The fox and the rabbit

To add to my above post, both the pictures were taken through windows.
 
Ok took some more shots, the first two again handheld sp 500 at 300mm, the peaches on a tripod one at 200mm the others at 300mm
 
They're all soft, have you tested the lens yet?
 
The post above (the peaches) and yes when i look at others they still look soft, they were the test shots on a tripod wide open
 
Last edited:
That's not really a good enough test, if you can't do the one I did in post 37 then get a large cereal packet and place it at least 15meters away (if shooting at 300mm). Make sure the packet is square and in line to the camera 'sensor'. Fix camera on a tripod and take a few shots. You should be able to read the print clearly.
 
Ok appreciate that, I'll try that. I need to do it at 300mm as that's the whole point of having 300mm at least I'll know if I need to upgrade the lens or me lol. what length was your shot?
 
Last edited:
What camera body do you have?
 
Hmmm, no micro adjust then.
 
The first 2 look soft due to movement. If this was on a tripod are you being a bit heavy handed with the sutter release or knocking it? Others look much sharper. look past the box and look at the gate. you can see the grain in the last 3 but not the first ones.
 
Last edited:
Elmer_fudd25 said:
The first 2 look soft due to movement. If this was on a tripod are you being a bit heavy handed with the sutter release or knocking it? Others look much sharper. look past the box and look at the gate. you can see the grain in the last 3 but not the first ones.
Click to expand...
Yes all on tripod, i think this might be the problem it weighs 5lbs and no image stabilization so maybe not the best lens unless its purely tripod work
 
If it's a crap lens then the tripod may help a bit but won't get the iq of decent glass. An investment in a decent tripod however, is never a bad thing.
 
Still not as sharp as expected. What f stop were you using? Have you tried using the timer rather than pressing the shutter?
 
i think better glass is the answer i need something i don't need the timer and a tripod just to get a sharp shot, been looking at the 70-300l is, 300mm f4 is and 400 5.6. Anyone one stand out or are they all good
 
mr bill said:
i think better glass is the answer i need something i don't need the timer and a tripod just to get a sharp shot, been looking at the 70-300l is, 300mm f4 is and 400 5.6. Anyone one stand out or are they all good
Click to expand...


For wildlife the 400 5.6L is a great lens for the price. Best in it's class in that range and you'l pick up a good second hand one for £700 - £900. The 100-400L is also one to consider in the same price bracket. The IQ isn't quite as good as the prime, not a lot in it tho but it's more flexible.

I have both of these lenses and used the prime almost exclusively for birds until I got the 500 F/4L (which is in a different class altogether). I use the 100-400 for larger wildlife, deer etc where I don't need so much reach.
 
Last edited:
I recently picked up a 300 f4 L (non IS) cheap because it doesn't auto focus, that's one sharp lens, with a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter it's still sharp, if I had the cash I'd get the IS version, with the converter it's 420mm, just a bit longer than the 400 f4 and you get IS as well. just an option.
 
Haven't ruled the 300mm prime out either, whats the 400mm 5.6 like when its cloudy ? being as we have so many days like it
 
I find cloudy weather doesn't help whatever the lens especially when photographing birds, I don't bother if the weather is bleak, very frustrating at times.
I think that is your main problem in the pics you posted, the bad light hasn't done you any favours,try with brighter weather and you could try stopping down to f5.6 or 8, the depth of field at f4 will be very shallow.
 
Last edited:
crofter said:
I find cloudy weather doesn't help whatever the lens especially when photographing birds, I don't bother if the weather is bleak, very frustrating at times.
I think that is your main problem in the pics you posted, the bad light hasn't done you any favours,try with brighter weather and you could try stopping down to f5.6 or 8, the depth of field at f4 will be very shallow.
Click to expand...
yes it does make a difference when there's a blue sky, maybe just live in the wrong country for that:( , its 90% bird shooting so i'd probably be better off with 400mm prime
 
mr bill said:
yes it does make a difference when there's a blue sky, maybe just live in the wrong country for that:( , its 90% bird shooting so i'd probably be better off with 400mm prime
Click to expand...


If birds is your main interest then yeh the 400 f/5.6 L is the lens for you. When I first got mine I used it on the 7D and in dull conditions used ISO 640 and that was fine on most occasions. I'm not sure about your camera's noise handling abilities but if it's anything like the 7D up to 640 is ok.

As I said the 500 f/4 L (along with the 1D MKIV I use now) is just out of the ball park and something to aspire to. Worth every penny. I generally shoot at f/4 and with the higher ISO capabilities of the body it's such a flexible combo in poor lighting conditions.
 
Last edited:
I think the 60d is similar to the 7d in that respect but plan on upgrading soon, to what I'm not sure yet was thinking ff maybe
 
mr bill said:
I think the 60d is similar to the 7d in that respect but plan on upgrading soon, to what I'm not sure yet was thinking ff maybe
Click to expand...


I would say at this stage in you development stick with a cropped body for that wee bit extra reach, especially for smaller birds. A good compromise is the 1D MKiii. It handles noise very well so you can rack up the ISO for poor light and you still retain a 1.3 crop. It's an excellent camera and you should be able to pick one up at a decent price. Have a look on ebay to get an idea of the current values and keep an eye on the classifieds on here too
 
Something else to bear in mind is always buy the best glass you can afford. Quality glass is always better on a crap camera than crap glass is on a great camera.
 
i'll keep that in mind or a 70d which seems to be quite an improvement on the 60d, and coming down in price now. It takes me a while to decide anyway:)
 
BRASH said:
Something else to bear in mind is always buy the best glass you can afford. Quality glass is always better on a crap camera than crap glass is on a great camera.
Click to expand...
It's good advice, no more so so lenses
 
Sold the sigma 100-300 and made a nice profit:) Now i think its between the 100-400 or 400 5.6 ? Is there a lot in it when it comes to sharpness ? How do they compare in weight, i really fancy the 400mm but thinking the is and versatility of the 100-400 might be more useful, i'd buy both but would too much on the budget
 
mr bill said:
Sold the sigma 100-300 and made a nice profit:) Now i think its between the 100-400 or 400 5.6 ? Is there a lot in it when it comes to sharpness ? How do they compare in weight, i really fancy the 400mm but thinking the is and versatility of the 100-400 might be more useful, i'd buy both but would too much on the budget
Click to expand...
The prime is way lighter. I had the zoom first but hardly used it after I got the prime. I've used neither since I got the 500.
 
BRASH said:
The prime is way lighter. I had the zoom first but hardly used it after I got the prime. I've used neither since I got the 500.
Click to expand...
Yes looked at few youtube vids it does look lighter and i suppose providing you can keep the shutter speed up is not an issue, i think your pushing me towards the prime, lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top