eric_washburn

<p>Though not responsive to your question (as others have indicated, you'll have to get an estimate from Canon or elsewhere), I thought it might be helpful to remind folks that the carrying strap, when you have a heavy lens on a camera body, should be attached to the lens, rather than to the camera. On a recent trip to Florida, such a lens detached from the camera body and nearly rolled into the marsh. I was lucky, since it fell onto a wooden walkway and still worked. Since then, I've purchased systems which allow me to attach straps to either the lens or the camera body, depending on lens size.</p>

<p>You might also consider Canon's 300 f/4. Not as sharp as the 2.8, of course, but it's about 20% of the price and half the weight, and its minimum focusing distance is so close that it has a higher maximum magnification than any other Canon telephone, assuming you can get close to your subject.</p>

<p>Your dilemma may be not so much related to lens selection as to the great difference in dynamic range--that is, you're presumably trying to get both the stars and the landscape. You might try a fairly high ISO and a neutral density filter, oriented to attenuate the brightness of the stars, so that they are not overexposed while the shutter remains open long enough to get some landscape details. This would also be a good situation to use some HDR software.</p>

<p>DeLoyd, I was there in the spring of 2012 for about ten days with a great group under the guidance of Naturescapes. Hummingbirds were the main interest, and 70-200 or 70-300 were the most used lenses for them (I had the former, but the group leader preferred the latter, which offers more framing versatility), though we had the advantage of setups at distances of 20 feet or so. When not at the setups, we often were shooting perched birds, usually at greater distances and without the multiflash advantages used at 20 feet. For the longer shots, my 7D, with a 600mm, a sturdy tripod and Wimberley head, was great, but that's an awful lot of equipment to tote around. After that trip I acquired a 5DIII and found its focusing superb for in-flight shots; sounds like the 400 would be your best bet there--I have one and have used it successfully in such situations, though for in-flight shots of larger birds (as I was working with in Florida), I think that a 300/2.8 has a quality advantage. All this is of little use, of course, if birds aren't your main interest, but they're a big part of why many nature photographers go to Costa Rica. Unless you have a big tripod, preferably with a gimbal head, I'd leave the 500 behind, even though it's a great lens.</p>

<p>A gimbal head will greatly improve your photos of perched birds and prevent you from putting your chiropractor on speed dial. Very few photographers use them for shots of birds in flight.</p>

<p>I've had the 7D for quite a while and got the 5DIII, my first full-frame digital camera, not long after it came out, hoping that it would help with birds-in-flight shots. It is superb for that...and for other types of photography, I'm sure. As with many photographic situations, it's all a matter of compromise, based on your own priorities. If you're mostly interested in perched bird shots, then the extra reach of the 7D is a big plus, especially for smaller birds. For BIF, and the larger shore birds, I'd go with the 5DIII, whose autofocus is greatly improved over the 5DII.</p>

<p>I was in Costa Rica earlier this year, concentrating on birds, for which you usually want the longest lens available. If you're fortunate enough to be where hummingbirds are coming to feeders and you can get within fifteen feet or so, something like a 70-200 or 70-300 will work well, though you'll need a flash if you want to stop their wings in flight.</p>

<p>If you get the 100 and want to use either of Canon's Speedlites designed for macro use, you'll need Canon's Macrolite Adapter 67, $30-$35.</p>

<p>The 7D is an excellent camera, and your proposed lenses are well suited to your photographic priorities. The 85/1.8 will isolate your portrait subjects a little more than the 50, but it may not be worth the extra money to you. The 17-40 is a very good lens; while less dramatically wide than the 10-22 (and perhaps not wide enough for your landscape photos), you will also be able to use it on a full-frame camera, should you one day decide to get one. The 24-105 is also excellent and, since you didn't mention any interest in wildlife, probably more useful to you than a version of the 70-200.</p>

<p>You have received good advice on the repair process. Can't help with the logorrhea.</p>

<p>That's a very interesting strategy, Robert, especially since the new 600 has shaved a higher percentage of weight than has the new 500, though both seem daunting for handholding.</p>

<p>Excellent shots, Robert, and thanks for your suggestions. I'll be lugging the 600 for perched shots, but I'd be dreaming to think I could use it for BIF. I own the 400/4 and the 300/2.8, so I guess those are my only realistic options for the flying birds. Maybe during the next year I can save up for the new 500; I'm sure you're right that that lens, especially without a TC, will produce the sharpest images.</p>

<p>Wow, Eric, that's a great tool. I've bookmarked it. Sharpness is very close at one away from maximum aperture, so I think I'll go with the 400. Thanks a lot.</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments. Although I used the 400/4 (DO) in Florida with the 1.4x, I don't think I'd do it again, even though the reach was nearly twice that of the 300. So I was looking for IQ and AF comparisons between the 400 alone and the 300 with the 1.4x. </p>

<p>I will soon be going to Costa Rica for some bird photography and would appreciate your views on the relative merits of the lenses noted above. Space is limited, so I will probably take one or the other. On a Florida trip last year I was somewhat dissatisfied with many BIF shots taken with the 400 plus the 1.4, compared to the 300 alone (the first IS version), though of course the reach was markedly different. If you have an opinion on the desirability of using IS for BIF photos, rather than tracking with a high shutter speed, please offer that also. I understand that many people use IS mode 2 for these shots, but it seems that that would only work well for birds traveling in a relatively straight path. Thanks for your observations.</p>

<p>Of the table I had ordered from Staples, only the top half arrived at the store, and, incredibly, Staples couldn't be confident that it could ever guarantee delivery of the rest! So I cancelled the Staples order and got a five-foot long table from another source, which unfortunately I can't remember now. You can use either casters or slider feet; I chose the latter, and the table seems quite stable.</p>

<p>As you can see from the responses so far, it depends. The advisability of using a tripod increases as your strength ebbs for whatever reason, as your lens and camera weights increase, as the light fades, and as you concentrate more on static rather than in-flight photos...and in this context "static" includes situations where you can predict the positioning of moving birds: as they approach or hover around a feeder or a pool of water, for example. A gimbal head will greatly increase your comfort level for static shots by allowing you to quickly pivot over a wider range; how much it helps for in-flight shots is highly debatable.</p>

<p>If you're confident that you'll be satisfied with this specialized type of bird photography, I'd suggest experimenting with the lens you have to determine how much of a telephoto you need to frequently fill the frame. It sounds as if your subjects will be large and fairly close to your lens, so you may be able to get by with something like the 135, which would normally not be long enough to be recommended for bird photography. Your present lens should also give you an indication of how important IS will be--again, it seems that your subjects will be more controlled than wild birds, which may allow you to minimize your own movement (which is the only movement that IS can counteract) or even use a tripod. </p>

<p>Here's a link to a similar discussion on this forum after I asked for stand recommendations for the 4900, which is similar in size and weight. Although I indicated that I had ordered a 30 x 60 basyx table top and appropriate legs from Staples, Staples wasn't able to provide the legs, so I ended up with the same setup from <a href="http://www.thenerds.net">www.thenerds.net</a>. <br>

<a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00YTlD">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YTlD</a><br>

This setup is fairly heavy, but it's also sturdy, rated for 200 pounds.</p>

<p>Thanks again for the many fine suggestions. I like your setup, Ben--very well thought out. I considered a lot of possibilities (even this, from Rubbermaid: <a href="http://www.buyonlinenow.com/viewitemsAct.asp?classlabel=QRCA&manufactlabel=3100172&SKU=RCP4525BEI&gb=1?utm_source=GoDataFeed&utm_medium=ShoppingEngine&utm_campaign=Pricegrabber&gdftrk=gdfV21806_a_7c173_a_7c392_a_7cRCP4525BEI">http://www.buyonlinenow.com/viewitemsAct.asp?classlabel=QRCA&manufactlabel=3100172&SKU=RCP4525BEI&gb=1?utm_source=GoDataFeed&utm_medium=ShoppingEngine&utm_campaign=Pricegrabber&gdftrk=gdfV21806_a_7c173_a_7c392_a_7cRCP4525BEI</a>, though some of them were ruled out by the size and weight of the 4900. I eventually went with the 30x60 basyx table from Staples, which comes with both glides and casters (equal height) and which doesn't have the braces common to folding tables, which would limit under-table storage.</p>

<p>Yes, the additional advantage of drawer storage is a big plus for the Ikea suggestions.</p>

<p>Not only is it 115 pounds, but it's 30" X 34" (16" high). Staples just sent out some coupons for 20% off furniture, so I'm thinking maybe something like this: <a href="http://www.staples.com/basyx-Table-Top-T-Leg-Base-for-30-Deep-Tops/product_728571?cmArea=SEARCH">http://www.staples.com/basyx-Table-Top-T-Leg-Base-for-30-Deep-Tops/product_728571?cmArea=SEARCH</a> with either a 5 or 6-foot top. Thanks for all your suggestions.</p>

<p>I just ordered the 4900 but am having a hard time finding something reasonably priced and stable to put it on. I'd prefer something with casters. Any suggestions? Thanks.</p>

<p>I think that the resulting unit would be unwieldy over time. You might consider something like this, even though it's a lot more expensive:<br>

<a href="http://www.cottoncarrier.com/">http://www.cottoncarrier.com/</a></p>

<p>On a trip to Glacier National Park my Canon battery failed. I had a spare but thought I should buy another, though I could only find a third-party equivalent in the nearby town. Then I couldn't get that battery to charge either. The problem was the Canon charger--admittedly not the most likely culprit. So the lesson is obvious--we need backups for everything, especially for situations where time and location make it unlikely that a replacement can be quickly found.</p>