BIF shooting
Jan 25, 2012 14:42:41 #
Trying to research which is the best way to go canon 100-400L f5.6 or prime 400mmL f5.6. Do you zoom that much or stay at 400mm when shooting birds.
Also your thoughts to mounting on a gunstock, seems that for a bird hunter that would be a natural way to track them in flight. I have found all kinds of DIY plans and also one called the Hawk for $200 bucks that looks interesting
Also your thoughts to mounting on a gunstock, seems that for a bird hunter that would be a natural way to track them in flight. I have found all kinds of DIY plans and also one called the Hawk for $200 bucks that looks interesting
Jan 25, 2012 14:58:26 #
At one point I tried using a rifle type stock on my camera. I found it awkward to hold and it didn't help me at all in keeping things steady. I prefer a gimbal on a tripod but the truth is I'm not very good at tracking birds in flight.
Jan 25, 2012 16:21:44 #
A gunstock mount is great if it is designed right....Take a look at this site,it might be what You are looking for......http://www.bushhawk.com
Jan 25, 2012 16:49:22 #
I know at least three people that have a super zoom such as the 100-400 and when asked how often do they shoot at max 400 for BIF, the answer is always...99% of the time.
They rarely zoom down and in fact have said they have actually missed shots while fooling around zooming when they should have been concentrating on getting the shots.
In addition I know two wildlife shooters that got rid of their zooms and switched over to primes for birds.
I'd stick with a prime.
Go with the 400 5.6 or a 300 f4 where a 1.4 extender (making it a 420 5.6) can easily be added giving you additional options.
Both can successfully be handheld for panning BIF.
For me personally, a gun stock would only get in the way.
They rarely zoom down and in fact have said they have actually missed shots while fooling around zooming when they should have been concentrating on getting the shots.
In addition I know two wildlife shooters that got rid of their zooms and switched over to primes for birds.
I'd stick with a prime.
Go with the 400 5.6 or a 300 f4 where a 1.4 extender (making it a 420 5.6) can easily be added giving you additional options.
Both can successfully be handheld for panning BIF.
For me personally, a gun stock would only get in the way.
Jan 25, 2012 17:01:35 #
Artsmith wrote:
Trying to research which is the best way to go canon 100-400L f5.6 or prime 400mmL f5.6. Do you zoom that much or stay at 400mm when shooting birds.
Also your thoughts to mounting on a gunstock, seems that for a bird hunter that would be a natural way to track them in flight. I have found all kinds of DIY plans and also one called the Hawk for $200 bucks that looks interesting
Also your thoughts to mounting on a gunstock, seems that for a bird hunter that would be a natural way to track them in flight. I have found all kinds of DIY plans and also one called the Hawk for $200 bucks that looks interesting
I have the 100-400L and love it. I'm not sure there is enough reason to go with a prime unless it was much faster.
Jan 25, 2012 18:12:43 #
photophly wrote:
A gunstock mount is great if it is designed right....Take a look at this site,it might be what You are looking for......http://www.bushhawk.com
That's the one I looked at.... looks interesting.
Jan 26, 2012 07:22:53 #
To zoom or not to zoom--that is the question.
I have both a long prime---300 and a long zoom--200-400.
Each has its purpose. Shooting herons last week, depending on the route the bird took back to the nest---I shot everywhere between 200 and 550 (using a tc).
Shooting hawks I usually use as much reach as I can get as they tend to be further away and much faster.
Mostly I shoot from a tripod with a gimbal head, but I hand hold as well.
Each shoot is different and I use the tool the job requires.
That didn't help a bit did it??? :-)
If I went prime---I would go for fast glass--looking for a 2.8 lens. It helps with those early morning shots and just before sunset opportunities.
Larry
I have both a long prime---300 and a long zoom--200-400.
Each has its purpose. Shooting herons last week, depending on the route the bird took back to the nest---I shot everywhere between 200 and 550 (using a tc).
Shooting hawks I usually use as much reach as I can get as they tend to be further away and much faster.
Mostly I shoot from a tripod with a gimbal head, but I hand hold as well.
Each shoot is different and I use the tool the job requires.
That didn't help a bit did it??? :-)
If I went prime---I would go for fast glass--looking for a 2.8 lens. It helps with those early morning shots and just before sunset opportunities.
Larry
Jan 26, 2012 09:27:54 #
treadwl wrote:
To zoom or not to zoom--that is the question. br ... (show quote)
400mm f2.8 $7000 ouch!!
Jan 26, 2012 11:03:31 #
Artsmith wrote:
quote=treadwl To zoom or not to zoom--that is the... (show quote)
I understand your "ouch"!
That is one of the issues I had to confront when I went into wildlife photography. Along with sports photography it is about the most expensive type to get involved with. Those big lenses all come with a price. What they do is amazing. When I went from my 300mm prime to my current long lenses the quality of my photos dramatically improved. Not to say I didn't have some great shots before, but the %age of great shots has gone up considerably. i have more shots that I am happy with than ever before. It is not just about the reach, but it is just as much about the DOF and and angle of view that you now have control over. If you can swing the price, you will be glad you did. With a 400 2.8 you can have the depth of field of a hair---that does great things when photographing birds who live in a busy world of twigs and leaves. You now can get separation.
Good Luck.
Larry
Jan 26, 2012 13:00:54 #
I have the 100-400 and use the zoom quite often. With a prime, the only option you have is to back off if you are too close. As far as quality, the 400mm prime is probably a little sharper - and it is lighter to carry. The zoom is more versitile. I shoot with a 500mm f4 most of the time, but when I don't feel like carrying 11 pounds of camera/lens I bring the 100-400 instead.
Jan 26, 2012 14:15:08 #
treadwl wrote:
quote=Artsmith quote=treadwl To zoom or not to z... (show quote)
I Agree with Larry on this the prime is nice. I have a 500 f4 and a 300 2.8
And there is a vast improvement in my photo quality. I love the 2.8 wow what a huge difference. I found mine on Craigslist it is an older model but it was under 2000 with the hard case. I met the guy in person at the local PD tried the lens and paid the guy and went on my merry way. So the deals are out there.
Jan 26, 2012 14:52:17 #
Artsmith wrote:
quote=treadwl To zoom or not to zoom--that is the... (show quote)
I hear the ouch and raise you...$7,000 is about 1/2 what I made last year in my job...I guess I'll have to stay with my kit lenses for my Sony A330 for now too.
Jan 26, 2012 19:31:06 #
Sorry if this is a duplicate message. I suggest going with the Canon 300 f4.0 IS with a 1.4 xtender. You have a two focal lengths including 420mm at f5.6 with IS for $1,400 - $1,500. It is a great BIF combo that can be hand held with no problem.
Jan 26, 2012 20:56:16 #
mgemstone wrote:
Sorry if this is a duplicate message. I suggest going with the Canon 300 f4.0 IS with a 1.4 xtender. You have a two focal lengths including 420mm at f5.6 with IS for $1,400 - $1,500. It is a great BIF combo that can be hand held with no problem.
Thanks thats one of the lens I'm looking at, of course if some one has a good price on the Canon 300 f2.8.....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.