New long lens (New picture added 3/4)!

Briony

Briony

Messages
3,869
Name
Nicki.
Edit My Images
Yes
I am currently using a Sigma 120 - 400 which I am having problems with (it may be me yet) but I was wondering about hiring a lens of the same focal length for a week to see if my results are any better.

Can someone advise me what to go for please so I can do a comparison with this Sigma.

Thank you.
 
Well, I am hiring it and would hate to fall in love with a really expensive lens and I may have to replace this one (hopefully it is still under warranty) so nothing mega please. Yes I would love a Canon but out of my reach I am afraid.
 
Briony said:
Well, I am hiring it and would hate to fall in love with a really expensive lens and I may have to replace this one (hopefully it is still under warranty) so nothing mega please. Yes I would love a Canon but out of my reach I am afraid.
Click to expand...

For a lens in that range it's difficult then. Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 are less expensive than the 100-400l. Have you thought of getting the camera and lens calibrated?
 
menthel said:
For a lens in that range it's difficult then. Sigma 50-500 or 150-500 are less expensive than the 100-400l. Have you thought of getting the camera and lens calibrated?
Click to expand...


Where do I get that done and how much do they normally charge? bit of a chicken and the egg situation really, what do I get done first, hire a lens or get the camera calibrated? :help:
 
I am not sure how to get a sigma lens and canon camera calibrated all at once. Perhaps someone else can answer!
 
Before going to the expense of hiring a lens or getting camera and lens calibrated, wouldn't it be better to determine whether there is an actual problem first or if it's your technique. What is the problem you are having and can you post some images stating how they were taken.
 
artyman said:
Before going to the expense of hiring a lens or getting camera and lens calibrated, wouldn't it be better to determine whether there is an actual problem first or if it's your technique. What is the problem you are having and can you post some images stating how they were taken.
Click to expand...


Some images are up in my 52 and hopefully all the exif data is there for you to see, I do not have any help around me here, no togging buddies, no family or friends that are interested that can help, that is why I am struggling:shrug: I have tried to do everything people have told me and it is still not working so help is needed, and the only way I can do that is either having the expense of lessons, hiring a new lens or paying someone to come out and try my lens, so am at a bit of a loss here what to do first.:bang:
 
There is no exif data in the munjats " or whatever they are"

Best to post a couple of shots into a new thread titled Please help with these., Exif data included.

Imho

MD:thumbs:
 
Also if you could jst post a resized shot " No editing done to it " Just so we can rule out the pp.ing


MD:thumbs:
 
Are you having to trade your Sigma for this deal? If not, keep the Sigma and think about a Canon 400mm f/5.6L prime. The 400 is the unsung hero of Canon's line up. My copy was as sharp as my 500mm that cost me 4 times as much.

Yes, it needs a tripod a lot of the time but that is good discipline to get into.
 
Briony where in Oxford are you? I live in Reading and I have the same sigma lens as you. I might be able to meet up with you, I'm by no means an expert but it could help?
 
grumpybadger said:
Are you having to trade your Sigma for this deal? If not, keep the Sigma and think about a Canon 400mm f/5.6L prime. The 400 is the unsung hero of Canon's line up. My copy was as sharp as my 500mm that cost me 4 times as much.

Yes, it needs a tripod a lot of the time but that is good discipline to get into.
Click to expand...


No just hiring it to start with and the camera is on a still bench when taking photos so no tripod needed, as the hide is designed for shooting so there is a wide ledge there.
 
But my point is, I wouldn't recommend not having a zoom long term. So if you do change lenses, my recommendation would be:

1. Trade Sigma for Canon 100-400
2. Keep Sigma and buy Canon 400 prime.

Ledge and a beanbag sounds good. Reckon prime would work well in that scenario.

If you want the best 400mm lens for Canon out there, then its the prime. But be aware you may wish to buy one after.
 
http://s587.photobucket.com/albums/ss312/Alocin2009/?action=view&current=035-3.jpg

Have a look at this I all I have done is download it to here.

Sorry guys havelost the exif details it is now going to take me a while to find out how to display it ads I have done nothing different, Frustrated or what think I may just dissapear and find a hole to crawl into and hibernate for a couple pf week, you don't know how frustrating this is trying to deal with everything on my own, I know I should have married a photographer instead of a farmer LOL!
 
grumpybadger said:
But my point is, I wouldn't recommend not having a zoom long term. So if you do change lenses, my recommendation would be:

1. Trade Sigma for Canon 100-400
2. Keep Sigma and buy Canon 400 prime.

Ledge and a beanbag sounds good. Reckon prime would work well in that scenario.

If you want the best 400mm lens for Canon out there, then its the prime. But be aware you may wish to buy one after.
Click to expand...

So I am looking to hire a prime 400 - correct?
 
:shrug:

No exif data in that photo.

It does look like its not in focus though..

MD
 
..MD.. said:
:shrug:

No exif data in that photo.

It does look like its not in focus though..

MD
Click to expand...

Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I know,!!!!!!!!!! this where the problem is, I am now trying to find out where the exif data has gone to.:shrug:
 
Can you just resize an upload to your tp gallery.. ?

ps are you saving for web or saving in...?

save for web will strip exif.


md
 
Briony said:
Aghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I know,!!!!!!!!!! this where the problem is, I am now trying to find out where the exif data has gone to.:shrug:
Click to expand...

I bet you're really frustrated - I know I would be in your situation!

Can you clarify if you have any filters on the lens used to take the squirl pic?
 
The squirrel's face is definitely not in focus, however the paw in front may well be. It looks clearer than its face on that small photobucket image! A bigger image and exif would be ideal to look at.
 
morbidorbits said:
I bet you're really frustrated - I know I would be in your situation!

Can you clarify if you have any filters on the lens used to take the squirl pic?
Click to expand...


YES I AM to the extent where I am getting upset now :'( No filters on it as took them off as I was advised to .

Picture coming I hope in gallery
 
Also that squidger shot is a crop ;)

Have you got something straight from camera..

Only trying to help you.


md:thumbs:
 
..MD.. said:
Also that squidger shot is a crop ;)

Have you got something straight from camera..

Only trying to help you.


md:thumbs:
Click to expand...

A couple of pictures hopefully is in the gallery resixed to 600 pixels hope that is ok.

I know you are trying to help but I am trying to do things and believe me I AM NO TECHIE WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE THIS. Have taught myself everything I know on the computer also so a very long learning curve for me.
 
Briony said:
A picture hopefully is in the gallery resixed to 600 pixels hope that is ok.

I know you are trying to help but I am trying to do things and believe me I AM NO TECHIE WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE THIS. Have taught myself everything I know on the computer also so a very long learning curve for me.
Click to expand...

It looks like there is an area that is in focus (deer shot) - but the image is too small to be able to diagnose the problem.

Do you shoot in RAW or JPG? I would like to see the unedited picture, but I'm not sure if it's possible to post it here.
 
The muntjac looks ok but the whole squiggle photo looks soft. Was it shot at 200mm or longer?
 
Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 450D
Image Date: 2010:04:01 09:33:51
Focal Length: 400mm
Aperture: f/7.1
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
ISO equiv: 400
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB

Help if I typed in the box. here the exif data from the pic. Think we need to see the full pic to help more.
 
If you look at the grass just before the muntjac it looks like it has focussed there. With a little sharpen the grass comes up more than the animal....


briony_2_copy.jpg



MD:thumbs:
 
You are right! That will teach me to look on my mini9. The muntjac piccie is closer than the squiggle though.
 
So I was always led to believe that you focus on the objestc eyes, so that ia where I am going wrong which would understandably mean why the grass in front is focus, so where do I focus then?
 
You are right to focus on the eye if possible.. It looks like this has focussed just short to me anyway..:shrug:

It maybe worth doing some test focus shots " a little search for test shots should help "


md:thumbs:
 
Nicki, couple of questions:

1.Are these large crops of the originals?

2.Are you using spot focus on the camera?

3.Are they handheld?
 
fracster said:
Nicki, couple of questions:

1.Are these large crops of the originals?

2.Are you using spot focus on the camera?

3.Are they handheld?
Click to expand...

Answers:-

1. yes

2. yes (that is where you only have one spot fixed - right?)

3. yes but rested on a bean bag on a ledge so no movement, hide is a bit small for a tripod and I only have a small viewing aera as it is really designed for shooting out of.
 
..MD.. said:
If you look at the grass just before the muntjac it looks like it has focussed there. With a little sharpen the grass comes up more than the animal....


briony_2_copy.jpg



MD:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I agree... Briony could you try opening the original in canon's DPP software that came with yoiur camera.. if yu then upgrade to the latest version 3.8 online, look under display and you can turn on where all the focus points were when you took the picture. Ie, if you were using the centre only it will show up red and you can see if it was on the deer's face or where it was.

I have had quite a few surprises with that to be honest!! :$
 
Briony said:
Answers:-

1. yes

2. yes (that is where you only have one spot fixed - right?)

3. yes but rested on a bean bag on a ledge so no movement, hide is a bit small for a tripod and I only have a small viewing aera as it is really designed for shooting out of.
Click to expand...

1.The more you crop,the more pixels you lose and the less fine detail you get.

2.The squirrel looks like the camera has focussed on the grass slightly in front of the vermin.If the creature is a distance off then the camera may well do that because it has differing subjects in the focussing spot,try manual focus?

3.Camera shake shouldn`t be a problem then,are you gently rolling your finger over the "fire" button or jabbing it?
 
fracster said:
1.The more you crop,the more pixels you lose and the less fine detail you get.

2.The squirrel looks like the camera has focussed on the grass slightly in front of the vermin.If the creature is a distance off then the camera may well do that because it has differing subjects in the focussing spot,try manual focus?

3.Camera shake shouldn`t be a problem then,are you gently rolling your finger over the "fire" button or jabbing it?
Click to expand...

Gently rolling it over the button being careful not to make any sudden movements.

the picture of the squirrel is in fact not touched at all, so no cropping but the seer ones have been ever so slightly cropped as I was quite close to the subject.

Janice - Thank you have done that ( I think :thinking:)
 
Hmmm, if that squirrel shot has not been cropped, then something is deffo wrong and I don`t think it is you........:thinking:

Could you email the original to me?

frac@wildlifenorthwest.co.uk

I don`t profess to be an expert, but will have a look at it for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top