Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lightweight Telephoto / Canon 20D combo?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:28:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My current "reach out there" gear consists of an older Canon Elan IIe
and a 75-300mm IS (f/4-5.6), which works out to a fairly reasonable
system to dayhike with (<10 miles) in a bag with a WA lens.

I'm thinking of doing an Africa safari and to that end, investing in a
20D and perahps more telephoto power (one way or another). Problem is
that I don't yet have a decent handle on what length telephoto is
reasonable for "back of the Rover" kind of stuff. Basic trade is that
I can afford to increase the system weight, but I need to get more
telephoto magnification out of any change and/or augmentation. My
understanding is that I can't put a 1.4x converter on this zoom tele
(irrespective of film/digital bodies).

With the 20D, the 75-300 would be an effective 105mm-420mm IS, annd in
looking at the Canon IS lenses, the 400mm f4 IS, the 400mm DO f4 IS and
perhaps the 500mm f5.6 IS. With the 20D and a 1.4x teleconverter, the
400's could be 560mm/~800mm and the 500 would be only a ~700mm (would
too slow at f/8 with the 1.4x for AF).

Despite its cost, I am leaning towards the DO due to its lighter
carrying weight, but I have to recognize that I'm probably gong to be
trying to handhold, even though this gets increasingly a bad idea in
this range. Any comments/suggestions on either of these 400's with the
20D and/or any similarly long lenses?


Thanks,

-hh
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have the Canon 300mm f4 IS L and it's awesome with the 20D. I also
have the 400mm f5.6 L which is great for birds in flight( very fast
Auto Focus). I know the 300mm f4 IS with Canon tel converter is the
same or slightly longer then the 400mm f5.6 but the auto focus is much
slower when used in combo.

The 500mm would require a heavy tripod and tripod head. The 300mm f4 or
400mm 5.6 L can be hand held in fairly low light.

http://client.webshots.com/photo/263941155/263942957aFW...

This picture was taken from a moving boat and held with the 300mm f4
IS L lens.

I'd buy either of these lens for your trip because you can adjust the
ISO up to 1600 and shoot in most sitauations hand held.

Art Salmons
Fleeting Images Photography
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 12:28:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1107919690.053462.256680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> My current "reach out there" gear consists of an older Canon Elan IIe
> and a 75-300mm IS (f/4-5.6), which works out to a fairly reasonable
> system to dayhike with (<10 miles) in a bag with a WA lens.
>
> I'm thinking of doing an Africa safari and to that end, investing in a
> 20D and perahps more telephoto power (one way or another). Problem is
> that I don't yet have a decent handle on what length telephoto is
> reasonable for "back of the Rover" kind of stuff. Basic trade is that
> I can afford to increase the system weight, but I need to get more
> telephoto magnification out of any change and/or augmentation. My
> understanding is that I can't put a 1.4x converter on this zoom tele
> (irrespective of film/digital bodies).
>
> With the 20D, the 75-300 would be an effective 105mm-420mm IS, annd in
> looking at the Canon IS lenses, the 400mm f4 IS, the 400mm DO f4 IS and
> perhaps the 500mm f5.6 IS. With the 20D and a 1.4x teleconverter, the
> 400's could be 560mm/~800mm and the 500 would be only a ~700mm (would
> too slow at f/8 with the 1.4x for AF).
>
> Despite its cost, I am leaning towards the DO due to its lighter
> carrying weight, but I have to recognize that I'm probably gong to be
> trying to handhold, even though this gets increasingly a bad idea in
> this range. Any comments/suggestions on either of these 400's with the
> 20D and/or any similarly long lenses?

Your best animal viewing times will often be early morning and early evening.
Because of this, a PRIMARY concern for you should be lens speed (big apertures).
That said... If you are willing to spend $5K+ on a 400 f4 DO, I'd highly recommend
spending another $1200 or so and getting the real-deal 400 2.8 IS. This is a truly
spectacular
lens, and it allows TWICE the light at 2.8 than the f4 can.
This also means that if you put the 1.4x on it, you're still able to shoot at f4.
For a real stretch, you could even add a 2x for 800mm film (or similar view to a whopping
1280mm on your 20D) and STILL maintain an aperture of 5.6--meaning you've still got full
auto focus on your 20D.

There really is no substitute for a large aperture in these situations (low light
morning/evening).
Also...the large apertures will allow you to isolate animals against their often boring
background/foregrounds (like lots of dead brush, etc.).

With the 2.8 and IS, you should be able to hand-hold quite effectively, though better
still...use a
partially extended monopod. If shooting with a running engine, don't use a monopod, or
even a bean-bag, as your body/hand-holding will act as a vibration damper. If you're
shooting out of a roof hole or roll-bar, a bean-bag
makes a superior support. The driver SHOULD turn his engine off for you to avoid
vibrations. If he doesn't, ask him to do so. He should be used to this...

Whatever you do...don't limit yourself to a combination that could but you at f8,
etc. --You WILL be disappointed!! All the REACH in the world still produces crummy
pictures if they're blurry due to subject motion or camera shake (resulting from slow
shutter speeds that come with small apertures).

If you're not getting sufficient shutter speeds in low light, do NOT hesitate to crank the
ISO way up. A slightly noisy shot that is sharp--will beat a noiseless blurry shot any
day.

You probably don't need to hear this...but...whatever you do...shoot in RAW!!!!
This will save your butt for a full stop or more of under/over exposure.
-Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 7:32:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

recscuba_google@huntzinger.com wrote:
>
> With the 20D, the 75-300 would be an effective 105mm-420mm IS, annd in
> looking at the Canon IS lenses, the 400mm f4 IS, the 400mm DO f4 IS and
> perhaps the 500mm f5.6 IS. With the 20D and a 1.4x teleconverter, the
> 400's could be 560mm/~800mm and the 500 would be only a ~700mm (would
> too slow at f/8 with the 1.4x for AF).
>
> Despite its cost, I am leaning towards the DO due to its lighter
> carrying weight, but I have to recognize that I'm probably gong to be
> trying to handhold, even though this gets increasingly a bad idea in
> this range. Any comments/suggestions on either of these 400's with the
> 20D and/or any similarly long lenses?
>

I don't have either prime. I do have a 70-300 DO IS and 100-400 IS L.

For light (e.g., air and hiking travel) I take the DO IS.

For a safari I would use my 100-400 IS L.

I suspect you would be happy hand held with either of the two IS primes
you mention. But for eventual overall use, I'd get the 400 DO IS .. or
just take my 100-400 (though either prime will do better).

Phil
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 6:31:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:
> I have the Canon 300mm f4 IS L and it's awesome with the 20D. I also
> have the 400mm f5.6 L which is great for birds in flight( very fast
> Auto Focus). I know the 300mm f4 IS with Canon tel converter is the
> same or slightly longer then the 400mm f5.6 but the auto focus is
much
> slower when used in combo.

Interesting trade; the 300mm+1.4x would have been the more tempting
choice becaus of the IS.

> The 500mm would require a heavy tripod and tripod head. The 300mm f4
or
> 400mm 5.6 L can be hand held in fairly low light.

This is about what I'm concerned about with the 500mm...its just too
much to handhold.


> http://client.webshots.com/photo/263941155/263942957aFW...
>
> This picture was taken from a moving boat and held with the 300mm f4
> IS L lens.

Nice shot, and its a good illustration of the type of info I'm looking
for: what was the subject distance? IE, is this full-frame or has
this image been cropped?


> I'd buy either of these lens for your trip because you can adjust the
> ISO up to 1600 and shoot in most sitauations hand held.

The ability of digital to shoot at higher effective ISO's is roughly
~70% the reason why I'm considering it. The smaller CCD's lens
magnification effect is 25%, and the rest of the traditional factors
combined make up the last 5%.


-hh
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:36:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The 300mm f4 IS is a terrific lens and what I used in Costa Rica. I
used it without the 1.4x tel converter. The picture of the Blue Heron
is cropped and the bird was flying pass the boat at about 30 yards.The
crop was less then 20% of the image meaning I used 80%. I just bought
the 400mm f5.6 and I really haven't had the oportunity to use it much
because of the rainy weather. I will take it to the local state park
this week and shoot the local birds which are semi-tame.

Art Morris does a good job talking about both of these lens on his
website. he 's a top bird photographer.

birdsasart@verizon.net

By the way the 300mm f4 IS with teleconverter would work great for
animals stationary or moving slowly. Where theAF gets tough is on a
bird flying at some distance. it's ahrd to get the AF on the bird as I
usually only have the center box turned on so as not to have it
focusing on other items. I currently running tests to see if having
more AF boxes on works better or not.

lastly, The image quality of the 20D will allow you to crop your
pictures and they will hold up. In tests I've cropped some fairly
severvly and they have held up. By this I mean taking less then 50% of
the orginal image.

Art
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:53:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Art Morris's website is www.birdsasart.com
I'm sorry for the mis information above post on his site.

Art Salmons
Fleeting Images Photgraphy
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:41:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Here is a website of another great bird photographer
(www.clarkvision.com). He uses the 500mm f4 IS lens almost exclusively
and he emailed me and told me that if I bought this lens (he highly
recommended it) that I would also need to buy a sturdy tripod and
Gimbel (SP) head. He said to allow for 2k for that tripod setup. As
much as I would love that lens and tripod combination it isn't on the
immediate horizon with a total cost of 7.5K.

The last picture in my Costa Rica Album of the Great Egret is only 35%
of the original image resized to 8X10 at 180 DPI.

Art Salmons
Fleeting Images Photography.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 12:07:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

recscuba_google@huntzinger.com wrote:

> I'm thinking of doing an Africa safari and to that end, investing in
a
> 20D and perahps more telephoto power (one way or another). Problem
is
> that I don't yet have a decent handle on what length telephoto is
> reasonable for "back of the Rover" kind of stuff.

The 400/2.8 is a brick. Ditto the 600/4. Better is the 500/4, the
1.4x and 2.0x teleconveters, and a beanbag. If you have to actually
carry the optics around (as opposed to just pointing them out of a
vehicle), get a Kinesis (or equiv.) belt system with the long lens case
and pack it.

> Despite its cost, I am leaning towards the DO due to its lighter
> carrying weight, but I have to recognize that I'm probably gong to be
> trying to handhold, even though this gets increasingly a bad idea in
> this range. Any comments/suggestions on either of these 400's with
the
> 20D and/or any similarly long lenses?

www.google.com: africa safari telephoto; 6210 hits

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00...
[..etc..]

Basically, your question has been asked and answered so many times.
What further commentary is necessary? Maybe only this: buy the
equipment about a year prior to your trip to familiarize yourself with
it and its use. Training! In that way you'll be able to answer the
question on your own.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 3:41:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The 400/2.8 is a brick. Ditto the 600/4. Better is the 500/4, the
> 1.4x and 2.0x teleconveters, and a beanbag.

Better still is the 400/4 DO IS at ~4lbs. The trade-off for the lower
weight is its focal length/f-stop combination.


> > Any comments/suggestions on either of these 400's with
> > the 20D and/or any similarly long lenses?
>
> www.google.com: africa safari telephoto; 6210 hits
>
> Basically, your question has been asked and answered so many times.
> What further commentary is necessary?

Because 6000 hits is poor signal:noise.

If you refine your search: Canon 20D digital 400mm DO africa safari
....it returns:
= 1 hit in USENET (this thread)
= 22 primary (non-duplicative) hits on web (of which very few useful)

YMMV on how many times this specific question really has been asked...


> Maybe only this: buy the equipment about a year prior to
> your trip to familiarize yourself with it and its use.
> Training! In that way you'll be able to answer the
> question on your own.

The first half of your advice should go without saying, but is always
worth repeating. The second half of your advice is pragmatially
useless, for it does one little good to practice if what is learned
cannot be applied: you may as well have suggested that I'd know the
answer by the time I've returned home.

-hh
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 5:47:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-hh wrote:

> Better still is the 400/4 DO IS at ~4lbs. The trade-off for the
lower
> weight is its focal length/f-stop combination.

It's a false economy. Especially when you factor in the amount of
optical quality you receive for the price you'll pay. You will go to
Africa with your 400 and want more focal length with almost every shot.
I guarentee it.

> > > Any comments/suggestions on either of these 400's with
> > > the 20D and/or any similarly long lenses?
> >
> > www.google.com: africa safari telephoto; 6210 hits
> >
> > Basically, your question has been asked and answered so many times.
> > What further commentary is necessary?
>
> Because 6000 hits is poor signal:noise.

Highly relevant hits on the first page. Second hit is the photo.net
reference I gave. What more do you need?

> If you refine your search: Canon 20D digital 400mm DO africa safari
> ...it returns:
> = 1 hit in USENET (this thread)
> = 22 primary (non-duplicative) hits on web (of which very few useful)

That you can't use google properly is unfortunate indeed.

> YMMV on how many times this specific question really has been
asked...

Most of the people I know have the ability to infer, deduce,
generalize. You know, from similar situations, extrapolate?

> > Maybe only this: buy the equipment about a year prior to
> > your trip to familiarize yourself with it and its use.
> > Training! In that way you'll be able to answer the
> > question on your own.
>
> The first half of your advice should go without saying, but is always
> worth repeating. The second half of your advice is pragmatially
> useless, for it does one little good to practice if what is learned
> cannot be applied: you may as well have suggested that I'd know the
> answer by the time I've returned home.

Don't be a nitwit. The process of familiarization -- the training --
will tell you the answer to the question "Will this lens be useful in
X?" If you feel it won't, then you might as well buy the lens just as
you are stepping onto the plane...
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 7:07:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just returned from Coata Rica where I did a lot of photography and I
will tell you that no matter what lens you have on the camera there
will always be instances when it's either either too short or too long.
I ran into both several times on my trip. I missed the first Capuchin
monkey pictures because they were just too close for the 300mm f4 IS L
lens. Later we found some where I got great shots.
It's a case of deciding what you need and can afford and going for it
and then practicing until you are confident. There is no one perfect
lens for wildlife or any other type of photography.

Art
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 7:37:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fyimo wrote:

> I just returned from Coata Rica where I did a lot of photography and
I
> will tell you that no matter what lens you have on the camera there
> will always be instances when it's either either too short or too
long.

Yeah: I recently felt rather stupid standing next to a Boreal Owl with
my 500mm lens. But in general, the bias in wildlife is "too short".
Usually "way too short".

> I ran into both several times on my trip. I missed the first Capuchin
> monkey pictures because they were just too close for the 300mm f4 IS
L
> lens. Later we found some where I got great shots.

Too close for the 300/4 IS? They must have been attacking. ;-)

> It's a case of deciding what you need and can afford and going for it
> and then practicing until you are confident.

"Chance favours the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur said that, and he
wasn't even a wildlife photographer.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 7:17:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <1108168622.171797.263990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

>Yeah: I recently felt rather stupid standing next to a Boreal Owl with
>my 500mm lens.

At least you have your pictures. My Tavern-on-the-Green Owl pictures
are in a corrupted CF card that I am afraid to touch.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 8:44:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"eawckyegy" eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > Better still is the 400/4 DO IS at ~4lbs. The trade-off for the
> > lower weight is its focal length/f-stop combination.
>
> It's a false economy. Especially when you factor in the amount
> of optical quality you receive for the price you'll pay.

I know that I'm paying a lot to save 6~7lbs, but that's my choice. If
you have what you think are better alternatives to suggest, then
suggest them: just keep in mind that even if you're not willing to pay
more to lighten your load, I am.

> You will go to Africa with your 400 and want more focal
> length with almost every shot. I guarentee it.

It won't ever be even close to "all" because I also really enjoy
shooting wide angle landscapes. Check.
While it would be great to get the 'perfect' lens, I'm shooting to be
unsatisfied with the focal reach for only ~33% of my shots, as I know
that no telephoto will ever be perfect for everything and I'm trying to
strongly weight-constrain myself. To that end, I'm planning on not
even carrying any lens between 35mm to 75mm...saving weight forces
trade-off's. Check.




> > > Basically, your question has been asked and answered so many
times.
> > > What further commentary is necessary?
> >
> > Because 6000 hits is poor signal:noise.
>
> Highly relevant hits on the first page. Second hit is the photo.net
> reference I gave. What more do you need?

The first two hits I saw said to carry at least 200mm and 300mm. I'm
trying to go the next step beyond that.

The photo.net reference you provided (which was a bit better) wasn't
even on the first page...it could have been buried one page down or a
hundred pages down.

Apparently, you didn't know that Google doesn't return the same exact
search sequence every time for every person. And this is exactly why
an overly broad search that returns 6000+ hits is unacceptable: only a
fool will go sifting through thousands of hits, and making the first
page relies on pure dumb luck as your search technique. Check.

In any event, even well focused searches didn't reveal the specific
question I was asking, so your basic premise that my question "has been
asked and answered so many times" is simply wrong. If you want to
simply whine about wasted bandwidth, you're the pot calling the kettle
black. Check.


> Most of the people I know have the ability to infer, deduce,
> generalize. You know, from similar situations, extrapolate?

Its been my experience that there can be a lot more variation than what
may conventionally be expected, so soliciting direct experience is far
superior to extrapolative speculation. The Galapagos are a good
example. Check.


> [snip]
>
> Don't be a nitwit. The process of familiarization -- the training --
> will tell you the answer to the question "Will this lens be useful in
> X?"

No it won't: you need good, relevant information on both sides to come
to a good conclusion, for the "X" is the applied photographic
environment which here is the African savannah. I know I have no
answer for that: hence this thread. And because you've stated
nothing useful about it, you obviously don't know the answer either.
Check.

Consider the following example: you've been selected to go on a
mystery photography trip a year from now. With no further knowledge of
your destination or subject, you must pick your camera system and lens
suite. You have no budget constraints, but you do have a 20kg weight
limit. Good luck.


-hh




--
oybbqlonljnyy@yvggyrpnlzna
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 11:23:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-hh wrote:
>
> Consider the following example: you've been selected to go on a
> mystery photography trip a year from now. With no further knowledge of
> your destination or subject, you must pick your camera system and lens
> suite. You have no budget constraints, but you do have a 20kg weight
> limit. Good luck.

I have such a trip. Only I know the destination: Australia
and New Zealand. The diversity is so great, its like a mystery,
and I want to take everything (even though I have been to
Australia before):

4x5 camera, with 90 to 240mm lenses
digital (1D Mark II) + backup camera
wide angle to 500 mm f/4 + TCs.
big carbon fiber tripod with full wimberly head for the 500,
pan/tilt head for landscapes.
Weight ~75 pounds, and won't fit in carry on
(too bulky).

What I've decided on (approximately)

Canon 1D Mark II (+2 spare batteries)
Canon 10D (backup) (+5 spare batteries)
38 GBytes of compact flash (minimum)
two 40-GByte backup drives (nixvuew vista and epson P-2000)
300mm f/4 L IS
1.4x TC
2.0x TC
180mm f/3.5 L macro
28-135mm IS
24mm f/2.8
Gitzo 1228 carbon fiber tripod
arca-swiss B1 head
wimberly sidekick
550 EX flash
better beamer flash extender.
lowepro computrekker backpack
6x30 binoculars
misc (like cable release, filters)
------------------------
Total photo gear weight = 12 kg, (~26 pounds)
(carry on legal in size, excluding tripod.)

(Not including support gear, like battery chargers
that I will not carry while hiking.)
The airline has a 7 kg limit, so if I put some
stuff in checked luggage and my wife carries other
stuff, then it will work, plus give room for reading
material and snacks for the long plane ride.

I feel I do not need wider angle lenses because if
I want wider then 24mm, I mosaic 2 or more frames.

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 7:14:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> >
> > Consider the following example: you've been selected to go on a
> > mystery photography trip a year from now. With no further
knowledge of
> > your destination or subject, you must pick your camera system and
lens
> > suite. You have no budget constraints, but you do have a 20kg
weight
> > limit. Good luck.
>
> I have such a trip. Only I know the destination: Australia
> and New Zealand. The diversity is so great, its like a mystery,
> and I want to take everything (even though I have been to
> Australia before):
>
> [what could be taken]
>
> What I've decided on (approximately)
>
> [snip]

Thanks Roger...this is a a good example of the YMMV we all face.

For example, if I were going to Australia, I'd be planning to scuba
dive on the Great Barrier Reef, so since your list lacks an UW camera,
my choices would have to be different.

> The airline has a 7 kg limit...[carry-on]

Sounds like Qantas. Bush planes in Alaska often have 20lb limits
(total), as do also some flights over the Andes into Amazonia. And if
you're going to hike the Inca Trail, your total weight limit that your
porter's allowed to carry is 20lbs which includes your sleeping
bag...although you're allowed to carry as much as you want yourself.
Given the altitudes, its wise to keep this value under 20lbs including
your rain gear, ~3L water, lunch and morning jacket, which only leaves
around 8lbs for camera.


> I feel I do not need wider angle lenses because if
> I want wider then 24mm, I mosaic 2 or more frames.

An interesting perspective. I assume its quality is being made a lot
more viable due to the kit's tripod?


-hh
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 10:17:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-hh wrote:

> Thanks Roger...this is a a good example of the YMMV we all face.
>
> For example, if I were going to Australia, I'd be planning to scuba
> dive on the Great Barrier Reef, so since your list lacks an UW camera,
> my choices would have to be different.

Good point. Everyone was different needs/wants. Life
would be boring if everyone wanted the same things.
>
>
>>The airline has a 7 kg limit...[carry-on]
>
>
> Sounds like Qantas.

Air New Zealand.

>>I feel I do not need wider angle lenses because if
>>I want wider then 24mm, I mosaic 2 or more frames.
>
>
> An interesting perspective. I assume its quality is being made a lot
> more viable due to the kit's tripod?

Yes, I almost always use the tripod for landscapes.

Roger
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 11:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:23:34 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:
>
> What I've decided on (approximately)
>
> Canon 1D Mark II (+2 spare batteries)
> Canon 10D (backup) (+5 spare batteries)
> 38 GBytes of compact flash (minimum)
> two 40-GByte backup drives (nixvuew vista and epson P-2000)
> 300mm f/4 L IS
> 1.4x TC
> 2.0x TC
> 180mm f/3.5 L macro
> 28-135mm IS
> 24mm f/2.8
> Gitzo 1228 carbon fiber tripod
> arca-swiss B1 head
> wimberly sidekick
> 550 EX flash
> better beamer flash extender.
> lowepro computrekker backpack
> 6x30 binoculars
> misc (like cable release, filters)
> ------------------------


Good God man...
I live in Australia and don't have that much gear. I travelled the length
and breadth of this country and can tell you with a fair degree of
certaintity, all you really need is a something in the range of 17~70mm
and 100~200 or 300 mm. I might help to have a camera too! Incidently I
sell my images too and the ones which are most popular, you don't need to
travel far to get.

--
At first they said "More experience needed".
Now, 40 years on... "We're looking for someone younger"!
All those years of learning wasted. I should have just waited.
Cheers, from Joe Bailey
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:38:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

-hh wrote:

> > > Better still is the 400/4 DO IS at ~4lbs. The trade-off for the
> > > lower weight is its focal length/f-stop combination.
> >
> > It's a false economy. Especially when you factor in the amount
> > of optical quality you receive for the price you'll pay.
>
> I know that I'm paying a lot to save 6~7lbs, but that's my choice.
If
> you have what you think are better alternatives to suggest, then
> suggest them: just keep in mind that even if you're not willing to
pay
> more to lighten your load, I am.

Listen, you asked for opinions and I gave mine. If you don't like
them, then why did you ask for it?

> > You will go to Africa with your 400 and want more focal
> > length with almost every shot. I guarentee it.
>
> It won't ever be even close to "all" because I also really enjoy
> shooting wide angle landscapes. Check.

Nitwit again? Allow me to explicitly write in the context of my
statement:

> > You will go to Africa with your 400 and want more focal
> > length with almost every shot you take through the 400.
> > I guarentee it.

Indeed, the OP mentions no "wide angle" goop. Suggestion: stick to
the point.

> While it would be great to get the 'perfect' lens, I'm shooting to be
> unsatisfied with the focal reach for only ~33% of my shots, as I know
> that no telephoto will ever be perfect for everything and I'm trying
to
> strongly weight-constrain myself. To that end, I'm planning on not
> even carrying any lens between 35mm to 75mm...saving weight forces
> trade-off's. Check.

Thanks for sharing. (?)

> > > > Basically, your question has been asked and answered so many
> times.
> > > > What further commentary is necessary?
> > >
> > > Because 6000 hits is poor signal:noise.
> >
> > Highly relevant hits on the first page. Second hit is the
photo.net
> > reference I gave. What more do you need?
>
> The first two hits I saw said to carry at least 200mm and 300mm. I'm
> trying to go the next step beyond that.
>
> The photo.net reference you provided (which was a bit better) wasn't
> even on the first page...it could have been buried one page down or a
> hundred pages down.

My profound apologies, kind sir! It was the third hit, not the second.
Such a dreadful misrepresentation is, of course, completely
intolerable!

> Apparently, you didn't know that Google doesn't return the same exact
> search sequence every time for every person.

I just re-tried the query: same result. Also, a google that returns
dramatically different answers for different people --
internationalization goop notwithstanding -- for the same query would
not be a useful google. Think about it. Nevertheless, prove your
claim here and I'll be quite surprised.

> And this is exactly
why
> an overly broad search that returns 6000+ hits is unacceptable: only
a
> fool will go sifting through thousands of hits, and making the first
> page relies on pure dumb luck as your search technique. Check.

The fool looks at the 6000 and runs screaming in fear.

The intelligent looks at the top N hits, identifies relevant keywords
and then narrows a search. This is basic research stuff. They
probably teach it in grade 3 or something now.

Generally speaking though, my experience with google -- which is very
extensive; I google up stuff all the time -- is that the first top
hits are the best or you have washed out completely. Sometimes you
have to drag through a few pages if inspiration is lacking. Oh the
horror! A few extra minutes!

> In any event, even well focused searches didn't reveal the specific
> question I was asking, so your basic premise that my question "has
been
> asked and answered so many times" is simply wrong.

Only because you insist the question must be the exact bit-pattern you
laid down in the original posting. Such literal-mindedness is not the
sign of a functioning brain.

> If you want to
> simply whine about wasted bandwidth, you're the pot calling the
kettle
> black. Check.

What wasted bandwidth are you blabbering about?

> > Most of the people I know have the ability to infer, deduce,
> > generalize. You know, from similar situations, extrapolate?
>
> Its been my experience that there can be a lot more variation than
what
> may conventionally be expected, so soliciting direct experience is
far
> superior to extrapolative speculation. The Galapagos are a good
> example. Check.

So, you won't take a 400mm lens to the Galapagos? Heck, I would take
my 500 without a second thought.

> > [snip]
> >
> > Don't be a nitwit. The process of familiarization -- the training
--
> > will tell you the answer to the question "Will this lens be useful
in
> > X?"
>
> No it won't: you need good, relevant information on both sides to
come
> to a good conclusion, for the "X" is the applied photographic
> environment which here is the African savannah.

Yes it will, but hey, believe otherwise if you wish: your ignorance is
your problem.

> I know I have no
> answer for that: hence this thread.

You have no answer because you have no experience, not because you have
never travelled to Africa. I've recommended you gather similar
experience (very easy), and you reject this: "it won't work".
Whatever you like, sir.

> And because you've stated
> nothing useful about it, you obviously don't know the answer either.
> Check.

I've already given you my advice: get the 500/4 and a beanbag (in lieu
of a tripod). It's a better lens for the money, and when you get home
you won't have any weight constraints.

I'm not even sure I accept your weight constraints though:

http://www.birdsasart.com/bn146.htm

and others. If Arthur Morris can haul a Canon EF 600/4 IS to Africa, I
don't see why anyone else can't (if they wanted to, at least). Hm. I
see Morris is also leading a Galapagos trip later this year.

> Consider the following example: you've been selected to go on a
> mystery photography trip a year from now. With no further knowledge
of
> your destination or subject, you must pick your camera system and
lens
> suite. You have no budget constraints, but you do have a 20kg weight
> limit. Good luck.

What does this have to do with your situation? You know where you are
going, and what the subjects are likely to be. Once again: your
problem appears to be a general lack of experience. Get some! It's
fun, it's educational, it's good for the mind and body.

But in any event, to entertain your weird notions, my default is to
take everything -- because I doubt I have much more than 20kg of gear
to begin with, and experience has also told me having it all is better
than leaving something at home.

Divulge more details and I'll happily engage in a Bayesianesque
decision process.
Anonymous
February 17, 2005 9:08:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

recscuba_google@huntzinger.com wrote:
> My current "reach out there" gear consists of an older Canon Elan IIe
and a 75-300mm IS (f/4-5.6)

200/2.8 + 2x + 300D.

Another camera + 20/2.8.
!