New camera and lens

[Garry]

Hi

Many many thanks for all your help, got a bit of thinking to do, Upgrade my whole kit, or get the 150-500mm sigma lens or keep what I have got....

I let you know what happens.

cheers

Garry

[Alan Livsey]

Originally Posted by tom w w

The Canon TC's are backwards compatible, I've read somewhere. I use a Mk2 1.4XTC and a Mk3 2XTC with with Mk1 and Mk2 lenses. They all work, but the results with the Mk3 converter is definitely better than I expected.

Thanks a lot Tom.

[Hobjob]

Fourwings told me to-day that Canon are about to bring out a new 100-400.
Chunkier and fast I hear (and no doubt more expensive).

I find my 100-400 is sharp enough at the lower f stops, but in theory the new one would be better.

'John' exclusively hand holds all his shots (see his web-site too) and does just fine without a tripod. (Though recently he's been using a Bigma).
ditto for me, but I'm too disorganized to put many photos on WAB.

I seldom use my 1.4 canon convertor as I think it is too soft. Even with taping the electrodes it is slooooow to focus.

[Geoff F]

Got a bit of thinking to do

If thinking was easy, Garry, everybody would be doing it.

Just to 'muddy the waters' a little more. When I was in this position I seriously considered a Canon 400 mm which would work fine with a 1.4x converter.

Eventually I decided against this lens because of it's rather long minimum focusing distance, which I think is around 11 ft.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

Got a bit of thinking to do

If thinking was easy, Garry, everybody would be doing it.

Just to 'muddy the waters' a little more. When I was in this position I seriously considered a Canon 400 mm which would work fine with a 1.4x converter.

Eventually I decided against this lens because of it's rather long minimum focusing distance, which I think is around 11 ft.

Too slow to focus with 1.4, so saying it "will work fine" is, IME, not true

Minmum focussing distance - not quite sure what it is in feet, but a hawker will fill 90% of the frame quite nicely!
Being away from such insects has other other advantages in not disturbing them.

[sometimes]

As a matter of interest, do you bods with a 100-400 find you use the 100 end much?

[Alan Livsey]

Originally Posted by sometimes

As a matter of interest, do you bods with a 100-400 find you use the 100 end much?

Only when i'm taking shots of Mute Swan from 4 feet!
I nearly always use it at 400mm.

[PMG]

I started off with the 100-400 and a 20D and was pleased for a while with the results - mainly cos before that I only had bridge cameras or the Nikon Coolpix so any kind of decent bird photography was just not possible. As soon as we could we got the 400 f2.8 from a friend who was upgrading to a 500. The 2.8 is a beast but in low light and bad days gives full depth spectacular images! Sharing a lens between two keen folk is never a good idea .... and once I had been loaned the use of said 500 the end result was predictable - as soon as we could we got our own! The 500 is the ultimate Canon lens for reach, not too heavy - but enough when carrying all day, light gathering - working end dinner-plate sized, crisp clear detail - its a sock-knocking-off experience That said I recently got a 400 f5.6 so that I could walk more and still stand a chance of taking shots if the occassion arises. The crispness of the f5.6 is fantastic - its a very sharp lens and for around the same price as the 100-400 simply beats the pants off it! Its thinner (might be lighter?) but is good hand-held in decent light or only needs a bit of support like leaning into a wall to get clear shots out of it. The chances of anyone using the 100-400 at the 100 end I would have thought are few? And the opportunities for birds to be so close that the f5.6 wont get them all in are few too - its nearly always the way of it that things are too far away than too close!!

Ok so the 100-400 will get dragonflies without disturbing them and having them fly away - but the shot will not be as crisp and the subject much better tackled with a macro. The concept of being further away from insects is ok in theory but more often than not there will be grass and other stuff getting in the way when used at even short distances. Better to creep in with shorter macro lens and get rid of surrounding bits and if not possible then don;t take the shot - wait for a better perched subject.

[sometimes]

So maybe a fixed focal length lens is a better option - I'd have thought it would be relatively cheaper mm for mm?

I use canon. I have a 300mm f4 (which is never long enough), I've tried using it with a 1.4conv but the resolution drops significantly. From my reading on various forums/reviews some lenses work better with converter than others.

[bripriuk]

Garry

I have a Canon 50D which I use hand-held with a 300mm f4 IS and a Canon 1.4 extender without the resolution problems that have been mentioned -



The 300 on it's own is great for macro pics of insects, again without resolution problems:-



Brian