terry_danks

I don't know what the answers are here. The issues are immense and politically intractable. I was on the verge of tears about 7 years ago when I saw footage of elephants being shot en masse for trampling farmers fences.

 

I hear of the debate about nature photography: "Shots of captive animals are not nature photography" vs shots of wild, free ranging animals "should be judged identically to those in farms and zoos" . . . "a good picture is a good picture" philosophy.

 

To a lesser degree the same issue can be split much finer. I am told, here in photo net, that I need to learn to get closer if I have to use a converter with an 800mm lens to photograph birds. This likely by people who approach herons within 50 feet at Ding Darling. The herons up here in Nova Scotia are wild! They don't allow any such close approach.

 

It would be nice if all wild creatures were free of course but it isn't so.

 

There is no doubt to me I take greater pleasure in photographing creatures in the wild than captives.

 

Many people in my photo club take great shots of captive animals at a "wild life park." I haven't tried it myself yet but might in the future . . . just for the fun of it. I consider it an unfair comparison to compare shots of captives to shots of creatures in the wild though. Those that feel otherwise are welcome enough to their opinion of course but I consider the two universes apart in accomplishment and attendant satisfaction. I also feel any attempt to pass off a shot of a captive as a "wild" shot unethical.

As Robert has pointed out, Canon now have 15X50 and 18X50 IS glasses in their stable. These came too late for me (drat!) but I did finally purchase the 15 X 45 model some time ago.

I love them despite their weight and "clunky" ergonomics.

 

Those who have still not tried IS binoculars should get themselves to a dealer quickly. The experience is quite something.I parted company with my 8 X 32 Leicas some time ago. I no longer miss them. Nothing but IS binoculars will satisfy me now.

Others have already pointed out that the lens in question does not have filter threads.

This brings up a point I find a bit irksome. I find the front "bonnet" supplied with both my Nikon 800/5.6 and Canon 300/2.8 to be clumsy. This makes it far less convenient to "cap" the front element and I find I am leaving them "naked" for long periods. I am not especially worried about damage but rather dust.

Has anyone found a makeshift front lens cap for any of these "super" telephotos? I like to keep my 300/2.8 at the ready at home . . . not stored away in that trunk.

 

I agree it is reckless to not use these lenses with the hood in place. Yesterday I found myself crawling through tickets in pursuit of a saw whet owl. Distracted by the pursuit, I was horrified to see tree branches poking up into my lens hood. Fortunately the hood was sufficiently deep that the front element of the 300/2.8 was untouched.

Somehow one never quite sees oneself pushing through thick shubbery with these expensive things but it happens. (I also dropped the EOS3 with 550ex attached too . . . but that is a totally different story. I forgot the strap around my neck was attached to the lens . . . not the camera. When I was removing the EF12 extension tube, I quite deliberately just let the camera drop . . . it did! Fortunately the ground cover was thick and resilient.)

Shun wrote: "IS/VR solves the problem of camera and lens movement, which to a fairly large degree is the result of poor technique and/or

insufficient camera support."

 

This seems a very negative attitude towards image stabilization. Implied is that IS lenses are for photographers using "bad" technique. If you can get a sharp slide with an IS 300mm lens hand holding at 1/50, then doing so is NOT bad technique. It is excellent technique to do precisely that, and presents the photographer with additional opportunites over that attainable with non IS hardware.

 

It is very "bad" technique with less capable hardware that can not possibly yield good results when doing so.

 

IS redefines entirely what "good technique" is when supporting lenses.

If it did not do so, it would be a technological failure.

 

Forget the inverse focal length rule that used to define "good technique" for selecting shutter speeds when hand holding. For IS that rule is obsolete. The "good technique" referred to here is well on the way to being "obsolete" technique for obsolete equipment.

 

Sure, those utilising the "obsolete" technique can get images just as sharp as those from non IS lenses . . . but the need for the extra effort should hardly be construed as some kind or virtue and the need to adhere to it will surely result in fewer opportunites.

 

If you grant IS works, you can hardly slap at it by implying it is little more than a bandaid for "bad" technique.

I have been using MLU on F2 cameras for 27 years. I agree the lever is stiff to operate but I never found it so to the degree Leo describes. You don't just push the thing over . . . squeeze towards the body first and then rotate the lever while supporting the body with the other hand. Pushing towards the body BEFORE rotating is very important.

"I think long lenses are going to become obsolete."

 

-- Ron Shaw, April 3, 2000

 

I am surprised no one took up Ron's comments, either to agree with or dispute them.

 

I own no digital body and am pretty unknowledgeble about them. I understand that, through some quirk, they produce larger image scale on the frame than conventional bodies, effectively turning a lens into the equivalent of a longer focal length. Great for telephotos, not so great for wide angles. It seems a gift horse but I need to look it in the mouth before accepting it . . . I'm a tad incredulous this will come with no strings attached. What's the bad news about this quirk of digital?

 

Regardless, I remain unconvinced that long lenses will become obsolete but allow Ron the humor he likely intended with the statement.

 

Can I look forward to dispensing with my teleconverter on occasion perhaps?

 

In any event I see long, fast IS'd lenses as great advantages in wildlife photography . . . digital or conventional.

 

If I thought the image quality was there, and the storage problems amenable to field work, I'd be investigating digital pretty quickly.

 

Digital has little application in nature work as I see it . . . and not likely for several years yet either. Journalism is a whole other kettle of fish and I have no problem understanding its ready acceptance in that field.

Shun asks whether the f4 or f2.8 300 IS is being considered. I suspect we both know the answer but, as an owner of the EF300/2.8L IS, and as an unskilled canoeist who capsized as a young man with my Minolta SR-7, Id NEVER take a lens as expensive as the 300/2.8 into a canoe!

 

Also I have never seen a situation where a loon allowed such a close approach that 300mm, or even 420mm (with the EF1.4) was effective at getting a good shot but maybe you'll have better luck than I.

 

In any event, IS will be extremely useful under such circumstances.

 

Good luck . . . and no capsizing!

I use a Gitzo 410/Wimberley with my 800mm/5.6 Nikkor. I do not have a Canon IS lens of similar mass but do have the EF300mm/2.8L IS. As of yet I have not purchased a 'pod for the 300 . . . the 410 is certainly

a bit overkill but I do not plan on another, lesser, tripod for the smaller lens.

There is a consideration that Kurt has not mentioned: The security of the lens against accidental upset. Considering the wind I am on occasion faced with, I would not try to support these expensive and heavy lenses on anything less than a substantial tripod. The extra cost pales when compared to the cost of the lenses. The extra weight hurts too but I could never fathom that another pound or two makes that much difference. While the weight hurts getting the rig to the site, it helps you once there in stability and security. I do not think I'd give the 410/Wimberley up were I to purchase the EF600mm f4L IS in the future.

The efficacy of IS in damping out sharp vibrations from wind buffeting when tripod mounted is an unknown at this point too. While I have hopes I suspect the system can not react quickly enough to be effective under these circumstances.

While I am totally sold on IS, I don't think it's going to have much impact on tripod selection for 400/2.8 and up class lenses. The advantage in having IS on lenses of this size, far too heavy to hand hold, is in using them without actually clamping the things down in the head. I usually am following my quarry about and never release the camera body from my grip . . . sort of like using a machine gun. In this mode, I guess you could say you are always sort of hand holding and I feel sure IS would be of great advantage.

Although I do have the EF300mm 2.8 L IS, my experience with it is still very limited and I can not be dogmatic about it.

I have no experience with other 300/2.8's so no comparison can be made. Also I have not used it in any situation where flare would be a likely problem.

 

I can say, after a test series, that the IS feature works extremely well! I hand held shots of a printed subject at 1/50. The shot with IS seemed tack sharp under an 8X loupe while the shot without IS was clearly soft. I also hand held at 1/25 and found the shot indistinguishable from a tripod mounted shot at the same speed. This was incredible to me . . . a sharp slide with a 300mm lens hand held at 1/25th of a second!!

 

I would not have believed this possible but the results are on my light table.

 

Hand held shots of standing deer with the EF1.4X seem very sharp but initital results with the EF2X are disappointing. Again, these are very preliminary results and I reserve the right to change my mind after more experience with the lens.

I shoot birds with the 800mm f/5.6 IF-ED Nikkor. Very, VERY seldom is the lens too long. In fact usually (as in almost always) I have a TC-14B on it. There are numerous shots of small birds on my site taken with this combo, including hummingbirds taken at 17 feet. Yes, I usually have a PN-11 tube on it for small birds. In fact I have two PN-11's for a total of 100mm of extension but have used the second tube only rarely. Occasionally, usually for waterfowl, I am able to shoot without the extender . . . those days are a special treat.

 

If my riches were infinite, the Canon EF600mm f/4L IS is the lens I would have . . . but even then I'd regret giving up the extra magnification the 800 gives me without resorting to a 2X extender. I just can not agree with those who profess the 800 is too long for wildlife of almost any kind, let alone birds. Of course being able to shoot at f/4 is kind'a nice! If I had the 600, I might as well weld a converter to it. It would never be used without the 1.4 at least and I would likley need a 2X most of the time, with the ensuing loss in image quality 2X converters are notorious for.

 

In a nutshell: If birds are your primary target, get the 800!

"I would wait at least a few months to let someone else discover the

bugs and evaluate how good this lens really is."

 

<p>

 

-- Shun Cheung (shun@worldnet.att.net), February 21, 2000.

 

<p>

 

It's a 5:1 zoom! How good can it possibly be?

"Also I have seen a photo of a very large stone monolith rising out of the ocean near a rocky beach and can't for the life of me remember where in NS it is, any know?"

-- David Sacco

 

Is this it? http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/BalRok.jpg

 

If so it is on Digby Neck, NS between Digby and Briar Island. Well marked trail about 10 minutes long leads to the rock but remember, May is not our best month weather-wise!

 

There are a few other NS pictures on my site at:

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm

I sure sympathize but don't know if there is any answer to a blind and patience. I set up well before dawn at a coastal location to photograph the solar eclipse last August 11th. It was dark and I was unaware there was a great blue heron 130 feet away in the shallows. I was in plain view standing up with my telephoto tripod mounted at eye level. No chance to hide. To my amazement the bird began to work his way toward me. Eventually he approached within 45 feet, taking flight only when I had to rewind. A couple of the photos are at

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/heron.htm

I was also able to approach a trumpeter swan in the Yukon many years ago for frame-filling shots with a 400mm. The bird just didn't seem to care.

Sometimes I feel stealth is unproductive . . . some birds are just more tolerant and cooperative than others. You never know when you'll find that particular bird but it seems more likely with individuals than with groups.

Hey! If it were easy . . . .

Hmmm . . . do I understand this correctly? Nikon has introduced a new

body that will not allow ANY metering whatsoever with my 800mm f5.6

IF-ED Nikkor? Or any of my other old MF Nikkors?

Hard to be too enthusiastic.

Even, my EOS-3 meters just fine in manual mode on the old Nikkors when

used with an adapter.

I don't quite understand precisely how the meter becomes totally

inoperative when an MF lens is mounted.

Hummingbirds forage far and wide for nourishment. They will not become dependent on your offerings alone. Your nectar feeder supplies only a small portion of their diet . . . sugar for energy. Their protein requirements are met elsewhere in the form of small insects. Your conscience should not bother you at all in this regard. The whole ornithological community seems to have moved away from the "artificial feeding harms birds since they won't migrate when they should" school that was once popular. (Feeding improper foods is a different matter.)

The cat: No advice but never underestimate the cleverness and agility of these guys! It would take a good one to catch a hummer in any event but no doubt it happens.

Flash: I use two Nikon SB-28 units located less than 2 feet from the birds! They frequently jump when the units fire, but not always. They rarely take flight and leave and always return. They are feisty, pugnacious and fearless little creatures . . . takes more than few flashes to harm 'em.

My site has many full-frame pictures of female rubythroats taken with the SB-28's at 16-24 inches. Direct link is

http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/hummer.htm

It is great fun and if I thought for an instant there was the slightest risk to the birds I'd not do it!

A few posters have stated they feel it a poor idea to mix systems. While not totally oblivious to the inconveniences entailed therein, I plan on doing exactly that. The need expressed here is for a "hand held" telephoto that will allow quick composition on birds that are too close and flighty to bring a large, tripod mounted lens to bear on them. This is a tailor made situation for Canon's IS wares. Why "make do" with less appropriate gear? For the cost of another body? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

My EOS-3 should arrive in the mail within the next 48 hours . . . an IS lens will follow in a month or two. I think they will coexist rather nicely with my current Nikon gear and look forward to using this new technology. When I read that Canon was to expand IS across all their big telephotos, all thought of waiting for Nikon to bring out an AF-S version of their 300mm/4 or 400mm/5.6 vanished . . . and I dismissed the 300/2.8 AF-S Nikkor too, fine lens that it surely is.

I used to LOVE Kodachrome! I have given it up only because of the processing difficulties and delays now that it is no longer done in Canada. However, when I tried the ISO 200, I was very surprised at the graininess of it. IMO no one should assume they will like Kodachrome 200 just because they like the ISO 25 and 64 versions. It seems an entirely different animal to me. So, by all means, try some well before the trip!

"The full size Wimberly head is wonderful to use. It [snip]makes bird flight shots almost easy. " - Patrick Sparkman, December 5, 1999

 

Hmm . . . well not for me. Not even "almost easy." I have an impossible time of it. I use an 800mm/5.6 on the Wimberly with a Gitzo 410. The difficulties of in-flight photography seem just about insurmountable for me personally. The birds are too far away and do not fill enough of the frame, or the angle becomes impossible to cope with as I try to scrunch down under the lens, or (usually!) the focus is off, often WAY off - my lens is not AF).

 

I hope for better luck with an AF 300/2.8 IS with 1.4X or even 2X converter hand-held. While I am quite happy with my Wimberly, it has not made in-flight photography "almost easy", or even possible for me. How are other photographers being successful with in-flight photography?

"Only situations without red-eyes - the owl was looking directly to the camera" and when larger aperture was used.

-- Frantisek Bednar, November 30, 1999

 

I don't understand why this would be so as it seems the worst condition possible UNLESS . . . were these shots taken at a significantly closer distance? With a given separation between front lens element and flash head, red eye should be a lesser problem with diminishing distance.

Are these captive birds BTW? If so, approaching them closely enough, and with a bracket to get the flash off the hot shoe, red-eye should disappear, no?

I envy you the problem! I have had no opportunities to photograph owls. RRS catalog, p. 39 pictures a clumsy-looking contraption that raises the flash head 18 inches above the lens. It is called the B-89 extender post and costs $85. Sure doesn't look managable other than on a tripod and, even here, the squib says "eliminates eyeshine with all except owls." As eyeshine depends on the angle subtended at the subject by the flash head and taking lens, perhaps it would be effective at distances appropriate to a 300m lens but not so with a longer telephoto. Catalog can be ordered at

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/

Have you been able to try hand-holding the flash off-camera? I suppose 3 hands might be required.

I have not used a modern, "electronicised" everything camera in "extreme" conditions.

I have used an F2 in minus 20 degrees and had a problem. Not with the camera mind you but with the film. The sprocket wheel would shatter the brittle film and tear the holes out. I learned I could get around this by advancing the film VERY slowly . . . short multiple movements of the advance lever worked best.

An electronic camera advancing and rewinding the film? Even if the batteries held up, I think you might have a mess on your hands at minus 20 and colder. Remember, this might not be a problem if the camera is in a car and removed for just a few minutes into the cold. But if you are out for a long enough time to "deep soak" the camera in cold . . .

As for their being locations in Nova Scotia: I checked with government wildlife authorities just last summer concerning a very small nesting colony near my home here. Landings are not permitted. In fact regulations do not permit an approach closer than 1/2 mile to the island in question.

I understand there is a larger colony off Cape Breton. I doubt landings are permitted there either but can't confirm that. Our authorities seem, quite rightfully, very protective of these colonies.

"Is it worth experimenting, even, with a 600mm mirror lens . . .[snip]"

 

I have the 500mm reflex Nikkor. While I found it fun to use, marvelously light and very sharp, its contrast is not up to the standards of good refractive designs.

 

"Worth experimenting with?" By all means but I haven't used mine much at all since acquiring a long, high quality, refractive lens. I plan on selling mine soon. While I have the TC-14B, for other purposes, I can't imagine even trying it on the little reflex but I suppose you might get some snaps with it.

I hesitate to post this but will do so.

I have heard, via a private communication from a party whom I do not know, that there is a rumour (surprise!).

Nikon is to offer (finally!)AF-S versions of the 300/4 AND 400/5.6. Supposedly, according to this rumour, this is to occur in February.

 

Has anyone else heard this rumour? Should the moderators wish to delete this post, I will not be offended. I would like to see if there is any truth in this.

Oh Lord! This is distressing news. I had the joy of exploring Denali back when it was still "Mt. McKinley NP", before the busses were mandatory.

Now Zion.

I appreciate an excellent case can be made for the necessity of it all. I don't have any answers.

But it is very sad to hear it is coming to this.