Lens for aircraft photography

[ipswichboy]

I was at the Flying Legends airshow at Duxford last weekend, armed with my D300, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and 2x teleconverter. I'm quite pleased with the results (this was only my second airshow) but the 400mm focal length is not quite enough to get the detailed shots. When I crop with this combination of lens and teleconverter the photos also appear a bit grainy. I would appreciate any recommendations from seasoned air show photographers as to what lens I should be aiming for to replace the 70-200. Money is an issue so suggestions from £400 up to say £1200 would be welcome.

[Dangermouse1964]

I use a Sigma 170-500f5 and its spot on for aircraft, dont be thinking fast glass like f2.8 for aircraft because you will probably never get out of the f6-f12 for the buggers as its extremely bright up there so a 50-500 sigma will be spot on and save you some cash

[heidfirst]

When I crop with this combination of lens and teleconverter the photos also appear a bit grainy.
this could well be down to the 2x converter as they tend to have more impact on IQ than a 1.4x. The ideal may well be a 300/2.8+1.4xtc but that's obviously outside your budget.
Unfortunately I'm not too up on the likely options for Nikon - the 80-400 would be good except iirc it has a reputation for slow focus which isn't good for aircraft shots & again the 200-400/4 is outwith your budget (& probably arms ;)).

[MrAngry2]

The minimum for air show photography is 300mm, Some places even that is not a long enough reach, The Bigma and the (I know your a nikon user) Canon 100-400 seem to be the Air show crowds lenses of choice. IS/VR whatever you call it is a must so you can slow the shutter speed down and get the luverly prop blur.

HTH.

[Weetobix]

IS/VR whatever you call it is a must so you can slow the shutter speed down and get the luverly prop blur.

HTH.

Would you want IS on for an airshow with all the panning?

[MrAngry2]

Yeah, not being a Canon user, but I understand you have 2 IS settings on the IS lenses one for horizontal and one for vertical, so what ever one it is for Horizontal, would be incredibly handy.

[pete.rush]

I was at the Flying Legends airshow at Duxford last weekend, armed with my D300, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and 2x teleconverter. I'm quite pleased with the results (this was only my second airshow) but the 400mm focal length is not quite enough to get the detailed shots. When I crop with this combination of lens and teleconverter the photos also appear a bit grainy. I would appreciate any recommendations from seasoned air show photographers as to what lens I should be aiming for to replace the 70-200. Money is an issue so suggestions from £400 up to say £1200 would be welcome.

Never been a fan of the 70-200mm and 2x TC's. For a start, is slows down your autofocus speeds by a large amount, and just isn't a recommended combination, especially for canon users.

The problems with the group of sigma long zooms are they will struggle in poor light, a couple trick the camera into thinking their f5.6 when they are actually f6.3, yes they are affordable, and in good light conditions are a perfect lens to have on your camera body because of the focus range, but I think there are better affordable options out there. As for 400mm not being long enough, it's only Duxford that has significantly increased the distance between the crowd and display line, most other airshows 300 or 400mm is perfect for most situations.

Recommendations

Sigma 100-300mm f4 great lens
Nikon 80-400mm f4-5.6, similar to canon's 100-400mm
Sigma 300mm prime (f2.8) is very affordable, because most of your images will be at this distance or slightly greater.

Although the sigma 50-500mm (Bigma) is probably the best of the rest of the sigma range of long zooms in the affordable price range. Best option would be the Nikon 200-400mm f4. Fantastic lens.

Peter

[WillieL]

Another option could be the Tamron 200-500mm Di f5-6.3, I have been impressed with the focussing speed on my one and the quality of images.
The hood is a monstrosity though :gag: Bazooka launcher when fitted :thumbs:

[Rovers_Andy]

Sorry to Hijack this thread, i've been meaning to ask this question aswell. For Airshows are there many people with the 400 f/2.8 and T/C's or do you need zooms?

Secondly for stuff like low flying etc, do you see many people with this setup with a tripod and gimbal head or is this not practical for low fly locations?


Thanks

Andy

[whitey]

dont be thinking fast glass like f2.8 for aircraft because you will probably never get out of the f6-f12 for the buggers

2.8 lenses dont always mean use at 2.8, the one thing they will give over one say F4-6.3 over the range is the focus speed, the focus will be noticably quicker, mind you, it doesnt make alot of difference if you can use any lens properly, see some great shots from the longer lenses that aren't close to 2.8 :clap:

[Rovers_Andy]

Yeah i understand that, just asking because i dont have any other "long" lenses yet but have the 1.4 TC and looking to get the 2xTC, I want to start doing some airshow type shooting but wasn't sure if the current set up was practical (weight) or if i would be better buying a telezoom etc.

I think a lot of it will be down to technique, which will take me a while to pick up i reckon

Thanks

Andy

[Ziploc]

Sorry to Hijack this thread, i've been meaning to ask this question aswell. For Airshows are there many people with the 400 f/2.8 and T/C's or do you need zooms?

Secondly for stuff like low flying etc, do you see many people with this setup with a tripod and gimbal head or is this not practical for low fly locations?


For Low fly theres very few times you will need or be able to use a tripod. Most either go handheld or use a Bushhawk (http://www.bushhawk.com/) Rifle grip. The only time I have seen people use a tripod was for the head on shots or panning a prechoosen area. most tend to us the x-200 to x-300 mm range. I used a 100-400 lens the first time I tried, and a 70-200 the 2nd. Got some reasonble shots. For more on low flying sitesand equipment needed theres a few sites out there http://warplane.co.uk/ http://lowfly.net/ to name two.

[Rovers_Andy]

thanks Ziploc, i've had a browse of those sites a few times. Looks like i need to look at a longish zoom lense or a shorter prime.

Thanks for the quick response

Andy

[heidfirst]

I would think that a 400/2.8 would be very good on a 1.3x body for aviation if you can reliably hand hold it but I foresee that as your main problem.

[Rovers_Andy]

I would think that a 400/2.8 would be very good on a 1.3x body for aviation if you can reliably hand hold it but I foresee that as your main problem.

Exactly the problem with the 400/2.8 unless you have arms like tree trunks it is IMPOSSIBLE hence buying the gimbal head (though this is for wildlife and other stuff aswell)

Maybe a siggy 300 and T/C. I don't like the big push pull zooms so not leaving myself many options......

[Viper]

anyone had any experiences of using a 100-400L as i have been considering getting one of these, Cheers

[MrAngry2]

anyone had any experiences of using a 100-400L as i have been considering getting one of these, Cheers

Go to any air display and it will be 75% 100-400, it seems to be the ultimate air show lens, I have heard good and bad about it though eg, Dust magnet.

[pete.rush]

anyone had any experiences of using a 100-400L as i have been considering getting one of these, Cheers

It's an affordable versatile lens that has a good range for most aviation photography, will be much faster than the sigma long zooms and will also work better non perfect light conditions, although it will struggle if light conditions start to fail. It's sharp, not as sharp or fast focusing as the primes (but its a zoom), although there are issues with quality (i.e. being sent back for focusing problems), but if you get a good copy it's a very good affordable lens. Only issue will be whether you'll get on with the push / pull system, as this has put people off this lens. For the money it's probably the best zoom option out there if you need 400mm than the cheaper sigma alternatives.

Peter

[Viper]

Cheers Peter! That was very helpful

As you have mentioned, the push pull is what has been putting me off getting one, although i suppose there is only one way to find out if i can get on with it.....

[pete.rush]

I use a Sigma 170-500f5 and its spot on for aircraft, dont be thinking fast glass like f2.8 for aircraft because you will probably never get out of the f6-f12 for the buggers as its extremely bright up there so a 50-500 sigma will be spot on and save you some cash

You've obviously never been to Wales in poor light especially for Lowfly. Your sigma wouldn't cope with poor light conditions even if you upped the ISO, especially if you were trying to achieve apertures of f12 with that lens.

Thats why most of the people I see have canon 300mm f2.8's or nikon 200-400mm f4 or the fast primes like 500mm f4, because you can't guarantee wall to wall sunshine the light conditions vary so much to keep the shutter speed up.

[pete.rush]

Sorry to Hijack this thread, i've been meaning to ask this question aswell. For Airshows are there many people with the 400 f/2.8 and T/C's or do you need zooms?

Secondly for stuff like low flying etc, do you see many people with this setup with a tripod and gimbal head or is this not practical for low fly locations?


Thanks

Andy

A friend uses a 400mm f2.8 for lowfly, he mainly shoots in the lakes where you need the extra reach of 400mm for places like the Mast at Tebay, 300mm is suited to most locations in the loop, but as mentioned, at 5.6kg it's very heavy, requires some of the green stuff to handheld and would not be suitable for prolonged spells at airshows. A friend uses a canon 500mm f4 or 300mm f2.8 on 2 bodies for most of the airshows he goes to which are slightly better options. I've got the 300mm f4 and when conditions permit add the 1.4x TC, next step will be the 300mm f2.8 when prices come down a bit.

Never seen anyone use a tripod, or even a monopod (depends if you want to fall off the edge :D) for lowfly, too easy to get off balance and not really needed unless you just want head on shots with say a 400mm f2.8.

[Weetobix]

Go to any air display and it will be 75% 100-400, it seems to be the ultimate air show lens, I have heard good and bad about it though eg, Dust magnet.

I used one on safari in Africa for a week and didn't have any dust problems - top lens :thumbs:

[Lynton]

previously had a sigma 70-300 but wasn't long enough

Have invested in a s/h sigma 120-400 f4.5/5.6 to go onto Pentax Km for Lowestoft next Thursday. As pentax cameras have IS built into the body, the lens for Pentax/Samsung fit doesn't come with Optical Stability.

[Weetobix]

previously had a sigma 70-300 but wasn't long enough

Have invested in a s/h sigma 120-400 f4.5/5.6 to go onto Pentax Km for Lowestoft next Thursday. As pentax cameras have IS built into the body, the lens for Pentax/Samsung fit doesn't come with Optical Stability.

I just did exactly the same, but for Canon. I think we both made a good choice :)

[Viper]

Pete, do many people get away with the 100-400 for low flying in wales? as im hoping to get down some time!

[StewartR]

the push pull is what has been putting me off getting oneIt shuldn't. It's the best feature of this lens. The ergonomics are superb. You can frame and shoot almost telepathically, without having to move your left hand to zoom and then move it back to support the lens.

[Viper]

does it not throw off the balance of the lens though by constantly changing length?

Thanx for the reassurance though :D I dont think the bank manager will be thanking you as much though!

[ipswichboy]

Thanks all for the advice, although the thread seems to have gone a little off course. From what I have seen, and the fact that I don't have £4000 to spend on a lens, it appears that I have a choice that includes the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6, Sigma 300mm f2.8 prime and the Sigma 100-300 f4 (the last two possibly with a 1.4x teleconverter). The Sigma 50-500 may also be an option. If anyone has experience of any or all of these I would appreciate your thoughts.
Cheers.

[heidfirst]

Go to any air display and it will be 75% 100-400, it seems to be the ultimate Canon air show lens,
fixed ;)

[MrAngry2]

fixed ;)

:lol: good point :lol::lol:

[pete.rush]

Pete, do many people get away with the 100-400 for low flying in wales? as im hoping to get down some time!

It's one of the main (canon) lenses that I see up on the Hills for those of us that struggle to pay £3000 / 4000 for a lens. Although I've been very happy with my 300mm f4 prime which works very well in most of the locations for lowfly.

There are users of the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 which is the next step up from the 100-300mm f4. For the Nikon crowd the 200-400mm f4 is probably the lens of choice, then like the canon's your into the 300mm / 400mm primes that up the $$$ to another level again.

[hyakuhei]

Here's something I wrote for fighter control a few days ago, it was mainly considering low level aviation photography - the only real difference is that your likely to be handholding the camera for a lot longer at an airshow so weight becomes a larger factor:

I've seen lots of 100-400 lenses used on the Mountains in Wales and I've used a few different ones myself, here's a mini-review of sorts which might be useful (should this be its own thread)?:

Canon 100-300 USM
This was the first combo I tried at low level, the lens is fairly cheap but has a USM motor which gives you reasonably quick focusing in good light. The max aperture size at 300mm is f/5.6 which isn't much use in the winter - the lens is also quite soft at 300 and needs to be stopped down to F/8 to be really sharp - only any use on the brightest of days.

Canon 300 F/4L
This is a fantastic prime lens and a good length to use in the mach loop. The focusing is very fast and the lens is very sharp at F/4. The reasonable max aperture means that the 300 F/4 can take a 1.4TC and retain focusing on most bodies. The real benefit of this lens is the price, I bought mine from the classifieds on talk photography for about £300 - super bargain!

Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 [Canon Fit]
Not a bad lens at all but very heavy - I mean really heavy! The image quality is pretty good, certainly rivals the Canon 300 when both are at F/4. The wide aperture of F/2.8 allows the camera body to focus the lens in lower light, making this useful for use on those darker days in the loop.

[This year I switched from Canon to Nikon]
Sigma 100-300 F/4 [Nikon Fit]
Another decent quality Sigma lens, perhaps a little more contrasty than the 120-300 and almost as sharp at F/4. The HSM motor in both of the Sigma lenses is pretty good and almost as fast as the Nikon AF-S and Canon USM systems. The lens is still quite heavy and very long but does a very good job of staying sharp all the way through the range.

Nikkor 300 F/4D (IF) AF-S ED
I once read that the only lens better than the Nikkor 300 F/4D is the F/2.8D and having seen results from both I'd probably agree. The lens is very very sharp and offers excellent contrast and colour reproduction. The AF-S motor is fast and quiet - this lens really shines when a 1.4x teleconvertor is attached* where the difference to image quality is imperceivable. It really is a great lens but its also double the price of the Canon offering. I'd say it is a little better all round but its certainly not twice as good.

Primes vs Zooms
Primes will almost always be sharper, especially when used wide open - if you don't want to compromise on image quality then this is the way to go. Zoom lenses offer more flexibility, very useful when photographing from a fixed location. With prime lenses your only choice is to "zoom with your feet" which can mean lots of moving around depending on what comes around the corner. I prefer shooting with primes because they give you one less thing to worry about, if the aircraft comes too close to fill the frame I'll move to focus on the cockpit or some other creative measure.

Image Stabilisation or Vibration Control
Depends - A 300 F/6.3 with VR isn't really going to be any use, A 300 F/2.8 VR might be more useful but I've never bothered with VR or IS so I can't give an informed opinion.

Hope this helps :thumbs:

[Big Dog]

Hi

You could always try renting a couple of the lenses you are considering to compare them and ensure that you only end up paying for the lens that really suits.

[Trifid]

Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 [Canon Fit]
Not a bad lens at all but very heavy - I mean really heavy! The image quality is pretty good, certainly rivals the Canon 300 when both are at F/4. The wide aperture of F/2.8 allows the camera body to focus the lens in lower light, making this useful for use on those darker days in the loop.


I used this at the Southend Air show (and will be using it at RIAT this weekend) and didn't find it too bad on the weight hand-held. This is coming from someone who weighs 9 stone... Where it gets tricky is wildlife, waiting for a bird in the distance to fly spread its wings and fly off kills the arms.

[ingrid]

What about the 400 f5.6L for Canon users. No one has mentioned this. If it is correct that the 100-400 is used mainly at the 400 end at airshows, the 400 5.6 would seem like a useful lens, albeit without the flexibility of the zoom but with the advantage that it is pin sharp. Is there a reason why that lens doesn't get a mention?

[pete.rush]

What about the 400 f5.6L for Canon users. No one has mentioned this. If it is correct that the 100-400 is used mainly at the 400 end at airshows, the 400 5.6 would seem like a useful lens, albeit without the flexibility of the zoom but with the advantage that it is pin sharp. Is there a reason why that lens doesn't get a mention?

Yes it is a great lens (never see one at an airshow or lowfly), quicker focusing than the 100-400mm and sharper at 400 than the zoom. Don't know why it's not used at airshows (primarily a wildlife lens), as for lowfly 400mm for the loop is too long and f5.6 will struggle in the varied light conditions Wales has to throw at you although for the Lakes, probably a perfect lens. I think people like the IS of the 100-400mm or 300mm f4, where as the 400mm f5.6 does have....

Peter

[heidfirst]

a friend of mine got the 400/5.6 over the 100-400 but he's definitely in the minority.
have a look at http://www.beaumontphotography.co.uk/ as most of his flying shots will have been taken with it.

[nikon4pete]

I am going to Silverstone for the august b/h weekend..WAC + BTCC I am hoping my Sigma 135-400mm on my D200 is ok for this..I was considering a 2x sigma convertor but think I will try without..Planes and Cars over the weekend lets hope the weathers nice..:thumbs:

[malla1962]

I use a 300f2.8 on my 1.3 crop body and love it.

[RVF]

Appologies in advance for a bit of a thread hijack, but this thread has been quite usefull to me (as a bit of a photographic dunce:'(:thinking:) as I've been thinking of upgrading my current Nikon 55-200VR for some better quality glass.

After a bit of research I think I've narrowed it down to either the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Trouble is I'm un sure whether to go for the extra reach of the 120 -400 or whether the 70 - 200 will give better PQ:thinking:
Am I thinking along the right lines here or am I talking rubbish:help:

[ipswichboy]

Appologies in advance for a bit of a thread hijack, but this thread has been quite usefull to me (as a bit of a photographic dunce:'(:thinking:) as I've been thinking of upgrading my current Nikon 55-200VR for some better quality glass.

After a bit of research I think I've narrowed it down to either the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Trouble is I'm un sure whether to go for the extra reach of the 120 -400 or whether the 70 - 200 will give better PQ:thinking:
Am I thinking along the right lines here or am I talking rubbish:help:

I've been using the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 2x teleconverter but I'm not particularly happy with the results (hence starting this thread). I like my photographs pin sharp, especially if I need to crop, but don't seem to be able to achieve this with this combination of lenses. I'm now thinking either the 80-400 Nikon or a 300mm prime (f4 Nikon or f2.8 Sigma).

[RVF]

I've been using the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 with 2x teleconverter but I'm not particularly happy with the results (hence starting this thread). I like my photographs pin sharp, especially if I need to crop, but don't seem to be able to achieve this with this combination of lenses. I'm now thinking either the 80-400 Nikon or a 300mm prime (f4 Nikon or f2.8 Sigma).

Thanks for that, sounds like you're in a similar position to me, but a bit further down the line as you've already tried one of the lenses I've been considering.

I had looked at the 80-400, but the price is right on the edge of my price range, hence the Sigma 120-400.

[ipswichboy]

Thanks for that, sounds like you're in a similar position to me, but a bit further down the line as you've already tried one of the lenses I've been considering.

I had looked at the 80-400, but the price is right on the edge of my price range, hence the Sigma 120-400.

You can see some of the shots I took recently at the Flying Legends airshow at Duxford at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswichboy2/
All are taken with the 70-200 + 2x teleconverter and most are taken at 400mm. Bear in mind the light was pretty good. The candids are also taken with the same lens combination in similarly good light.

[andyjayh]

Sorry, going to hijack a bit myself. After going to RIAT yesterday I was still left wanting in the lens department. Currently I am using a Sigma 120-300 2.8 with a Canon 1.4x. This gives me about 430mm which I was finding lacking in range but also too close when there were more then one plane in the display i.e the Reds. I this case I was quickly changing to my 35-350L which was very good at this time.

So I came home thinking about a 2x converter but realising this would make the close up shots harder :bang:

I was looking at my mates 50-500 slightly enviously but I know this would be a step in the wrong direction.

So other then two bodies, what options do I have for getting the close stuff and the distant shots of an airshow?

[RVF]

You can see some of the shots I took recently at the Flying Legends airshow at Duxford at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswichboy2/
All are taken with the 70-200 + 2x teleconverter and most are taken at 400mm. Bear in mind the light was pretty good. The candids are also taken with the same lens combination in similarly good light.
Thanks for the link, good shots :thumbs: & very useful to see the results of a lens especially as we have the same camera :)

[buckas]

used my recently bought 400/5.6 at fairford on saturday, did a superb job - most planes full shot, sharp and fast aswell

will stick my shots up this evening sometime :)

drew

[68lbs]

I need some airshow lens advice too please...

My issues are around the fact that my camera is full frame and the longest I have is 200mm which I understand is going to be well short.

What solutions would people recommend?

I could possible buy a TC in time, but the 2x seems a no-no which only leaves the 1.4x and I'd then only be looking at a max of 280mm. I could possibly borrow a 1.6 crop sensor camera.

[buckas]

400 on full frame would be just right :)

[68lbs]

400 on full frame would be just right :)

Discounting a 400 prime or 100-400L, what options are available? I rarely use this sort of length, but it would be nice to be able to once or twice a year. A 2x tc would be ideal, but everything I hear is negative about it. :(

[buckas]

hire one if you're not going to use it enough

http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/

[hyakuhei]

With the crowd-distance restrictions in effect at airshows in the UK you might even find that 400 is too short on a full frame body....

The flight line at fairford was slightly further away from the runway meaning that once the aircraft have taken off they move a little further from the crowd to start their display.

When at fairford this weekend I found that 300mm on my crop body was the perfect combination for takeoff and landing shots with aircraft filling the frame when perpendicular to me. During the displays I found that I needed my 1.4x teleconverter to get decent close in shots.

For the purposes of demonstration, none of these shots are cropped.

This first shot was taken using 300mm close to the 250m line on the runway:
http://galleries.westwalesphotography.co.uk/img/v4/p417548035-4.jpg

This second shot was taken at 420mm from the grandstand:
http://galleries.westwalesphotography.co.uk/img/v4/p56256205-4.jpg

This last shot shows how close 420mm takes you when the aircraft are as close as the runway:
http://galleries.westwalesphotography.co.uk/img/v5/p874994297-4.jpg

I'd love to switch to full frame for landscape and studio work but even if the day comes when I can get a full frame body, I'll always keep my crop body for aviation work and similar.

Hope the examples above help to put some real world sizes to these focal lengths :thumbs:

[grahamc]

the nikon 300mm f4 af-d isnt too bad and not that pricey

[ipswichboy]

the nikon 300mm f4 af-d isnt too bad and not that pricey


I am thinking about this or a 2nd hand Sigma 300mm f2.8, the latter being favourite as i have the teleconverters to fit. I did consider the Nikon 80-400 but the reported slow autofocus has put me off.

[ipswichboy]

With the crowd-distance restrictions in effect at airshows in the UK you might even find that 400 is too short on a full frame body....

The flight line at fairford was slightly further away from the runway meaning that once the aircraft have taken off they move a little further from the crowd to start their display.

When at fairford this weekend I found that 300mm on my crop body was the perfect combination for takeoff and landing shots with aircraft filling the frame when perpendicular to me. During the displays I found that I needed my 1.4x teleconverter to get decent close in shots.

For the purposes of demonstration, none of these shots are cropped.

Nice shots... what 300mm were you using?