Aviation Lenses

C

cloudhunter

Messages
328
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

This is for all you aviation photographers.

What lenses do you use?

Im toying with either the Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 or the Sigma 120-400 f4-5.6

But... seen the canon L 70-200mm F4 aswell. Do any of you use that? if so do you find its too short?

Also, would that lens with a 1.4 or 2x convertor give better results than the other 2 if i needed the extra length?

Cheers
 
Sony 70-400mm G SSM is the dog's - but it won't fit a Canon.
(I've also got a Sigma 100-300/4)
 
a 70-300 wasnt really long enough for the airshow at sunderland :)
 
200mm would not be long enough go for something with the 400mm range.
Rob.
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

This is for all you aviation photographers.

What lenses do you use?

Im toying with either the Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 or the Sigma 120-400 f4-5.6

But... seen the canon L 70-200mm F4 aswell. Do any of you use that? if so do you find its too short?

Also, would that lens with a 1.4 or 2x convertor give better results than the other 2 if i needed the extra length?

Cheers
Click to expand...

This really depends on budget, but hears my recommendations for a canon body.


I use a canon 300mm f4 and 1.4x TC (when light allows), although just got a 300mm f2.8...I've used the 70-200mm f2.8 and 1.4x TC, but just not enough reach unless for takeoff shots.

The canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 is the affordable lens of choice. Alternatives are sigma 100-300mm f4, sigma 120-300mm f2.8 (although I think its more suited to motorsport or canon 400mm f5.6)

Lenses to avoid are, most of the budget sigma zooms like the 120-400mm, you need very good light to get anything from this lens, would rather use the 300mm f4 or 100-300mm and 1.4x TC than these lenses, but they do meet a requirement for those on a real tight budget.

Avoid using a 2x TC on the 70-200mm f2.8, just doesn't work. The TC's are really designed for the large fast primes like the 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8, but like with the 1.4x you'll lose autofocus speed and with the 2x image quality (detail).

It depends on budget, but you'll need around a £1000 for something usable in most situations.

For versatility the 100-400mm will get you everything from landings to takeoff's at an affordable price (alternatively, have a look at the sigma 100-300mm f4 or canon 300mm f4 and get a 1.4x TC, 2 lenses in 1), although the display line for airshows is moving further from the crowd line and the length of lens required is increasing.
 
I think the number one question is will it be used for aviation alone?

I had a 100-400 L and sold it a while back. I have just got a 70-200 f2.8 IS. I got rid of the 100-400 partly because I found it such an expensive lens to own for just one or two uses (aviation and some wildlife). The 70-200 is fine for me so far. I will get a 1.4x TC when I get some more money. I can see a few instances when the 200mm will be too short but I also found the 100 on the 100-400 too zoomed it.

I would say think where you will be using it. Then if not just for aviation get the 70-200 as it's far more versatile as you can take sports, portraits etc etc with it, all of which would be far less easy on the 100-400.

Hope that helps some.

Andy S
 
Hi,

Thanks alot for the replies.

I want to really get into aviation photography. I was just going to get the Canon 100-400 bvut have heard mixed stories about it. Some say they are amazing , some say they are terrible.

Its going to be on a Canon 50d or a 1dMkIII (havent decided whether to spend the extra yet)

What do you think?
 
I use a 100-400 on a 50D, mostly for aviation. It's the second such lens I've owned and I love it, heavy for sure but I find that helps stabilise it and it is pretty versatile too.

Fairford-070a.jpg

IMG_4100a.jpg

IMG_2635.jpg
 
I use a 100-400 as well. Has always been handheld on a 20D

Examples on my Flickr. All shots from Sunderland Airshow were with the 100-400

In fact, all the photos in my sets were with the 100-400
 
EMA747 said:
I would say think where you will be using it. Then if not just for aviation get the 70-200 as it's far more versatile as you can take sports, portraits etc etc with it, all of which would be far less easy on the 100-400.

Hope that helps some.

Andy S
Click to expand...

I would totally disagree with you there..........The 70-200mm is a good lens, but not really suitable unless you can get close to the action, and I mean close. Even at today's racing circuits, 400mm isn't enough reach from a lens to get through the barrier fences, as for airshow, the crowd line and display line are getting further apart, with a 70-200mm at an airshow nowadays, if you don't mind photographing dots then buy a 70-200mm, even if you want to get into lowfly photography, you'll need a minimum of 300mm, so yes the 70-200 does have its place, rallying for example, but its nowhere near long enough for aviation. Yes the 100-400mm has it's issues, but the worst it will be is send the lens back for calibration, and with the latest camera's you can adjust that on board camera.

You wouldn't have been able to take these shots with a 70-200mm (300mm f4 and 1.4x TC)

IMG_8000copy1.jpg


IMG_7959copy1.jpg


IMG_5719copy1.jpg


IMG_6273copy1.jpg


Peter
 
Pete,

May i say , your shots are simply AMAZING!!!

Were these taken with the 1dmkIIn?

What lens were they taken with?

Cheers
 
cloudhunter said:
Pete,

May i say , your shots are simply AMAZING!!!

Were these taken with the 1dmkIIn?

What lens were they taken with?

Cheers
Click to expand...

All these were taken this year, Shoreham, Biggin Hill and RIAT with a 1D MkIIn and canon 300mm f4 with 1.4x TC (but using the TC would depend on the light conditions on the day), and all the images are 2/3 rd's too full frame, not a great deal of crop.
 
Dont you find it harder using a fixed length lens? , as i keep thinking i would miss more than i keep especially if they were fast as you wouldnt have the opportunity to zoom in or out?
 
cloudhunter said:
Dont you find it harder using a fixed length lens? , as i keep thinking i would miss more than i keep especially if they were fast as you wouldnt have the opportunity to zoom in or out?
Click to expand...

For most of the air display the planes are at a distance that either the 300mm can capture most shots, if I require extra, add the 1.4x TC if needed, anything smaller then I just don't shoot, plus I have a 2nd body with another lens on to capture landing, take off and close ups, it also depends on the aircraft doing the display.

Just upgraded to a 300mm f2.8, so light issues will be improved over the 300mm f4, but keeping the lens because it's light and could use it on my 2nd body instead of the 70-200mm.
 
Would you say there is a big difference in quality between the 300mm prime f4 and the 100-400 canon?
 
cloudhunter said:
Would you say there is a big difference in quality between the 300mm prime f4 and the 100-400 canon?
Click to expand...

The 300mm prime is sharper and an f-stop faster, also quicker focusing, but as you said, it's limitations are its fixed focus, so why I have 2 bodies and 2 lenses, where as 100-400mm is a 1 lens fits all and quite a few people go for that instead of the primes.

Its swings and roundabouts and also really depends on the weather, Kemble this year was a waste of time photographing anything, even with a 300mm f4, light just wasn't in our favour.

That's the real factor, with good light, even the sigma 120-400mm will take a good shot, you lose the light and things start to become more challenging (the f4 gives me abit extra ground to work in with the light) to get good shots, until the point where you put the camera away and watch because all you'll get is black blobs on a grey background with no detail.
 
tis a shame there isnt a 100-400 f2.8 or similar

Olympus do the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which is effectively 100-400 but it has the noise problems of olympus then
 
cloudhunter said:
tis a shame there isnt a 100-400 f2.8 or similar

Olympus do the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which is effectively 100-400 but it has the noise problems of olympus then
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a 100-400mm f2.8 would be rather expensive and heavy, an f4 version would be manageable, but we would be talking £3000 + , for versatility the 100-400mm will meet most of your requirements, unless you want to go down the prime route.....check kerso (on TP) for the best prices (ask for a canon list), you'll save about £100 - 150 on uk prices.
 
cloudhunter said:
tis a shame there isnt a 100-400 f2.8 or similar

Olympus do the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which is effectively 100-400 but it has the noise problems of olympus then
Click to expand...

Well Sigma has a 200 500 f/2.8 but that is an absolutely massive lens and probably not hand-holdable:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp

The Canon 100 400 IS USM L is a very good lens (I have one), although the IS isn't the latest version so it's not as effective as on newer lenses with IS. But then again for airshow photography you probably want to keep your shutter speed up anyway so IS is less important.
 
For the last airshow I went to, I spent pretty much all of my time at the long end of a 70-200 with 1.4x, and it still wasn't long enough, though being on an FF camera didn't help.

I'd put my money on a 400mm F5.6 again if I were to take air photography more seriously, then if possible add something like a 7D to it for the AF and reach. The 400mm doesn't have the versatility of the 100-400, or IS, but it is meant to be better at 400mm, is cheaper than the 100-400 and has stunning fast AF.
I used to have one and only sold it due to lack of use (used around 6 times in 3 years), but if I took up BIF or similar, it would be my first port of call.
 
cloudhunter said:
tis a shame there isnt a 100-400 f2.8 or similar

Olympus do the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 which is effectively 100-400 but it has the noise problems of olympus then
Click to expand...
you could do worse than go Sony - the 70-400mm G SSM outshines the Canon 100-400mm & Nikon 80-400mm.
 
I think you could do a lot worse than going for the 7D with a 100-400L.

Being a crop frame the 400 is in effect 640 which I find ideal on my 40D.
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Does the A700 have a good AF though? I mean does it keep focus in things moving towards you?
Click to expand...

The A700 isn't the best for action photography, nor is the 70-400mm lens for autofocus speed, although from the reviews the 70-400 is slightly better IQ's than the canon, but both lenses are streets ahead of the Nikon 80-400mm.

The sony brand is improving all the time, but still along way to go to catch up with Nikon and Canon regarding lenses, even with the selection of Minolta lenses available on 2nd hand market.
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

Does the A700 have a good AF though? I mean does it keep focus in things moving towards you?
Click to expand...
it's as good as/ better than a 40D but not upto 7D. 50D AF I believe is improved over a 40D but not tremendously?
you do need to use the focus limiter on the 70-400mm - it does small focus adjustments very quickly but end to end is quite a trawl but I doubt that's unique on a lens like this.
 
pete.rush said:
I would totally disagree with you there..........The 70-200mm is a good lens, but not really suitable unless you can get close to the action, and I mean close. Even at today's racing circuits, 400mm isn't enough reach from a lens to get through the barrier fences, as for airshow, the crowd line and display line are getting further apart, with a 70-200mm at an airshow nowadays, if you don't mind photographing dots then buy a 70-200mm, even if you want to get into lowfly photography, you'll need a minimum of 300mm, so yes the 70-200 does have its place, rallying for example, but its nowhere near long enough for aviation. Yes the 100-400mm has it's issues, but the worst it will be is send the lens back for calibration, and with the latest camera's you can adjust that on board camera.

You wouldn't have been able to take these shots with a 70-200mm (300mm f4 and 1.4x TC)

IMG_8000copy1.jpg


IMG_7959copy1.jpg


IMG_5719copy1.jpg


IMG_6273copy1.jpg


Peter
Click to expand...

Pete I understand what you mean. I have never been to an airshow since I got my camera so I can't comment on the 70-200 in those situations but I have no reason to disagree with your comments on it being too short.

I take all my pictures at commercial airports and have never really had a problem with the 70-200 and with a 1.4x TC I can't really see it ever being an issue. Just wait until the plane is close rather than taking it when it's on a 5 mile final. ;)
For anyone who is interested the 70-200 was fine for these airports I have been to this year: Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Paris, Oslo, Bodø, Zurich, Birmingham, East Midlands, Heathrow.


Andy S
 
there's obviously a diffence in focal length requirements if you want to take photos of A380s on approach v a fast jet in the valleys.
That's upto the OP to decide.
 
Hi,

So which of these cameras would you say is the best for aviation photography? as i can afford to get any of the following :

Brand New Nikon D300
Brand New Canon 50d
Second Hand Canon 1dMkIIn


Cheers
 
of those 3 I would probably go D300(s) but I'm not you so go to a shop & handle to see what suits you.
 
cloudhunter said:
Hi,

So which of these cameras would you say is the best for aviation photography? as i can afford to get any of the following :

Brand New Nikon D300
Brand New Canon 50d
Second Hand Canon 1dMkIIn


Cheers
Click to expand...

Depends if this is your first SLR / DSLR or not, as the Nikon D300 and 1D would take some getting use to, require an understanding of camera settings and aren't really beginner camera's, there no auto modes to help you out, and you'll get into the situation of not being happy with the camera, blaming the camera for the blurred images, when its the user at fault, not the camera.

The 1D is showing its age now, being only 8mp, compared with the newer models, however, the autofocus system is still streets ahead of either the other 2 camera's and if it was a choice between the 3, 1D everytime.

Personally the lenses are more important than the camera body, and I would personally be placing a larger % of the budget on good lenses, as you'll keep a lens for longer, where as camera bodies get changed every couple of years.

If this is your first DSLR, get a nikon D90 or canon 40/50D and invest in a good lens, if you are reasonable competent in camera use, then consider the D300 or 1D camera's, but at the end of the day it's your money.

As heidfirst suggested, go to your local camera shop and try as many camera's out as possible and find one that suits you.
 
I would say it depends on what type of aviation photography you do, if its mainly fast jets, then 300mm is probably a minimum. I can quite happily shoot airliners all day with a Nikon 80 - 200 f2.8, I even used a 55 - 200mm VR at Farnborough last year and got good results.

Here are a few I've taken with nothing longer than a 200mm.

2684815318_2f74b33868_o.jpg


2695670704_e97060f531_o.jpg


3904686258_dfe76444b3_o.jpg


4006434684_6abb32eb78_o.jpg
 
Some nice shots on here and no doubt some expensive glass. What is the minimum zoom to get some reasonable shots? I have an 80-200 f2.8 but it's probably a bit short of the mark!
 
cowasaki said:
Some nice shots on here and no doubt some expensive glass. What is the minimum zoom to get some reasonable shots? I have an 80-200 f2.8 but it's probably a bit short of the mark!
Click to expand...

Depends how close you can get to the action and the size of aircraft your photographing. A 80-200mm will get most take off shots but probably abit short for flight shots, especially if you want to photograph airshows. Anything around 300mm + will get more shots.
 
pete.rush said:
Depends how close you can get to the action and the size of aircraft your photographing. A 80-200mm will get most take off shots but probably abit short for flight shots, especially if you want to photograph airshows. Anything around 300mm + will get more shots.
Click to expand...

So maybe a 1.4TC or 1.7TC :thumbs: Maybe next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top