Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what lens for air show photography?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:05 PM

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

Been lurking a while - looking forward to your thoughts on this one...

Recently bought a 350D to replace my mix of EOS film kit and Pentax MF
gear. I've been 'out of photography' for about 5 years, but really
getting back into the swing of it with digital.

My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race on
Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting decent
shots of planes in action.

I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.

Given that the Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag, I have been
thinking about upgrading it to the Canon IS equivalent, which at about
£350 is fairly reasonable and offers the very useful IS feature.

Will this lens be long enough to get decent (if not full frame) shots
of stunt planes at 100ft or so? Can the IS cope with horizontal
panning?

As my birthday is approaching, I could (maybe) make a case for the
Canon 400mm (either fixed or 100-400 zoom). That's much more £ though
and might rock the marital boat a touch.

Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
infinity that would surely be no big problem?

Or is there a non-Canon option that is worth considering?

Many thanks





--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
news:jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
> Been lurking a while - looking forward to your thoughts on this one...
>
> Recently bought a 350D to replace my mix of EOS film kit and Pentax MF
> gear. I've been 'out of photography' for about 5 years, but really
> getting back into the swing of it with digital.
>
> My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race on
> Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting decent
> shots of planes in action.
>
> I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
> 70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
> the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
> for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.
>
> Given that the Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag, I have been
> thinking about upgrading it to the Canon IS equivalent, which at about
> £350 is fairly reasonable and offers the very useful IS feature.
>
> Will this lens be long enough to get decent (if not full frame) shots
> of stunt planes at 100ft or so? Can the IS cope with horizontal
> panning?
>
> As my birthday is approaching, I could (maybe) make a case for the
> Canon 400mm (either fixed or 100-400 zoom). That's much more £ though
> and might rock the marital boat a touch.
>
> Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
> converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
> infinity that would surely be no big problem?
>
> Or is there a non-Canon option that is worth considering?
>


Tim,

I just bought my wife the 75-300 IS. Although she hasn't used it much yet
the results have been good, however, she doesn't shoot action like you'd
have in an air show. Also, from what I've read here and on other websites
the lens tends to be soft at max zoom.

I have the 100-400L IS and love it. I do shoot action, mostly auto racing,
and this lens performs great. It has two IS modes, one is standard IS the
other is specifically for horizontal panning like you would be doing
shooting an air show. On thing to note regarding this lens is that it is a
push pull zoom. Personally I don't mind that but many here have complained
about it.

Another thing to consider, although still expensive but suggested here a
lot, is the f2.8 70-200L IS lens along with the 1.4x converter. This
combination gives you some versatility in focal length and at f2.8 you can
afford to loose a stop or so with the converter.

Another thing to consider is that the 100-400 and 70-200 are L series
lenses. The wife and I have a handful of non L lenses and they just don't
compare to the image quality of the L series lens.

As to marital issues, get your wife into photography too and that problem
will go away. ;-) It sure has made my life easier from the money side,
however, the competition side is an entirely different subject. ;-)

--

Rob
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 13:53:05 +0100, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote:

>Been lurking a while - looking forward to your thoughts on this one...
>
>Recently bought a 350D to replace my mix of EOS film kit and Pentax MF
>gear. I've been 'out of photography' for about 5 years, but really
>getting back into the swing of it with digital.

This would be the perfect air show lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

The Bigma 50-500 zoom.


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

Tim Hobbs wrote:
> Been lurking a while - looking forward to your thoughts on this one...
>
> Recently bought a 350D to replace my mix of EOS film kit and Pentax MF
> gear. I've been 'out of photography' for about 5 years, but really
> getting back into the swing of it with digital.
>
> My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race on
> Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting decent
> shots of planes in action.
>
> I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
> 70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
> the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
> for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.
>
> Given that the Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag, I have been
> thinking about upgrading it to the Canon IS equivalent, which at about
> £350 is fairly reasonable and offers the very useful IS feature.
>
> Will this lens be long enough to get decent (if not full frame) shots
> of stunt planes at 100ft or so? Can the IS cope with horizontal
> panning?
>
> As my birthday is approaching, I could (maybe) make a case for the
> Canon 400mm (either fixed or 100-400 zoom). That's much more £ though
> and might rock the marital boat a touch.
>
> Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
> converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
> infinity that would surely be no big problem?
>
> Or is there a non-Canon option that is worth considering?
>
> Many thanks
>
>
>
>
>
Air Show photography is a really difficult genre. One needs long focal
lengths to get good sized images of planes. But of course, long focal
lengths ordinarily call for tripods, which are impractical at air shows.
You can help by shooting at very high shutter speed, and you do not
need much DOF. Of course, pan with the motion, but even so smooth
enough panning with a long fl lens is still a real challenge to go
smoothly and straight enough. Practice a LOT. Follow every pass,
whether you shoot or not, to keep up practice.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

Tim Hobbs wrote:


> I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
> 70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
> the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
> for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.
>
> Given that the Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag, I have been
> thinking about upgrading it to the Canon IS equivalent, which at about
> £350 is fairly reasonable and offers the very useful IS feature.
>
> Will this lens be long enough to get decent (if not full frame) shots
> of stunt planes at 100ft or so? Can the IS cope with horizontal
> panning?

Most (if not all) long Canon IS lenses have switch for turning
on a panning mode.

Fixed lenses provide the best images, but you can't beat
a zoom for air show work.

It's possible to have a large formation of planes low and
close, then later you can have a single plane high at a distance.
With a fixed lens you'll have to be prepared to give up certain
shots.

I've seen pro setups where the shooter uses several bodies, each
one equipped with a different focal length fixed lens.

I use a Canon 100-400IS lens for air shows.. It's good, but I wish
it had a bit more reach.
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

Tim Hobbs wrote:
>...
> Recently bought a 350D ...
>...
> My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race on
> Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting decent
> shots of planes in action.

A 100-300 worked for me -- the Reno (Nevada) air races in 2002 -- using
Canon 100-300 f4.5-5.6 zoom, ISO 400. This was with film, just before
I purchased a digital body; field of view with the 350D will be two
thirds of what I saw with full frame 35mm. Some of these photos may be
seen at <www.shomler.com/other/rar02/&gt;.

Bob Shomler
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

Tim,
In your focal length 'needs', have you taken into consideration the
fact that the 350 has a smaller frame, so lenses are more equivalent to
1.6x the real focal length with that camera?
The Canon 1.4x and 2.x extenders are compatible with the telephotos
(see their table on their web site), but depending upon camera model
(AF low light capability based on camera model), their ability to
continue to autofocus varies with effective aperture of the
lens+convertor combination. The Canon extenders report the effective
aperture of the combination to the body, and the body then knows when
AF is 'verboten', so the use of aftermarket extenders which do not pass
on that information (or taping over one of the contacts) can permit the
combination to try to work (or not). EFS Lenses which are designed for
the smaller format Rebels and 20D will not work with the extenders
because their rear element prevents mounting the lens on the extender.


--Wilt
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:06 PM

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

> My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race on
> Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting decent
> shots of planes in action.
>
> I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
> 70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
> the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
> for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.

I'd call around and see if anyone will rent you either one of the 300L
lenses (2.8 or 4.0) or a 100-400L.

steve
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 5:53:07 PM

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

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>> My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race
>> on Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting
>> decent shots of planes in action.
>>
>> I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
>> 70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens,
>> although
>> the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to
>> zooms
>> for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.
>
> I'd call around and see if anyone will rent you either one of the
> 300L lenses (2.8 or 4.0) or a 100-400L.
>
> steve

The "Birds As Art" guy recommends the longer, slower ffl lens for
birds in flight (Canon 400mm 5.6L), not only as a farther reach, but
as a quicker focuser. Do you suppose there is a correlation between
feathered and fabricated birds in this sense?

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:37:30 PM

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

"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
news:jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
>
> Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
> converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
> infinity that would surely be no big problem?

Is the 1.4x compatible with that lens? I thought the converters only worked
with the L lenses.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:37:31 PM

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

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:_ILIe.7587$p%3.34746@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
> news:jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
> >
> > Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
> > converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
> > infinity that would surely be no big problem?
>
> Is the 1.4x compatible with that lens? I thought the converters only
worked
> with the L lenses.
>
Canon's own converters won't fit, some of the 3rd party basic ones will
work. Not sure if the Sigma 1.4x APO will work. The 2x can't physically fit
because of the protruding front element. For the ones that fit, don't expect
very good image quality.

If image quality is important, go with fix focal length L glass. The 300mm
f/4 L IS is a good starting point. You can add the Canon 1.4x converter and
retain much of the image quality and AF. I use this lens with the 2x. I lose
AF, but it works quite well.
-S
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 7:40:59 PM

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

"Dave R knows who" <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:_ILIe.7587$p%3.34746@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
> news:jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
>>
>> Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
>> converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
>> infinity that would surely be no big problem?
>
> Is the 1.4x compatible with that lens? I thought the converters only
> worked with the L lenses.

Well, not all L lenses. It certainly doesn't work on my 17-40.
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:04:43 PM

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

In article <jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com>, Tim Hobbs
<tim@101ambulance-urine.net> writes
>Been lurking a while - looking forward to your thoughts on this one...
>
>Recently bought a 350D to replace my mix of EOS film kit and Pentax MF
>gear. I've been 'out of photography' for about 5 years, but really
>getting back into the swing of it with digital.
>
>My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race on
>Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting decent
>shots of planes in action.

The following is based on quite a few trips to air shows (mainly Biggin
Hill) over the last 25 years, though I don't consider this my
speciality.
>
>I currently have the kit 17-55mm ,

Surely 18-55?

> a 50mm 1.4,

A great lens, should be good for shots of planes on the ground.

> a 28-80 and a Sigma
>70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
>the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
>for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.

True, but you lose a lot of flexibility in framing.
>
>Given that the Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag, I have been
>thinking about upgrading it to the Canon IS equivalent, which at about
>£350 is fairly reasonable and offers the very useful IS feature.
>
>Will this lens be long enough to get decent (if not full frame) shots
>of stunt planes at 100ft or so? Can the IS cope with horizontal
>panning?

The Canon 75-300 IS was one of the (if not the) first IS lenses in the
range. I have never used it, but by repute it is not the sharpest lens
around, and the IS not as good as that on later lenses. I guess 300mm
should be about long enough to get a reasonable framing on a single
plane, but 400 would be better. I don't know how close you will be to
them, but trends in airshows over the years have been to increase the
safety margin between planes and spectators.
>
>As my birthday is approaching, I could (maybe) make a case for the
>Canon 400mm (either fixed or 100-400 zoom). That's much more £ though
>and might rock the marital boat a touch.

I have the 100-400L IS; it is the best of any I have tried, and I
suspect about as good as it gets. It has decent reach at the long end,
is not too heavy for hand panning, the IS helps a lot and its optical
quality is very good*. At just over £1000, it is good value.

*Tests by others suggest the 70-200L IS is sharper, but it is also
heavier, considerably more expensive and lacks the reach. Tests of it
with a 2x TC to take it to 400 show it is then inferior to the 100-400
(and ^even more^ more expensive).

>Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
>converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
>infinity that would surely be no big problem?

The moderate quality of the 75-300 would, I suspect, become very
disappointing with a TC. However, this is speculation on my part as I
have never used the lens.

Also consider (1) the 70-200 f/4 L - a bit short at the long end, and no
IS, but has superb optical quality, is much lighter than the 70-200
f/2.8 or the 100-400, is only about £500, and will work well with a TC
(giving a 300 f/5.6, equivalent angle of view to 480mm on 35mm); and (2)
the 300 f/4 L IS - longer, and has IS, but about twice as expensive
(£950).
>
>Or is there a non-Canon option that is worth considering?

Many people, including some whose views I respect, speak very highly of
some of the recent third party lenses. Sigma in particular have an
extensive range, and appear to be making great efforts to optimise for
digital bodies (see June/July issue of Freelance + Digital - a good
magazine, BTW). However, I am reluctant to buy (or recommend) them
myself as they have a long-established habit of not working on Canon
bodies brought out after they were designed (the reasons are well known,
search previous threads for details). I have had my fingers burnt once!
>
>Many thanks
>
Hope this helps; sorry if it's too late, but your question was rather
last minute!

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 8:32:31 PM

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

In article <ltcTF1GLA48CFwUC@dlittlewood.co.uk>, David Littlewood
<david@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>Also consider (1) the 70-200 f/4 L - a bit short at the long end, and
>no IS, but has superb optical quality, is much lighter than the 70-200
>f/2.8 or the 100-400, is only about £500, and will work well with a TC
>(giving a 300 f/5.6, equivalent angle of view to 480mm on 35mm); and
>(2) the 300 f/4 L IS - longer, and has IS, but about twice as expensive
>(£950).
>>
Sorry, should have typed "(giving a 280 f/5.6, equivalent angle of view
to about 450mm on 35mm)"

Sorry, brain disengaged!

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 9:28:07 PM

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

In article <_ILIe.7587$p%3.34746@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
<kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> writes
>
>"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
>news:jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
>>
>> Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
>> converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
>> infinity that would surely be no big problem?
>
>Is the 1.4x compatible with that lens? I thought the converters only worked
>with the L lenses.
>
>
The Canon ones have limited compatibility (see their data) because they
have a significant forward protrusion which can only be accommodated by
the lenses designed to suit. Most third party TCs, however, either do
not have such a protrusion, or a much smaller one, so they will fir most
or all lenses unless the latter themselves stick out too much at the
back. Whether they are optically suited is of course a different matter.

David
--
David Littlewood
August 5, 2005 9:28:08 PM

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

"David Littlewood" <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:Bubq1cMXO58CFwAZ@dlittlewood.co.uk...
> In article <_ILIe.7587$p%3.34746@typhoon.sonic.net>, Dave R knows who
> <kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com> writes
> >
> >"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> wrote in message
> >news:jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Or, middle ground would be to take the Canon 75-300 IS plus buy a 1.4x
> >> converter. I'd lose AF, but at F8 and the focus shoved out to
> >> infinity that would surely be no big problem?
> >
> >Is the 1.4x compatible with that lens? I thought the converters only
worked
> >with the L lenses.
> >
> >
> The Canon ones have limited compatibility (see their data) because they
> have a significant forward protrusion which can only be accommodated by
> the lenses designed to suit. Most third party TCs, however, either do
> not have such a protrusion, or a much smaller one, so they will fir most
> or all lenses unless the latter themselves stick out too much at the
> back. Whether they are optically suited is of course a different matter.

Very true, the Canon teleconverters do not work on the 75-300 IS. Some
third party TCs will and they also have a cheap and an expensive version. I
guess the expensive version would be as good as the Canon TCs since they
sell for the same price. The Canon TCs will give out the right equivalent
focal lenght on the EXIF data, my cheap 2X Kenko does not. AF will not work
at full zoom on the 75-300 with any TC which fits.

Jean

The Canon 300mm f4 L IS is a great lens, very sharp, with a 1.4X TC, the
range is extended to 420mm and almost no drop in quality.
August 6, 2005 1:55:20 AM

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

My recent attempt with my new EOS350 using the 55-200mm lens that came with
the bundle for most of the afternoon just a few examples here
http://www.arf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ hope to get a photo album up soon.
Alec
August 6, 2005 5:58:49 AM

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

I have used the 28 - 135 IS and the 400 F5.6 L series at a couple of local
airports for micro lights zapping past and stationary and managed to get
many good shots. I purchased the 400 on the recommendation of Birds as Art
and have never regretted it.

regards

Don from Down Under


"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:IvadnYDDXP0QVG7fRVn-tw@giganews.com...
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
>>> My wife has just surprised me with tickets to the Red Bull Air Race
>>> on Sunday, and I'm wondering what lens would be best for getting
>>> decent shots of planes in action.
>>>
>>> I currently have the kit 17-55mm , a 50mm 1.4, a 28-80 and a Sigma
>>> 70-300. Of that lot, the 50mm is the only really good lens, although
>>> the kit lens does well enough. I still prefer fixed lenses to zooms
>>> for some reason - 1 less thing to fiddle with I think.
>>
>> I'd call around and see if anyone will rent you either one of the
>> 300L lenses (2.8 or 4.0) or a 100-400L.
>>
>> steve
>
> The "Birds As Art" guy recommends the longer, slower ffl lens for birds in
> flight (Canon 400mm 5.6L), not only as a farther reach, but as a quicker
> focuser. Do you suppose there is a correlation between feathered and
> fabricated birds in this sense?
>
> --
> Frank ess
August 6, 2005 2:11:20 PM

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

Alec wrote:
> My recent attempt with my new EOS350 using the 55-200mm lens that came with
> the bundle for most of the afternoon just a few examples here
> http://www.arf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ hope to get a photo album up soon.
>

Good stuff. I was there with a 70-210 and I'd conclude the following:

* 200mm is ok for a lot of the formation flying.
* for individual displays more reach would be useful. I'd like to have
had a 300 or 400. The 100-400L would be an obvious choice, although my
irrational dislike of BWLs would indicate the 200/2.8L with TC.
* worst case exposure was 1/500 at f5.6 and ISO 100. Bump the ISO up to
400 and IS oughtn't really be required even at 400mm.
* evaluative metering with + 1/3 stop looks ok most of the time.
* the seaside probably isn't the best place to be doing lens changes.

(Note for those who don't visit Sunderland - you don't get to see the
planes on the ground at this one, so there's not so much need for a
wide or normal)

- Len
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 3:10:23 PM

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

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:55:20 GMT, "Alec" <mailorder@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>My recent attempt with my new EOS350 using the 55-200mm lens that came with
>the bundle for most of the afternoon just a few examples here
>http://www.arf.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ hope to get a photo album up soon.
>Alec
>

Hi Alec,

Are those images cropped or did you get that framing with the 200mm
end?

I'm coming to the point of view that I might be as well seeing what I
can get with the 75-300 (which is a Canon lens, not Sigma - I'm
thinking back to my Pentax kit there - duh). I can then judge whether
I need more reach, more sharpness, more aperture or all three.

Thanks to everyone for their comments - a lot of different ideas but
they all make sense!


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
August 6, 2005 3:18:09 PM

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

"Tim Hobbs" <tim@101ambulance-urine.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
jkn6f1t9tq8bs35dcgg8euuj805kapmhcq@4ax.com...
> Been lurking a while - looking forward to your thoughts on this one...
>

>
> Given that the Sigma is not the sharpest lens in the bag,


Depends on how you use it, how much cafeine a day, etc...
Sigma 70-300 :
http://dhost.info/photocanon/bagotville_air/index.htm?s...


Mike
!