain sheep at Mamoth<br>

The point about elk being dangerous cannot be over emphasized. When we were in Mamoth one elk started attacking cars and was punching holes through the sheet metal. We saw him again about a week later and the rangers had sawed his horns off. One elk decided it was more fun poking holes in people that got too close to him and he also got his horns sawed off.<br>

Glacier is a good place for mountain goats and over in Waterton Canada we saw a lot of mountain sheep.<br>

Even if the wildlife doesn't cooperate the scenery is beautiful and worth the trip.</p>

<p>Tommy, I agree you can use the eyepiece alone. But, as I said in my original post, focus beyond 20 ft is lost. I know just enough about optics to be dangerous but I understand the addition of the barlow is necessay to extend the focal length and enable infinity focus.<br>

Robin, I agree that it is a pity that no one has manufactured a quality telescope adapter for the EOS. If I could have found one I would have snapped it up.</p>

<p>I looked for the converter you talked about but did not find one for the Canon EOS. Also the write-ups that I saw were not very complimentary.</p>

<p>I had followed several posts about using lenses as telescopes and decided to do some experimenting.<br>

First- if you have a good spotting scope hang on to it. Using tele lenses as telescopes incorporating inexpensive parts will not produce superior images. I obtained an image quality that was acceptable to me since I only wanted something to scout a bird or animal before hiking close enough for a decent shot.<br>

That being said- I do some short distance hiking and carry a tripod, camera, 17/40, 24/105, 300 f4, and 500 f4. Even after a short walk this all gets heavy and the thought of adding a spoting scope was close to the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I looked for prior postings, found some, and followed the instructions using a lens cap and a 1 1/4 lens adapter.<br>

Then the fun began. I had an assortment of old eypieces from spotting scopes and experimented with them. I could get a decent image but the image was upside down and left/right reversed. My brain doesn't adapt well to that kind of viewing so I decided to try some other approaches. I tried adding a 90 degree mirror but lost focus beyond 20 ft. Added a 2X barlow-this got me right side up but still left/right reversed. The image quality was only so-so. I looked on Ebay and found a Celestron 20mm erecting image lens. It didn't work by itself but did all right when used with the barlow.<br>

This combination works only with fixed length lens because , at least with my barlow, the barlow had to go about 3/4 inch inside the lens. This means no zoom or non tele lenses. It also means no 1.4 or 2.0 extenders. I used the combo of the barlow and the erecting lens on my 300mm and 500mm with no problems BUT- proceed at your own risk and measure carefully.<br>

The total cost for the adapter, barlow and erecting lens was about $70. Perhaps if I had used better quality components the image quality would have been better but, for my purpose, image quality was adequate.<br>

Again, be very careful as you could run the risk of scratching an interior lens if you insert too far.</p>

<p>What lenses will you be using? With my 7D and 24-105 the manfrotto 3130 works OK. When I stick my 500mm f4 on its a completely different story. Also depending on your legs a head that is too heavy can cause a completely different set of problems.</p>

<p>First, you need to be faster snapping the picture than Matt Dillion was at drawing his 45. You might try using a 3 shot burst- Try to time the first a little early. You didn't say what kind of shooting event-rifle, shotgun, cowboy, etc. The circumstances are quite different.</p>