|
Camera Lens question
Which lens do you prefer, money aside:
Long shots: 28 -300 IS Canon or 70 -200 2.8 IS w/ 1.4x Veratility: 24 - 70 2.8 or 24 -105 4.0 IS I might rent a 100 -400 but the 28 -300 was great on my last safari. This is for next safari and hopefull polar bears in churchill next year. What would you choose? We have 580 external flash. Thanks |
<b>28 -300 IS Canon or
70 -200 2.8 IS w/ 1.4x</b> For me the 70-200 ... optics are much better than a 10-1 zoom (the lens designers have to make a lot of compromises once the zoom ratio gets above 3-1 or 4-1) and you lose little optically with the 1.4x on this lens. <b>24 - 70 2.8 or 24 -105 4.0 IS</b> 24-105 is a very sweet lens, smaller than the 24-70 because it's a stop slower but with a wider focal range, plus IS. On our last trip I took a 24-105 f/4 IS (have the 28-70 f/2.8 but rarely use it anymore), 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and a 500 with 1.4x and 2x converters. Covers most safari situations very well, I feel. Bill |
I agree with Bill's comments 100%. I would choose the 70-200/2.8 over the 28-300 for the reason Bill stated. I would also choose the 24-105 over the 24-70 because of the greater flexibility afforded by the wider zoom range, and the slower aperture (4 vs 2.8) would be compensated for in SOME situations by the 24-105's IS.
If you are buying lenses from scratch for safari, I would also offer you two other alternatives to consider on the telephoto end. One is the obvious Canon 100-400L, which gets talked about a lot on this forum as well as on any other photograpgy forum, because it is a very popular general wildlife photography lens. The other one, which I am planning to get for our next safari, is the Sigma 120-300/2.8. I am not generally a proponent of third-party lenses, but the reviews and sample images I have seen with this Sigma are excellent. It gives a lot of flexibility because of its fast aperture -- you can use it as a 300/2.8 in lower light, and when the light is better, use a 1.4x or 2x TC with it and have a good longer telephoto reach (420/4 or 600/5.6). It is big and heavy, though -- weighs about twice what a 100-400 or 70-200/2.8 does. Chris |
I definately agree with Bill as well..
But why only use a 1.4x? Last safari I used a 2x extender (cheap one) on my 80-200 F2.8 (Nikkor) and it worked like a charm! good quality and performance... |
Thanks for the feedback.
Should I go with Canon extenders 1.4 and/or 2.0 or are the other brands "good enough." |
Stay clear of the extenders, rent the 100-400 if you need to. The 70-200 is a great lens but it is not good enough for the long shots. The extender slows down the focusing and the quality takes a hit on the 1.4 and a bigger hit on the 2x. 90% of my africa shots are taken with the 100-400, its a great lens. I agree with the others to also avoid the 28-300.
Mike www.pbase.com/mytmoss |
Further to Mike's point about the 100-400 vs. a 70-200/2.8 + 2xTC, check out this side-by-side test of the two setups by Luminous Landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml The tests clearly illustrate the image quality difference between the two approaches, not to mention the AF speed issue Mike mentioned. I also love the 100-400 -- it is excellent for general purpose wildlife photos, and is OK for birds as well. You can see my pictures with the 100-400 at www.pbase.com/cwillis. Chris |
Last year on safari I used a Sigma 170-500mm with my Canon Dig Rebel XT and got some really nice shots. The reach was excellent and that is what I found very important to really capture the animals the way I wanted. My only disappointment was the lack of IS even though I was using a monopod from the vehicle. Made for several shots I had to reject because of camera shake. For that reason I have traded the 170-500 and have purchased a used Canon 100-400. So far the shots are great, but real test comes later this month on a trip to Alaska
|
Chris,
Those are extremely interesting tests in Luminous Landscape, especially for this family: I use the 100-400 IS, while my wife uses the 70-200 (non-IS) with the 2x II. I also use the 300/2.8 with the 2x II, and it's interesting to note that in his <i>Nature Photography Field Guide</i>, John Shaw says a 300/2.8 is about the only lens he feels comfortable using a 2x converter with. John |
John, I thought it was really interesting too. I have never used a 70-200 with a TC, although I did use a 70-200/2.8 that I rented once and really liked it. I have a friend who shoots all of the pictures for our local zoo calendar, and he uses the 70-200+2xTC combo and loves it. So it must work pretty well.
But, like you, I use the 100-400 pretty much all the time. For our next safari in 2008, we will go equipped with not only the 100-400, but also a 70-200/2.8 and I think the Sigma 120-300/2.8 and a 2x TC. And this time both my wife and I will have cameras, so we will take double the pictures! Chris www.pbase.com/cwillis |
Chris,
I expect to take the 300/2.8 IS with 2x and 1.4x on our next trip, as I did last time, while my wife expects to use her 70-200 with 2x (instead of borrowing my 100-400). We'll probably also share her 24-105 IS. She shoots digital (1D Mark 2 and 5D), while I shoot film. I'd be sorely tempted to get the Canon 400/4 DO IS if I could afford it. John |
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the 400/4 DO is so far out of my camera gear budget that I am not experiencing any temptation -- it's on my "dream list" along with the 1D Mark III and a 500/4, but it'll be a long while before any of those things make it into my actual inventory...
Chris |
I have a 400 DO and I put a 1.4 extender on it, however it is NOT my primary lens on my primary camera. If you have one camera, take the 100-400, you need the versatility of a zoom.
Mike |
Mike,
Depends on your objectives and weight limitations, I guess. I've had my 100-400 for 7 years and love it, but as good as it is, image quality doesn't match that of a good prime lens. So I'm willing to sacrifice its flexibility and leave it home. The prime suits my aims to a T. John |
I used a 'cheap' converter (soligor) and I must say it worked very well. Didn't slow down the focus to much (I still could capture birds in flight) and with the F2.8 I could afford loosing some light.
If you're interested; you can find my recent safari photos here: http://flickr.com/photos/nikao/sets/72157594524618438/ |
John, when are you going to switch to digital? Hope you don't mind my asking.
Chuck |
Chuck,
I don't mind at all. I doubt I'll ever switch. I do shoot digital...as back-up to my wife when she does weddings and other social functions where candid and long lens shots from different angles are valuable. I use her gear and enjoy the photography, but I leave all the post-processing to her because it doesn't interest me (other than the work I do on scans of my own slides). John |
afrigalah
I love prime lenses, just not when on in Africa. Animals often get too close to effectively use a prime. Also a great prime with a 1.4 or 2.0 is not that much different than a 100-400 and I said, I would not give up my flexibility. My best suggestion is for those who can afford it is to take two camera bodies, one with a great prime and the other with a 100-400. Mike www.pbase.com/mytmoss |
John,
Thanks for the reply. I understand your rationale entirely. I switched a few years ago (film to digital) and initially I was surprised at the amount of time I had to spend post processing. I'm used to the "workflow" now so I don't mind it. At first I missed the film medium but the newer wave of digital SLR's have given me what I'm after. I have seen your work and it is wonderful. whatever you are doing, don't stop. Chuck P.S. I know you have the 300mm 2.8, I'll be taking my 300mm 2.8 IS to Botswana as well. |
To the camera pros on this forum:
If I may ask what is your workflow with regard to processing your photos on the computer? Do you store in Aperature or Photoshop or something else? I am just changing over to a 5d from a 20d. I love the new camera but at this time I am having to crop more often. I guess I am getting used to the full frame of the 5d. Sorry if this all sounds stupid. I love the Luminous Landscape website. |
Thought I would just chime in with some thoughts........
The 100-400 does offer a huge amount of flexibility, though IMO the image quality is just lacking. Personally, I carry two 5Ds, one with a 70-200 and the other with a 500 prime. Having a private vehicle is a massive benefit. Spending as much time in the bush as I have, I work extensively with the guide predicting animal movement. Positioning the vehicle I think is key to using a prime. I to let the vehicle keep its distance, then move incrementally into various positions. My only problem with my trip to Lebala was with a guide who I will not name, who deemed to know what position was best for me. With the prime, this sometimes proved to be too close. When asking to move the vehicle, it seemed a massive effort for him. Still, the guides at Lagoon, Rex and Kwara, Ezeqhial were excellent. just my 2 cents |
If I had my own guide, I would consider primes as I could spend as much time I want on a viewing, but alas, I have had to share them. Most people cannot afford a 500 prime, though the 70-200 is oustanding and more affordable. I do carry that lens with me and I use it for night shots and very low light when focusing is an issue.
|
Cheweyhead,
I haven't put the clock on her, but my wife spends days on her computer processing just one shoot...couple of days for a small job, many for a big one. She works on the RAW images in Adobe Lightroom (she used to use Canon Digital Photo Professional), then finishes off in Photoshop. After that, there's making the finished product for the customers...prints, CDs, DVDs etc. No way I want that kind of sustained workload. I'm in piggy heaven just scanning a few good slides and matching them on screen...this might mean working with 160 Mb medium format .tif files or 60 Mb 35mm .tifs, firstly to make .jpegs for web display, then to prepare files for print enlargements of various sizes. John |
I don't think there is very much benefit in comparing the 100-400 (which costs $1400, weighs 3 pounds and can be easily handheld all day long) with the Canon 500/4L prime (which costs $5,500, weighs 8.5 pounds and requires a monopod or tripod for support). I am sure any serious photographer would choose the 500/4 if money were no object and they had the means to transport and use it properly (including, for example, having your own game drive vehicle on safari). The 100-400 is the obvious best choice for people operating in a certain budget category. I suspect any lens would seem "lacking" if you have the luxury of comparing it to a 500/4 prime, though.
Here's a recent thread on DPReview in which lots of people are posting sample 100-400 pictures. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=23108707 Now to answer Chewey's question about image processing workflow. Here's how I do it: (1) Pick out the pictures you want to work further with. This is actually the most time-consuming part for me, because I look at them overall and at 100% to figure out which ones are the best. I generally work the group of pictures down to about 5-10% of what we originally shot in this step. There is nothing technical to it, we just shoot a giant number of pictures and it takes a while to critically look at all of them. (2) RAW procesing/conversion. For most pictures I just use Canon Digital Photo Professional, which came free with my camera. This is the step where I will set white balance, overall brightness adjustment, and generally an initial adjustment to color saturation and a crop if necessary. For most images, this is all that's required in this step, but for a "problem" image with a lot of shadow detail that you want to bring down, this is also the time to adjust the curve to better bring out that detail. If it is particularly troublesome from a shadow standpoint, I use CaptureONE to process the RAW file instead, because I like that software's shadow recovery modes a little better than Digital Photo Professional. If the picture is taken with a wide-angle lens and I have some geometric distortion, then I use DxO Optics Pro, because it fixes that really nicely. But that is never a problem with the 100-400, only our wide angle (17-85IS) lens at the wide end. (2) Next I batch process the RAWs into JPEGs, generally downsizing in the process for display on the web. This is an automated process and doesn't take any user effort. (3) Once I have the JPEGs, I will use Photoshop on them for the last step of processing. For most images, this just takes a couple of minutes to tweak the colors, or the levels, or maybe sharpen the image if necessary. For "problem" images with a lot of dynamic range (i.e., there are bright areas and very dark areas, and you want to show the detail from both), I may spend up to 30-45 minutes creating adjustment layers and working with masks to try to even things out. This is basically a way to take a particular adjustment and apply it to only a portion of the image, or to apply it in different amounts to different parts of the image, and it is a great tool. Here is an example of a real "problem" image from our recent gorilla treks in Rwanda. This one gave me fits because I absolutely love the picture, but it had very bright backlit portions and very dark shadowy portions as well, and it took 3 layers to get it to the point you see here (which I am sure could be better, but it's the best I could do): http://www.pbase.com/cwillis/image/73210908/original Overall I find post-processing to be relatively easy for the vast majority of pictures I want to keep, taking at most about 10 minutes per picture. The "problem" ones take a lot longer, though, but it's worth it to save a picture you really like. There are a lot of resources on the web, including even weekly podcasts, to help you learn about digital photography and post-processing. Chris |
Chuck, thanks for the kind words. Sorry for the tardy reply, but Yvonne decided she needed a break from the computer and we went for a walk in the autumn sunshine! Only the second one in weeks; we really must make more time for walks so we don't go cross-eyed in front of these b***** screens!
Film is one of the reasons why the 300/2.8 and extenders give me enough flexibility at the long end on safari. I can exchange extenders frequently without the same dust concerns that digital cameras present. The latest anti-dust technology in digitals goes some way to alleviating the problem, but it doesn't remove the dust from inside the camera (and just adds another thing to the camera's workings that can go wrong). We had that illustrated to us by a camera technician friend of ours the other day; using a multi-thousand dollar magnifier and other equipment, it took him half an hour to remove all the dust from every nook and cranny of one of her cameras. Apologies if you've told me before, but what short lenses do you supplement your 300/2.8 with on safari? I expect to be using my wife's 24-105/f4 on my backup camera for short-end flexibility (and maybe my 17-35/2.8-4 and 100/2.8 macro as well as a small mf camera). John |
John,
You are correct about the dust. I actually clean my bodies using a stereo (surgical) microscope. Last year the dust in Tanzania was so bad I was reluctant to change lenses at all, except in camp. When I returned home I had to clean the sensors 7 times to get all of the dust off. I use a 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 as well as a 28-135 3.5-5.6. Also an Olympus C8080 is decent at the wide end (my wifes). I hope to minimize dust on my Botswana safari by leaving the 1.4X TC on camera and probably the 300mm lens as well. I will be adding another lens soon and had been thinking about the 17-40/4. With the high ISO performance that the new Canon Mark 3 is supposed to be capable of, I thought I might be able to get away with an F4 lens. When I switched to digital I sold all of my Nikon lenses. Originally I thought I could do everything with these nice new zoom lenses but I miss the primes too much. I'm going to try and get more of the wildlife in scenic type landscape settings in future trips so I need to plan out which of the shorter lenses will work best for me. Recently I like what Andy Biggs has done but most of his stuff is in Tanzania and the space is different. Best to you, Chuck |
Chris,
You're right...not productive at all to compare the zoom with the prime. In the end, it comes down to needs and objectives (aside from budget). There are some very nice shots in that link to 100-400 pictures, including yours :) Chuck, There's been a lot said about the dust problem of the 100-400 over the years too, because of its push-pull operation. Mine sucked in a lot of safari and outback dust in my early days with it, but the cost of cleaning taught me not to be a cowboy with it. John |
Thanks for your replies. Still deciding between the
24-70 2.8 and 24-105 4IS. I love the 70-200 and will probably buy one of the converters. I think rent the 100-400 unless a refurb is possible. The 70-200 I purchased as a refurb. Need more hours in the day to work & play with all this new gear. |
Chuck,
I'll be doing a similar thing to you to combat dust on our 15 night in Sept Zambia (SLNP) Safari. Taking with me 2 Nikon bodies (D2Xs & D2Hs) and 3 lenses, my Tokina 12-24 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 VR and 300 f/2.8 VR. Whilst in the vehicle I'll have one body with the 1.7tc/300VR and on the other the 1.4tc/70-200VR. Then when back at camp only changing to the 12-24 for landscapes, trying to eliminate dust as much as possible. ;-) Cheers Marc |
Marc,
That sounds like a good plan. I had considered getting a 24mm 1.4 L lens to use on a 1.3 crop Series 1 Canon together with a 1.4X teleconverter. My thinking was that I could take the lens on and off but keep the teleconverter attached, thereby keeping the cameras body sealed. The resulting focal lenght is a bit longer than I might want but useful for Africa. I understand that the 24mm 1.4 lens is good enough to use with a teleconverter. At this point I need to keep rethinking each new piece of gear from a weight standpoint. I had also hoped to aquire a longer lens (500mm). My wife tells me if I do, I'll have to reduce my clothing to one pair of socks, pants, and a single T shirt :-) Sounds good to me. I don't know if any of you have heard about this new product called Dust Aid. It looks like it might be just the thing for Africa. I bought a kit from Copperhill (a U.S. distributer). It has received good reviews. Normally I just brush my sensor while on safari but I'm not happy with the result. Another dust measure I have taken is to keep the unused camera at my side in a waterproof pillowcase (Walmart variety) It is easy to get to and keeps the dust out. When it does get dirty, just take it into the shower and hang it out overnight. Chuck |
Couple of comments to various points brought up ...
Regarding Reichmann and the 100-400 ... he says he likes this lens OK with the lower rez bodies but once he got the 1Ds (full frame 11 Mpix) he felt the lens wasn't sharp enough ... I have this 100-400 and at 400 mm f/5.6 it vignettes a bit in the corners with full frame so I have to use it at f/11 with the 1Ds and f/8 with the 1D M II (1.3x instead of full frame). With my wife's XTi (1.6x crop) it's OK at f/5.6 so now it's HER lens. The point is that this lens is on the edge of acceptable/unacceptable wide open at 400 (the Nikon 80-400 VR has the same problem, only a bit worse). My sense is the people trading up from say the 75-300 like the 100-400, and those who own one of the super teles (300 or 400 f/2.8 or 500/600 f/4's) find the 100-400 lacking. Here's the link to Reichmann's post on this issue ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...tten-400.shtml Chewyhead wrote <b>Still deciding between the 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 4IS.</b> Reichmann has a user comparison of those at this link ... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/28-105.shtml ... I know a couple of people who sold their 24-70's to get the 24-105 IS ... the extra f/stop with the 24-70 isn't as big a deal with digital, I think. Chuck wrote <b>"I had considered getting a 24mm 1.4 L lens to use on a 1.3 crop Series 1 Canon together with a 1.4X teleconverter."</b> The Canon converters won't mount to this lens so you'd have to get an off-brand converter to do this. The front element of the converter sticks out about 12 mm so only lenses with a recessed rear element will mount to the Canon converters. Bill |
Thanks Bill, I din't know this was one of the incompatible combinations. I guess I could get a non Canon 1.4 TX and then have the ability to stack it with my Canon 1.4X. I understand the result of having two stacked 1.4X's will be similar to a 2X TC. Thanks for the headsup.
Chuck |
Bill's link to the Luminous Landscape test of the 400/5.6 vs. the 100-400 is very consistent with what I have seen on other photography forums -- I think any objective observer would have to say that the 400 prime is better in terms of not only sharpness, but also AF speed and accuracy.
But I got the 100-400 because I was just getting started in photography, and I needed a lens with flexibility for our next-upcoming trip, which was to see gorillas in Rwanda and Uganda. If you look through the EXIF data on our gorilla pictures, you will see a lot of 400mm shots, but you will also see a lot of 100mm, 180mm, 200mm, etc. ones. I am certain that I would have gotten better pictures if I had been able to carry a 400 prime and a 70-200/2.8, but we needed a "one lens" solution, and that necessarily means compromising something. As long as you know what you are compromising, then it's OK. I am satisifed with the 100-400 (for now), although there are certainly superior lenses out there, and I think the reason it is so popular is because the image quality is good, especially on the Digital Rebel/20D/30D line of cameras, and it is flexible enough to use in a lot of situations, and it's small enough to carry easily and handhold. Perhaps it is a bit of "Jack of all trades, master of none." Chuck -- what is the Dust Aid product you referenced? I used an Arctic Butterfly on our last trip and it seemed to work fine (i.e., no spots visible after cleaning when I do the post-processing), but I am always open to something different. Chris |
Chris,
DusAid is a new product distributed by Copperhill Industries in Virginia. Up until also distribute a line of sensor brushes and wet cleaning supplies and have a very nice tutorial on cleaning your sensor with eclipse fluid and PecPads. I have used thier products for some time and I think highly of their recommendations. Recently they reviewed and began selling a new product called DustAid. I first saw it when it was introduced at PMA this February. It is a small low tack adhesive pad that sticks to a small plastic pad and when applied to the sensor, pulls off andy dust. It is very low tack and is supposed to not leave any residue. At least all of the test seem to verify its safety. I thought it would be perfect for safari use. I have mixed results with the sensor brushes and I don't feel equipped to do a wet cleaning in a safari setting. I usually clean my sensor using a wet technique, under a special microscope, a luxury unavailable to most people. Using the wet method without a microscope, I have even made things worse and would have no way to test that while in camp. So the DustAid seemed like just the ticket. The camera techies seem to think its great and the distributors are having trouble keeping it instock. B & H has even declined to sell it on line and limited its purchase to in store only. On the 100-400, I think it's a fine lens but is best if you close it down a couple of stops. On my own I find that F8-11 give the best results. I don't think I could ask for any more in a zoom lens, so I'm happy as well. I haven't done a Gorilla Trek yet but I'm sure it will be useful when we do make that trip. Do you think the 70-200 2.8 would be more useful (faster lens, greater field of view at the short end, or were you entirely happy with 100-400? Chuck |
Chuck, thanks for the info on DustAid -- I will check that out as a possible purchase for our trip later this year (Mongolia and Southwest China).
For gorilla treks I think on balance the 100-400 was better than a 70-200 would have been for the majority of our treks. Our experience was that, on three of our four treks, we were in relatively open settings with decent light, and the gorillas were spread out over a wide area, with distances varying between 10 feet and 150+ feet. In those conditions, the extra reach of the 100-400 allowed us to get shots that would have been too long for a 70-200, and the extra speed of the 70-200 was not needed. However, on one trek (Hirwa Group, Rwanda), we had a relatively dark overcast sky, and the gorillas were in a very dense bamboo forest, which further reduced available light AND caused us to have very close viewing distances (5-10 feet). Those factors combined to make things very difficult with the 100-400, and ultimately we switched to our 17-85 (the only other lens we had) because the gorillas were just too close for the 100-400, not to mention that the low light was giving us a lot of blurry pictures. The 70-200/2.8 would have been perfect for that day's gorilla trek. Given the unpredictable weather where the gorillas are, and the frequent low-light situations, the 70-200 would be a safer choice because of its greater capability in low light. Having said that, I still think if you are choosing one lens for gorilla photography the 100-400 is SLIGHTLY better as an on-balance choice, especailly if your visit is during one of the less rainy seasons. But my guess is that if you do multiple treks you will have days where one or the other would be clearly better, so I don't think either could be counted on to make you "entirely happy" in all of the situations you may find yourself in to photograph gorillas. If I went back to do it again, I would take both 100-400 and 70-200/2.8 for sure and would not rely on the compromise of one versus the other. I would also advise against prime lenses for gorillas because of the great variation in viewing distances -- which means I think you need the flexibility of zooms. Chris |
Chris,
Thanks for the insights re: lenses for gorilla trecking. How did you handle getting the gear onsight? Did you take a photo-backpack and have a porter take the pack or did you carry all your own gear? Chuck |
We took a small photo backpack and paid a porter to carry it up to the "approach point," but from then on you are not allowed to carry any bags and the porters can't come with you. So whatever you end up actually using to take pictures, you have to carry in your hands, pockets or around your neck, and it can get awfully clumsy trying to follow the gorillas up a steep slope carrying a telephoto lens. Be sure you consider that element of the experience when planning, because the porters only get you near the gorillas, and after that you are on your own wherever the gorillas choose to lead you.
As an aside, the knocking around and exposure to dirt and elements will really make you appreciate the build quality of an L lens when you go into that kind of situation! Chris |
A friend of mine bought the Delkin Sensor Scope Cleaning System. Have any of you used it? I went to the Dust Aid website. Appears that a very small percentage of 5ds are being adversly effected by the DustAid product. Whaddya think?
|
For whatever it's worth, I have read that the 5D filter (AA filter) is coated with a different material than the other digital Canon SLR's. In fact they recommend using another type of Eclipse cleaning fluid for wet cleaning the 5D. If you have a 5D it seems like something you need to be aware of.
Cheers, Chuck |
Chris,
Huge thanks for your advice on which lenses for using when seeing the gorillas. I'm going to Rwanda in September to do that and I was worried that my 100-400 may not be fast enough for them. I'll be taking a 24-105 as well, but I had been fretting about buying a second-hand 70-200 f/2.8 just for that one purpose. Now I feel much happier about it. On the final stage, when following the gorillas, is it OK to carry a walking pole (mine can fit a ball-head and be used as a monopod, which may come in handy)? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:07 AM. |