300mm plus Lens Club: discuss your long lenses

8540tomg · 06-17-2010, 02:29 PM

Nice images Wildman. Well done.

It's just a guess, as I'm not sure, but I think number 2 might be the 1000mm. To be honest I really have no idea.

Cheers

Tom G

**dadipentak** · 06-17-2010, 04:57 PM

Assuming subject distance is about equal, I think I have a pretty good idea about the lenses but, wow, those are beautiful birds and beautiful photos!

kacansas03 · 06-17-2010, 05:55 PM

Beautiful bird shots! Also I feel the same way the bird can be twice as far but still fill the center of the frame. That is why I asked how can I guesstimate the magnification of a focal length and I became confused due to the range scale on some of my lenses. I Thank You Everyone for educating me further. It is why this forum is so Great!
Alan.

siva.ss.kumar · 06-17-2010, 09:12 PM - **1 Like**

The 1st one is @1000 and the 2nd is @ 560. Right?

Adding couple of my birds

Both using Bigma. 1st one @ 500 and the 2nd @ 270 (almost half of your pictures

)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

pspentax · 06-18-2010, 02:27 AM

Later, i will post some photos from mine A*600/5.6

xjjohnno · 06-18-2010, 02:53 AM

Lovely birds Siva, that green one especially.

**dadipentak** · 06-18-2010, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by xjjohnno

Lovely birds Siva, that green one especially.

Agree--it's a very interesting bird and very nicely photographed!

wildman · 06-18-2010, 11:33 PM

Nice shots but what are they?

I don't have a clue about the first one but I would guess the second one is a Painted Sandgrouse (Pterocles indicus). But then i live 8000 miles from India.

BTW my first pic was with the 560mm and second at 1000mm taken at about 100 feet across a small stream.

siva.ss.kumar · 06-19-2010, 05:09 AM

Thanks all for the feedback. The 1st one is Green Bee Eater. As wildman said, the 2nd one is Painted Sandgrouse.
So, I got my guess incorrect on the focal length. I kind of thought that more depth of field meant longer focal length

**Marc Langille** · 06-19-2010, 10:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by 8540tomg

I haven't checked this thread for a while but there have been some great posts of late.

Marc - I've seen that Kildeer before but it always blows me away.

Jan - Your wolf shot is amongst the best I ever seen of its kind. That 600mm is an awesome lens in your hands.

Managed an image of a female Red Wing Blackbird today with the old M 400/5.6.

Tom G

Great image of the female RW Blackbird Tom! Those wolf images by Jan are quite striking - beautiful.

BTW, that Killdeer image was only converted from RAW this year - it's sometimes a bit difficult to sift through thousands of images from the VLF library and find an acceptable image (one that I want after meeting the technical aspects)...

EXIF

Here's a 1600 x 1067 pixels version of that first image - I hope you enjoy the larger version - the small mud flecks on it's white breast are better seen in this image: http://www.marclangille.com/photos/879225070_uTeGL-X3.jpg

I suspect you are thinking of one of these two?

That previous Killdeer image was converted from RAW the day I posted it on Once you've seen one Killdeer image...?

Cheers,
Marc

**Marc Langille** · 06-19-2010, 10:23 AM

Wildman and Siva: beautiful colors - breathtaking!

8540tomg · 06-19-2010, 11:17 AM - **1 Like**

Quote:

I suspect you are thinking of one of these two?

That previous Killdeer image was converted from RAW the day I posted it on Once you've seen one Killdeer image...?

Cheers,
Marc

You're are probably right Marc. Great images as always.

In any case I wish I could get the clarity you guys achieve with your images. I keep plugging away with the old M 400/5.6 but can't seem to reach your level. Here's a couple more of the same blackbird.

Actually, I'm fairly pleased with these given the conditions they were shot under. I think #1 is just an interesting shot if not a technical masterpiece. #2 is a nicer composition.

It's probably just LBA but I can't help but wonder how different these images might be if they were taken under the same conditions with an A 400/2.8 for instance. Setting aside expertise and skill level, would they be dramtically sharper with better colour/contrast etc? Do you really get that much more with the more expensive glass or it it just another case of diminishing returns for higher investments? Thoughts?

Cheers

Tom G

**Marc Langille** · 06-19-2010, 11:57 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by 8540tomg

You're are probably right Marc. Great images as always.

In any case I wish I could get the clarity you guys achieve with your images. I keep plugging away with the old M 400/5.6 but can't seem to reach your level. Here's a couple more of the same blackbird.

You've got an extra step to contend with - MF. That doesn't always mean AF is the better choice, but it sure doesn't hurt to have it!

Originally posted by 8540tomg

Actually, I'm fairly pleased with these given the conditions they were shot under. I think #1 is just an interesting shot if not a technical masterpiece. #2 is a nicer composition.

It's probably just LBA but I can't help but wonder how different these images might be if they were taken under the same conditions with an A 400/2.8 for instance. Setting aside expertise and skill level, would they be dramtically sharper with better colour/contrast etc? Do you really get that much more with the more expensive glass or it it just another case of diminishing returns for higher investments? Thoughts?

Cheers

Tom G

I do like #2!

I'll preface my answer first... yours is actually a difficult question to quantify and answer in a simple manner, given so many variables involved! Therefore I'll try to tackle it from a few angles - please bear with me...

Having started off with better quality or pro level optics, I'm pretty confident in giving you this answer: expertise and skill will count for a great deal; better optics can often just make it easier to get that shot, no question! They will also quickly reveal any weakness, lack of skill or something similar with the person or the setup - putting aside any camera or lighting limitations of course. However, I don't really think it's fair to say much more on this, since I don't know the skill level of the person taking the photo, etc. I do know that once you hit premium quality glass, the technique+support system+photographer's skill/experience plays a big role in the final result.

Now to your question: is the better, much more expensive glass really that much better? To be honest, I would have to shoot with a less expensive zoom or prime, say the Sigma 150-500 to truly answer that question in a balanced manner. Bases on the better image samples I have seen, I don't think the color/contrast will show a huge difference. However, the sharpness of the optics may be a definitive factor - I can see that as a potential benchmark quite often. Therefore it's an incremental value within certain price points and above: it's what the photographer's requirements and/or the value he/she places upon those images than can determine lens choices.

For example, here is a hummingbird image, cropped, taken with the inexpensive 50-200 kit lens, F/5.6 @125mm:

Link to EXIF

Rest assured, this is at best a very difficult lens to use with this kind of subject matter in mind. Therefore it's a travel kit lens for landscape use - that's it. Considering the lens I used for the shot above, it's much better than I thought possible.

If I've missed something, provided an incomplete answer, you have another question or need further clarification, please let me know. I'll do my best to oblige. I sincerely hope I didn't confuse or muddy things with my answer(s).

Regards,
Marc

**dadipentak** · 06-19-2010, 01:02 PM

The light in that hummingbird shot is magnificent, Marc!

wildman · 06-19-2010, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by siva.ss.kumar

Thanks all for the feedback. The 1st one is Green Bee Eater. As wildman said, the 2nd one is Painted Sandgrouse.
So, I got my guess incorrect on the focal length. I kind of thought that more depth of field meant longer focal length

They are lovely birds whatever they are. Was the grouse taken in the South of India? I would think a grouse, at least here in the states, is pretty much limited to cold climates. Perhaps taken at a high altitude? Other than the front range of the Himalayas I think of India as being desert, tropical or subtropical. My understanding of Indian geography is probably flawed.

Focal length vs DOF:
So far as I have seen, all else being equal, for any given image scale DOF does not change with FL.

That is a pic taken with a 50mm at 50 feet will have the same DOF as a picture at 100 feet taken with a 100mm lens. Thus the 1000mm shot was taken at 5x the distance as the 560mm so more apparent DOF in the 1000mm shot.

Magnification does not change perspective so far as I know.

06-19-2010, 11:17 AM - 1 Like	#702
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Quote: I suspect you are thinking of one of these two? That previous Killdeer image was converted from RAW the day I posted it on Once you've seen one Killdeer image...? Cheers, Marc You're are probably right Marc. Great images as always. In any case I wish I could get the clarity you guys achieve with your images. I keep plugging away with the old M 400/5.6 but can't seem to reach your level. Here's a couple more of the same blackbird. Actually, I'm fairly pleased with these given the conditions they were shot under. I think #1 is just an interesting shot if not a technical masterpiece. #2 is a nicer composition. It's probably just LBA but I can't help but wonder how different these images might be if they were taken under the same conditions with an A 400/2.8 for instance. Setting aside expertise and skill level, would they be dramtically sharper with better colour/contrast etc? Do you really get that much more with the more expensive glass or it it just another case of diminishing returns for higher investments? Thoughts? Cheers Tom G Last edited by 8540tomg; 06-19-2010 at 11:19 AM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Sigma Lens Club- All lenses	Blue	Lens Clubs	3237	5 Hours Ago 07:23 AM
Soviet lenses club	Voe	Lens Clubs	4208	1 Day Ago 03:41 PM
Wanted - Acquired: Long lens >300mm in K-mount	pop4	Sold Items	1	10-03-2010 03:03 AM
Pentax DA 55-300mm vs Tamron 70-300mm at long end (brickwall)	tcdk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-15-2009 12:52 AM

06-17-2010, 02:29 PM	#691
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Nice images Wildman. Well done. It's just a guess, as I'm not sure, but I think number 2 might be the 1000mm. To be honest I really have no idea. Cheers Tom G

06-17-2010, 04:57 PM	#692
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Assuming subject distance is about equal, I think I have a pretty good idea about the lenses but, wow, those are beautiful birds and beautiful photos!

06-17-2010, 05:55 PM	#693
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650	Beautiful bird shots! Also I feel the same way the bird can be twice as far but still fill the center of the frame. That is why I asked how can I guesstimate the magnification of a focal length and I became confused due to the range scale on some of my lenses. I Thank You Everyone for educating me further. It is why this forum is so Great! Alan.

06-18-2010, 02:27 AM	#695
pspentax Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lisbon, Portugal Posts: 367	Later, i will post some photos from mine A*600/5.6

06-18-2010, 02:53 AM	#696
xjjohnno Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,115	Lovely birds Siva, that green one especially.

06-18-2010, 03:33 AM	#697
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by xjjohnno Lovely birds Siva, that green one especially. Agree--it's a very interesting bird and very nicely photographed!

06-18-2010, 11:33 PM	#698
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Nice shots but what are they? I don't have a clue about the first one but I would guess the second one is a Painted Sandgrouse (Pterocles indicus). But then i live 8000 miles from India. BTW my first pic was with the 560mm and second at 1000mm taken at about 100 feet across a small stream.

06-19-2010, 05:09 AM	#699
siva.ss.kumar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Chennai, India Photos: Albums Posts: 534	Thanks all for the feedback. The 1st one is Green Bee Eater. As wildman said, the 2nd one is Painted Sandgrouse. So, I got my guess incorrect on the focal length. I kind of thought that more depth of field meant longer focal length

06-19-2010, 10:22 AM - 1 Like	#700
Marc Langille Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NW Arkansas, USA Posts: 4,710	Originally posted by 8540tomg I haven't checked this thread for a while but there have been some great posts of late. Marc - I've seen that Kildeer before but it always blows me away. Jan - Your wolf shot is amongst the best I ever seen of its kind. That 600mm is an awesome lens in your hands. Managed an image of a female Red Wing Blackbird today with the old M 400/5.6. Tom G Great image of the female RW Blackbird Tom! Those wolf images by Jan are quite striking - beautiful. BTW, that Killdeer image was only converted from RAW this year - it's sometimes a bit difficult to sift through thousands of images from the VLF library and find an acceptable image (one that I want after meeting the technical aspects)... EXIF Here's a 1600 x 1067 pixels version of that first image - I hope you enjoy the larger version - the small mud flecks on it's white breast are better seen in this image: http://www.marclangille.com/photos/879225070_uTeGL-X3.jpg I suspect you are thinking of one of these two? That previous Killdeer image was converted from RAW the day I posted it on Once you've seen one Killdeer image...? Cheers, Marc

06-19-2010, 10:23 AM	#701
Marc Langille Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NW Arkansas, USA Posts: 4,710	Wildman and Siva: beautiful colors - breathtaking!

06-19-2010, 11:57 AM - 1 Like	#703
Marc Langille Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NW Arkansas, USA Posts: 4,710	Originally posted by 8540tomg You're are probably right Marc. Great images as always. In any case I wish I could get the clarity you guys achieve with your images. I keep plugging away with the old M 400/5.6 but can't seem to reach your level. Here's a couple more of the same blackbird. You've got an extra step to contend with - MF. That doesn't always mean AF is the better choice, but it sure doesn't hurt to have it! Originally posted by 8540tomg Actually, I'm fairly pleased with these given the conditions they were shot under. I think #1 is just an interesting shot if not a technical masterpiece. #2 is a nicer composition. It's probably just LBA but I can't help but wonder how different these images might be if they were taken under the same conditions with an A 400/2.8 for instance. Setting aside expertise and skill level, would they be dramtically sharper with better colour/contrast etc? Do you really get that much more with the more expensive glass or it it just another case of diminishing returns for higher investments? Thoughts? Cheers Tom G I do like #2! I'll preface my answer first... yours is actually a difficult question to quantify and answer in a simple manner, given so many variables involved! Therefore I'll try to tackle it from a few angles - please bear with me... Having started off with better quality or pro level optics, I'm pretty confident in giving you this answer: expertise and skill will count for a great deal; better optics can often just make it easier to get that shot, no question! They will also quickly reveal any weakness, lack of skill or something similar with the person or the setup - putting aside any camera or lighting limitations of course. However, I don't really think it's fair to say much more on this, since I don't know the skill level of the person taking the photo, etc. I do know that once you hit premium quality glass, the technique+support system+photographer's skill/experience plays a big role in the final result. Now to your question: is the better, much more expensive glass really that much better? To be honest, I would have to shoot with a less expensive zoom or prime, say the Sigma 150-500 to truly answer that question in a balanced manner. Bases on the better image samples I have seen, I don't think the color/contrast will show a huge difference. However, the sharpness of the optics may be a definitive factor - I can see that as a potential benchmark quite often. Therefore it's an incremental value within certain price points and above: it's what the photographer's requirements and/or the value he/she places upon those images than can determine lens choices. For example, here is a hummingbird image, cropped, taken with the inexpensive 50-200 kit lens, F/5.6 @125mm: Link to EXIF Rest assured, this is at best a very difficult lens to use with this kind of subject matter in mind. Therefore it's a travel kit lens for landscape use - that's it. Considering the lens I used for the shot above, it's much better than I thought possible. If I've missed something, provided an incomplete answer, you have another question or need further clarification, please let me know. I'll do my best to oblige. I sincerely hope I didn't confuse or muddy things with my answer(s). Regards, Marc

06-19-2010, 01:02 PM	#704
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	The light in that hummingbird shot is magnificent, Marc!

06-19-2010, 08:48 PM	#705
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by siva.ss.kumar Thanks all for the feedback. The 1st one is Green Bee Eater. As wildman said, the 2nd one is Painted Sandgrouse. So, I got my guess incorrect on the focal length. I kind of thought that more depth of field meant longer focal length They are lovely birds whatever they are. Was the grouse taken in the South of India? I would think a grouse, at least here in the states, is pretty much limited to cold climates. Perhaps taken at a high altitude? Other than the front range of the Himalayas I think of India as being desert, tropical or subtropical. My understanding of Indian geography is probably flawed. Focal length vs DOF: So far as I have seen, all else being equal, for any given image scale DOF does not change with FL. That is a pic taken with a 50mm at 50 feet will have the same DOF as a picture at 100 feet taken with a 100mm lens. Thus the 1000mm shot was taken at 5x the distance as the 560mm so more apparent DOF in the 1000mm shot. Magnification does not change perspective so far as I know.