eric_washburn

<p>If you're suggesting that the 100% section shows camera movement rather than out-of-focus blurring (and OOF would not be unusual, since you used the widest aperture and the longest reach of the lens, leading to the narrowest depth of field), the 100% section should have been taken from the object on which the camera was focused--the trash can.</p>

<p>You're right--aquarium shots are very difficult. Since you work there, you can probably take your photos during times when the public is not around and can avoid at least some restrictions, such as those against using a tripod. Some supplemental light is probably necessary, but flash that is close to the glass will result in varying levels of obvious under and over-exposure, unless you're prefocusing on a small area which substantially fills the viewfinder and can, with a little experimentation, be properly illuminated. Flash that's farther from the aquarium will, all other things being equal, of course be less powerful and require wider apertures, resulting in decreased depth of field, but that may give you the best results. Getting the flash off camera and diffusing it (even wider apertures!) will also help. Getting a correctly exposed photo of an entire field of fish, unless there are times when they are nicely lit by natural light or an existing broad array of artificial light, is going to require a complicated multi-flash setup, though the exposure differences can, to some extent, be moderated by post-processing. </p>

<p>While apparently appealing, getting both of these items in focus would seem unnatural to many viewers, as if a giant spider had attacked the moon. If you experiment with different apertures and focus points, you might be surprised at the artistry of the results when only one subject is in focus.</p>

<p>It's possible that the problem is confined to the lens. If you have, or can borrow, another lens, you can determine if that is the case. Whether the lens, or the camera, or both have been damaged by the fall, this is not something you can fix yourself; the factory warranty only covers problems arising from the design or manufacture of the equipment; it does not cover accidental damage.</p>

<p>There was one, apparently unsold, recently offered on a popular auction site for $450 or best offier. This is a tough item to get--I've been looking for a comparable hood for the 400/4, having bought a used one, without hood (though the 300/2.8 hood fits it). I think the hood for the 400/2.8 is the same size as the hood on the newly-offered 800/5.6, but that information probably does you little good. Because these hoods are so scarce, it will be difficult to find a used one for significantly less than the new price, absurd as that price is. You can always go the ultra-cheap route with some black paper:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lenshoods.net/hoods/Digital-Lenshood-Canon-EF-400mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-petal-A2.pdf">http://www.lenshoods.net/hoods/Digital-Lenshood-Canon-EF-400mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-petal-A2.pdf</a></p>

<p>Your problem doesn't sound exactly like the one which led to this free fix from Canon, but you might ask the company if it's sufficiently close for a similar, free repair:<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933&keycode=2112&id=55659">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933&keycode=2112&id=55659</a></p>

 

<p>I've had very good results with buydig.com. </p>

<p>You haven't absolutely indicated whether you anticipate using all your cameras for wildlife work. Even with the 1.6 multiplier of the 40D, I think you'll find that lenses shorter than 400mm will eventually prove inadequate for anything except large animals, unless you are very good at stalking. The 400/5.6 is an excellent lens, even without IS. If your budget permits, you might consider the 400/4 DO, which has IS--not quite as sharp as the 5.6 and expensive (though you might share my good luck in finding a good used version); a good used 500/4 IS can probably be found for about the same, or even a little less, than the 400/4, and if you're not especially interested in handholding capability, it would be a better choice. You probably know the various combinations of bodies and lenses and teleconverters that will retain autofocus, but even without this important feature you can still take very good photos of all but the most frenetic beasts. </p>

<p>One more possibility, if you are photographing a scene with a fairly straight demarcation between dark and light areas: use a neutral density filter--start with one that provides 3 stops of difference.</p>

<p>There is a limit to the dynamic range--the gradations of brightness--which your camera is able to capture, even with the help of fill flash and post-processing software. So you have to make a choice: either decide which elements of a scene with a wide range of brightness you want to expose for or alter the scene (by waiting for the light to change or changing your own position) so that all elements can be satisfactorily exposed. A final alternative would be to use a tripod and a fixed aperture and take several photos at different shutter speeds, combining them with appropriate high-dynamic-range software.</p>

<p>Nice shot, Leslie. I think experience will be the best teacher for questions such as when to select one-shot AF or servo. The center focusing point is the most sensitive, although using it for shots like this might result in either stagnant compositions or frustration in trying to use it and recompose. Background blur, of course, can be of two types--being out of focus or being blurred when you pan. For the first type, you can choose either a wide aperture or a longer lens or both. For the second, slower shutter speeds will increase the blur--and longer lenses will, too, if you maintain the same distance from your subject--though both of these factors will also make it more difficult to get a sharp picture of your subject.</p>

<p>Along with the previously-mentioned ability to expose manually in extreme situations, post-processing can effectively expand exposure compensation, and in a manner which lessens the likelihood of blown-out highlights or loss of shadow detail. Of course, there's also HDR.</p>

<p>Until you get a remote release, or if you forget it sometime in the future, remember that you can use a delayed shutter release to minimize camera vibration, though with long exposures you shouldn't have to worry about vibration much, when using a good tripod.</p>

<p>If f5.6 is the correct exposure for one lens, it will be correct for other lenses. However, the depth of field will vary among lenses of different lengths, using the same aperture, and, as your comment about 800 ISO implies, a longer lens requires a faster shutter speed (and correspondingly wider aperture, for a given amount of available light) to capture a sharp image of an animal which is crossing its field of view at a relatively faster rate and to compensate for the oscillations which are created when the camera is handheld. Both lenses you're considering are sharp; the 300 will take a 1.4 teleconverter and still maintain autofocus with all Canon bodies, though this combination introduces some image degradation and will give you only 5% longer reach than the 400. As you probably know, the 300, but not the 400, has image stabilization--it will help you more with static subjects but, of course, only affects the motion imparted by the photographer; fast shutter speeds and good technique are required to minimize the imaging challenges of a fast critter.</p>

I'm going to suggest some equipment that goes beyond your budget, but if you can accumulate the funds I think you'll find that these lenses will suit you for a long time, and they will also work with a full-frame digital camera. Consider the 17-40 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4. As you may know, the latter is available with and without IS; your interests and funds will help you choose between the two. For your next purchase, perhaps a moderately expensive wildlife lens, either the 300 f/4 or the 400 f/5.6. The former has IS (you can find older models without it); the latter does not. Both are probably a little sharper than the 100-400 zoom (also with IS); while not as versatile as that zoom, if you already have the 70-200, you won't lose much, though you'll be changing lenses more often. Eventually you will probably want longer reach, and the 1.4 teleconverter is a good choice, though you will lose AF on the 400.

The additional one or two stops of a pro lens is often seen as valuable for situations involving low light or requiring

high shutter speeds. Additionally, a pro lens is likely to be built more sturdily and to have better sealing against rain

or snow. Of less obvious value, though I've been told by pro sports photographers that it is commonly demanded, is

the dramatically decreased depth of field when using, for example, the 400/2.8 wide open, beast that it is. My 70-

200/2.8, bought on Ebay years ago, has proved to be a great lens, but this lens will definitely test your arms and

wrists when you've been handholding it all day. As digital cameras achieve higher quality with high ISO settings,

some of the pro lens advantages diminish. What it really comes down to is whether X amount of increase in quality

and capability is worth Y amount of aggravation and Z amount of extra expense. Each person's variables will differ.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=225&modelid=13390&keycode=2111&id=27699

Since they contacted you, knowing that you were a customer, you shouldn't have to provide a receipt. The letter doesn't say that they intend to provide a legitimate replacement, so you need to determine their intentions. If they refuse, you can spend XXX hours of your life trying to get them to comply, or you can bite the bullet and buy a new battery, preferably from a company that has a good rating from www.resellerratings.com. You can do the rest of the public a favor by recording your experience at the site just mentioned.

Unless you're very strong, you'll need a substantial tripod and, preferably, a gimbal head for these lenses, though you might occasionally handhold the 500. As others have indicated, 500 is probably the minimum for birds, unless you're going to restrict yourself to areas, such as feeders, where they have become at least somewhat habituated to humans. If you're interested in larger subjects, and if extended handholding is important, you might also consider the 400/4 DO--not quite the image quality of the other lenses, but fairly close and able to autofocus with a 1.4x teleconverter on all of Canon's DSLRs. Don't expect great images with a 2x teleconverter, whatever the lens. I used one on the 300/2.8 recently and was disappointed with most of the results.

I'm not sure if you're asking about the interior electronics or are just interested in the basic theory. On the assumption that it's the second (the first is beyond me)--there are a couple of major types of light meters. The ones that are built into cameras measure reflected light to get an idea of how much light is falling on the subject. You tell the meter what sensitivity you've selected (digital) or what film speed you're using, and the camera gives you a wide range of pairings of aperture and shutter speed which will produce an proper exposure. Problems arise when you meter off a brighter or darker-than neutral subject, in which case the meter can underpose or overexpose. So you either use the camera's exposure compensation feature (which takes some experience to use properly) or meter off a reasonably neutral subject, such as grass or a gray card, and hold that exposure while recomposing, if you wish. Handheld meters can be more accurate, because they measure the light which is actually falling on your subject, instead of the light which the subject reflects. Of course, they are also less convenient, because you have to position yourself near the subject and expose the meter to the light that is present.

John,

 

I don't have either of the lenses in which you're interested, but I do have the 600/4 and the 400/4. The 600 is great for birds, though you'd have to be a real expert to use it for birds in flight. The 500 can be handheld for brief periods, but the 600 (and the 400/2.8) cannot, unless you're very strong. I was at a recent PGA tournament and spoke with some of the pros there, many of whom were lugging around the 400/2.8 (on monopods) with pained expressions; the common response, when I asked them about the 400/4, which seems to have improved greatly from its earliest versions, was that their editors demanded the "pop"--isolation of the subject from its surroundings--which comes from using the bigger 400 at its widest aperture. I hope some of these considerations are useful for you.

You might also consider the 400/4 DO. While early versions were criticized, most of those criticisms have abated. I have it, along with the 300/2.8, and I find that the 400 (which will autofocus with the 1.4 extender on all of Canon's DSLRs) is significantly easier to handhold for extended periods. It is not as good, especially in the area of contrast, as the 300, but it is reasonably close.

Though perhaps slightly long for a 1.6x body, the 85/1.8 is a good value and will enhance your ability to blur the background, if you use it at or near maximum aperture.

Check out the filter wrenches at www.bhphotovideo.com; they've worked for me a couple of times.

And Sony is expected to produce about a 24MP full-frame model this year, with in-body stabilization.