Suggestions for a Lens please

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by auspics, Jul 21, 2003.

  1. auspics

    auspics Guest

    I am about to use one of my 10Ds in a roll it was never envisaged when I
    bought it. I need a 200~300 or so lens that can track action ...such as a
    race car or bird in flight. This is an area I am totally unfamiliar with. If
    I can get some suggestions it will help me avoid pouring money into that
    bottomless pit I seem to have put so much in over the last few years.
    When Minolta introduced the 9000 I saw in their brochure it was (supposed)
    to be the ants pants at tracking moving objects coming towards the camera...
    It wasn't! The Sigma lenses I have on the 10Ds are way too slow at focusing
    to even conside in this roll. So far 4 camera sales people have recommended
    3 different lenses. Should I presume because 2, suggest the same thing that
    this is the one?...

    auspics, Jul 21, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. auspics

    Andrew Mc Guest

    I wouldn't go past the 300 f/4 L IS - especially if you are hand holding for
    birds in flight. I use one with a 1.4x tele (I'm still using film), but with the
    1.6x factor, you wouldn't need one. See for a few shots taken
    with that combination.

    I have heard in a few places that the 10D isn't the greatest for tracking birds
    in flight, but I can't say from personal experience.
    Andrew Mc, Jul 22, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Agreed! :)
    AU Digital Photo Of The Day, Jul 22, 2003
  4. auspics

    Admiral Guest

    I agree also.

    I used the 70-200 f/4 at Eastern Creek a while ago and with AI Servo Mode on
    there were less than 10 out of focus shots from 200, which was pretty good I

    Admiral, Jul 22, 2003
  5. auspics

    Gavin Cato Guest

    In the Nikon world I use the 70-200 with a TC 1.4x - I'm sure the equivalent
    in Canon's would serve you well.
    Gavin Cato, Jul 22, 2003
  6. auspics

    auspics Guest

    The 70-200 2.8L USM is looking like a viable choice along with the 300 f/4 L
    IS as an alternative.
    Has anyone done any comparison between the 70~200 2.8 and the f4.0 model?
    Anyone used the100~400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM?

    Thanks to all for your help...
    auspics, Jul 22, 2003
  7. auspics

    Danny Smith Guest

    Well, the 10D is apparently better than the D30/D60 in this respect,
    but it still ain't no 1D/V. You may run into limitations of the body,
    depending on what you're doing...

    This isn't something I have experience in, but by reputation, the L
    primes or 70-200/2.8 would be the way to go, I would guess.


    Danny Smith, Jul 22, 2003
  8. auspics

    auspics Guest

    I have an EOS 1v and this too has limitations. Not what you might think but
    for this job they still have limitations. I'm about to do a shoot for an
    existing client. They want digital files. OK, so last time I did work for
    this publisher I used 6x4.5cm trannies.

    The plan now is to avoid entirely the pre-press steps of production. They
    intend to output from their DTP program straight to the printing press. In
    theory at any rate, this will do away with processing the film, scanning to
    digital, chemical proofs, camera ready artwork and all the potential for
    stuff ups that go with it. The bucks they poured into the press might be
    worth it if the samples I saw are an indication.

    Where the challenge for me is, is to provide the digital image files at a
    competitive price to traditional means. I have doubts about the resolution
    capabilities of SLR digitals for this work... Nothing to do with megapixels,
    all about recording detail. So... To capture birds in flight is hard enough.
    Do it with digital and it adds a dimension of difficulty I hope to reduce
    with the right glass. I will still take the 645 in case the whole thing

    Russel's suggestion a few posts up about using a 70-200 2.8 and a
    teleconverter makes good sense to me at this point... We'll see. I think
    I'll locate one and do some testing.
    auspics, Jul 22, 2003
  9. One of the guys at the club has some stunning shots of the V8's in
    action at Adelaide, shot on either a 10D or D60, not sure which - I'll
    dig some info out of him if he's there tonight...

    I've also seen some awesome Formula One shots from the 10D, so the
    body SHOULD be able to do what you're after...

    Stuart Elflett, Jul 22, 2003
  10. auspics

    Admiral Guest

    Admiral, Jul 22, 2003
  11. Where the challenge for me is, is to provide the digital image files at a

    Digital press equipment is great, but they are not crack hot for really long
    runs... I have output to one here on the Gold Coast many times and the
    results have been good... but I still think a traditional press has the

    If you are going to supply press ready images it would be best that "you" do
    the CMYK conversions also... I don't trust anybody at the printers to do a
    decent conversion... you need to apply the correct ICC profiles and undercut
    magenta in the blues and cyans etc ...but that is a whole other topic for
    another thread....

    back to the lenses....

    I have only had my 1.4x about a month and really only used it on a couple of
    days... at this stage the jury is still out, but I think it may slow the AI
    Servo tracking a little... but I need to test some more before I will be
    sure.... I had the V8 Supercars up here on the weekend but could not go...
    that would have been a good test too! ...bummer :-(
    AU Digital Photo Of The Day, Jul 22, 2003
  12. Hi Stuart,

    I think it is all a matter of contrast... the 10D does just fine, but if you
    are shooting a low contrast subject that's when things start to go south and
    you wish you had a 1D/1Ds

    AU Digital Photo Of The Day, Jul 22, 2003
  13. auspics

    auspics Guest

    Very shallow depth of field there Admiral. Looks like centre spot focus on
    the forearm. Did you compromise the apeture to get shutter speed?
    Was this shot with the lens wide open?
    Can you remember the exposure details?
    Nice enough shot too, incidently.
    Can you tell me how much unsharp mask you gave that pic?
    auspics, Jul 22, 2003
  14. auspics

    auspics Guest

    FWIW... I used a 1D for about a month and in my opinion, it is not all that
    much better than the 10D. The resolution is greater but that in itself has
    little value when the side effects are taken into consideration... Like 20
    shots on a 256 meg CFC! As for the contrast thing...

    I, and my 'girls' use digitals to shoot people shots by the hundred. They
    are all low contrast on purpose. The 10D works as well as the SD9 in this
    regard. I find contrast a problem. Maybe the lens flare I've identified
    might impact here but I sure as hell don't like sunny days outside in
    Queensland with a digital of any flavour.
    auspics, Jul 22, 2003
  15. auspics

    Admiral Guest

    Shallow DOF?

    It was taken at F16, 1/160th. Perhaps the apparent lack of depth is due to
    the panning causing background blur?

    And it probably got a burst of the "Medium" sharpening from Fred Mirandas
    10D sharpening actions that I use, I generally run that on most of my photos
    unless there's a specific reason not to.

    Admiral, Jul 22, 2003
  16. auspics

    auspics Guest

    OK so presuming the out of focus region on the helmet compared to the crisp
    focus on the arm is in fact motion blur because the helmet is probably
    continually moving in a different place to the arm... The riders boot is
    less clearly focused than the arm. Taking the angle of your shot into
    account I guessed the helmet and boot were roughly in the same distance
    region, I concluded you must have used a wide aperture for them to be less
    clear than the forearm.

    I'd guess that there is less than 100 ~ 200 mm distance between the arm and
    the leg so that would (IMHO) give rise to my conclusion the depth of field
    was shallow. I've never shot pictures like yours but I do know the technical
    consistency publishers demand of their photographs. This (IMHO again) is
    probably the reason why so many "stock" photographs go unsold - small
    technicalities. I still think your photograph is a nice enough shot too,
    Admiral and please don't think I'm criticizing you or your work, just
    commenting on it.
    auspics, Jul 22, 2003
  17. auspics

    Admiral Guest

    No worries mate, I wasn't having a go at you or anything.

    And you're right, the helmet and the back part of the bike do look out of
    focus, and it irks me too. But since it was my first day of motorsports
    photos I wasn't too dissapointed. =0)

    I was finding myself looking for a bit more range though, even with the
    ~300mm effective focal length. That shot is actually cropped a bit to
    improve the composition, but still made for a great A4 sized print.

    Admiral, Jul 23, 2003
  18. auspics

    auspics Guest

    Can I e-mail you privately Admiral?

    auspics, Jul 23, 2003
  19. auspics

    Danny Smith Guest

    There's always challenges with this sort of thing, isn't there.

    The 70-200 and TC will probably be the best option if it's important
    to fill the frame every shot - the 300/2.8 would be a goer if zoom
    isn't as necessary I reckon. Every time I see a full size sample shot
    (well) with this lens my jaw drops!

    Mind you, it'd want to for the price and weight!


    Danny Smith, Jul 23, 2003
  20. auspics

    Admiral Guest

    Sure thing.

    Admiral, Jul 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.