John Bennett
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Anything thats obviously fly fishing shots I have of bass, arent good enough, most better images feature spinning gear.
sigh.Need to find some friends that like fly fishing more and for more than Browns 🙂
couple habitat shots that may fit or add to what he’s looking for.
Crappy in the slop
Honestly I don’t know what surprises me more.
a) that someone would have the stones to do that at a number of area stores.
b) That he was able to successfuly do that at a number of stores.
It’s one thing to leave rods with a loyal patron, someone who shops there regularily, and who you know while you “get another”. I just can’t fathom leaving one with a stranger.
Phil is the presence of weeds/lillies/slop neccessary?
aka this but sans “plug” 🙂
Will have a look, think I might have something archived. Have *some* shots of guys fishing the habitat (not fish shots) as well if desired.
previously published, not for 1st serial
Having spent many, many hours, over a few years trying to get osprey diving at fish with nothing remotely as good as Miguels,
Jason, a 2x CP will have the same impact on your SSs as your CP, a 2 stop hit, it will also impact focus speed significantly. Add them both (CP and 2x tc) and your losing 4 stops.
You could look at Sing Rays CPs as they only reduce the light getting through by about 2/3 stop. They arent cheap though.
Colin Harriers are habitual and the females are or can be quite curious. Female Harriers are relatively easy, the males..aka Grey Ghost are nother matter entirely. If you have one or some that cruise a field, pay attention to its route for a couple days whenever you see it, you will find there are patterns to their path that they repeat as they mouse.
If you see one and then approach the field..Good luck.
Rahter
Bring a chair, go into the field close to an section you can predict when they arent there, sit and read a book. They *will* come to you. 300mm is more than enough for female Harriers. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve had one veer off its path to come check me out when they hear the shutter tripping. Ive had numerous occassions where they have not only turned towards me, but flown right over my head, no more than 10-15 feet away.
Have you tried Tubes Jason or the 300 f4?
Our streams are only rarely clear enough to try this, but I think Id be tempted to use the 300 f4 and or tubes on a 100-400John everyone defines sharp/tack sharp diferently.
It’s one *problem* if you will I personally have with many sites/posters. Not sure how to best word this, so grant me some lattitude.
What I find as “soft”, may be sharp to someone else. Then again, I’m submitting and selling to magazines. Barely perceptible “softness” wont cut it. There are many people who are far less forgiving than me, meaning an image I deem sharp and acceptable..they may not (when viewed at 100%). So sometimes I cringe when people describe lenses as “soft”. They may be forgetting other people may be absolutely perfectly happy with the lens and instead are “scaring” off it. In a similiar way, my 24-70 f2.8 L is sometimes referred to as “soft” when wide open. Many lenses do “suffer” from that. I can tell you as far as Im concerened it’s not. In the same vein many people will say the 24-70 f2.8 is sharper than the 24-105 f4..Maybe, but its so small a difference that you really need to be anal about such things.So when people say the 70-200 f2.8 is softer than the f4 versions. Yes there *is* truth to it. But a) afaik it’s only when the lens is opened wide and b) relative.
Take some of those shots generated by the f2.8 that people say are “soft”..To some people those images will be a bit soft, to others they will be the cats meow. Whose to say who’s right and who’s wrong.
My honest advice is if your concerened ( I dont blame you its alot of coin) hold off until you can get into a store and test shoot one wide open and then review the files at home…Only you can really answer if the output is satisfactory for you considering the money.
One last note about TCs.
They *always* degrade IQ a bit. The better your lenses optics the less the hit. There are people who say the hit to IQ is too much no matter what lens. I say BS, again its “relative”.This was taken with the 500 and 1.4 TC.
I personally will not use a TC on a zoom of any stripe, I find the hit to IQ to be too much. Tried it, found I was deleting every image. So while I do not hesitate to use a 1.4 TC with my primes, I wont use them with zooms.
if your concerned about “IQ”and if your “picky”, be careful about TCs and zooms.
Mike if they sold a 400mm f4.0 IS, they wouldnt sell as many 500 f4 or 400 f2.8 IS.
It’s a fantastic lens but when comparing apples to apples I really dont see it as being any better than the 300mm f4. Sharper? Only because you’ve added a 1.4 tc to reach 420mm. Anytime you add a TC there will be a hit to IQ. However, Ive got dozens of shots with a TC on the 400mm and if I didnt tell anyone or hid the exif no-one know.
Faster AF?
Again the diffference is minute..If your shooting really fast action that might make the difference between a keeper or missed op. However, thats largely attributable to the focusing distances. The 400s MFD is 12feet, I have mine set at 21feet. If I drop down to the MFD its focus speed is gutted.The 300 f4 has much closer MFDs..I tihnk at tis minimum its 4 feet.
Hence its slightly slower to focus. However that closer focusing capabilty make it a far superior lens for long lens/ short distance applications…Dragons, Butterflies, Frogs, Humming birds, etc. So to say ones better than other no, just slightly different.Either way you will love the 400 for *birding*. If ever a lens was made strictly with one application in mind, its the 400 5.6 and birding
Its a tough call Mike.
I shot for years with it, an awful lot of my pictures shown here were taken with it. I never really felt IS or the lack of it hindered me, but w/o a doubt I deleted many due to that lack especially when shooting at dawn for White tails. Basically in low light and at 5.6 it can get dicey having enough SS. I was fine down to 250 and below that Id get keepers but more deletions. If you can handlhold a 400 at 1/400th than its ok.If your local dealer carries them both..Go in an test shoot 300 and 400mm, see how much a difference it makes for yourself. Its not a huge leap.
so basically it becomes
100mm f5.6 and slighter faster AF
vs
f4.0 and IS and the ability to add a TC.. PS TCs wont work with the 400 for you unless you tape the pins or get a non reporting.Not for me to say but I went with the 400, then again I knew from day 1 wildlife would be my main interest
To add to what Daryl said.
The 400 f5.6 is a great lens Mike, I know. Used it for years before getting the 500mm. I didn’t mention it soley because I had the sense you wouldn’t want a dedicated lens (you’ll only really use it for birds) nor does it have IS. Even though I have the 500mm, I still have my 400 and am reluctant to sell it, although Ive been thinking about doing that to fund the 85mm f1.2 L Im wanting later this spring. Thats how good a lens it is.
if you want 1 lens for your birding,don’t need IS and don’t mind a gap in your focal range it *is* the lens to get for that.
Mike the problem with 2X TCs is
1st the 2 stop penalty,
2nd the hit to IQ
3rd the hit to focus speed.The better your lens, the less noticeable the hit to IQ but it’s still there. Focus speed really takes a hit..Not important if your subjects are stationary, its an issue if they are moving.
Alot of people starting with long lenses do opt for the 300 f4 L and 1.4 TC. On its own, it decent reach, sweet glass, f4 IS and perhaps its strongest point is its MFD. Alot of people use it for dragon flies, butterflies etc. Then add the TC when they want a bit more reach.
Some decide eventually they want something longer, some are more than happy to stay with the 300.. As I said its a tough call that (300mm or 100-400)
Mike I can more later ( a bit rushed) but you can safely look at.
100mm f2.8 Macro
For a walk around it depends on alot of factors. If you want L glass your looking at the 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 F4. If this lens doesnt have to be L glass both the 17-85 and 17-55 get good reviews. Tons of options here in truth
On the long end its a bit tougher
the 100-400 is pricey (a great lens though)
Theres the 70-200s
the 300, 400 and 500 primes.So you could go for a combo that might come in just a little more expensive than the 100-400 L in the 70-200 F4 and 300mm F4
Add a 1.4 TC and you have options. Or just go straight to the 1-400.
Always a tough one thatFlash and grips.
yeah Id look at adding those as well, just depends on priorities. What you shoot the most and how you like to shoot them.Maybe he’s just been fishing rivers that don’t hold trout for 45 years?
🙂Not sure which of the two I’d rather admit to though
And the real shame is.
It’s a freeking awesome photo, that took skill, preparation and most importantly *vision*. You still have to see the shot in your mind first, then put the peices of the puzzle together to get it. It’smore than capable of winning many awards and acclaim.
Just not suitable for a “nature” contest and now instead he’s kneecapped himself and probably done alot of damage
Apparently he was outed by some other Spanish photographers that recognised the Wolf as a resident of a local zoo and his undoing really came about when said photographers showed the judges a fense/gate and gnarly tree that look remarkably the same
in the zoo 🙂
Its one to question how people get photos..I do it alot, not so much in a negative way…but sometimes I see something and I go WOW was that baited? staged…etc..dont care Im curious but Id never ask or call someone out (if they claim its the real deal) because no matter what it could be the real deal.
Who would ever want to be wrong for calling someone out?
The photo was made possible through the use of a photo trap. In the last few years they are becomingly increasingly popular for making the impossible…possible. The most obvious being nocturnal animals like bats etc.
Basically you pick your spot (usually over some bait), set your gear up and leave. Your camera is triggered when your subject trips an infra red beam. Other people use them for shots that happen way to fast for human reflexes…screaming fast birds in flight etc.
Thats not the problem here, photo traps are ok, it’s that he used a “model”..aka captive animal. Its a staged shot. First time I saw it I had my doubts to it’s legitmacy. While recognising that he used a phototrap (have you ever tried to focus on something in the dead of night? let alone a leaping wolf) 🙂 was easy.
The next obvious question anyone whose spent alot of time trying to get certain species you have to ask yourself is.
How did he know where to set the trap? First thought is he “baited” the wolf in…Some people have problems with that…As long as its legal in the region I dont.
But would a wolf repeatedly take the same path? Im not a wolf expert by any means but using Coyotes which Ive spent hours chasing I give the likely hood of that …about 1 in 360. And would a wolf jump over a gate like that or go around it.
The problem is while many people might voices these and other questions ito themselves no-one wants to voice them outloud, incase your wrong.
If anyone ever questioned any of my shots …wild vs captive, baited vs not,
