Major Gear Bag Changes ???

Printable View

11-14-2010, 08:07 AM
Arthur Morris

1 Attachment(s)

Major Gear Bag Changes ???

Inspired by Patrick Sparkman, I have just begun testing the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens with the 2XII teleconverter (with a Mark IV) as my hang-on-my-shoulder intermediate telephoto zoom lens. To say the least, my initial impressions have been tremendously positive. See here and here for comments and more images.

Handheld at 278mm. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1 2/3 stops off the sky: 1/1600 sec. at f/6.3. Central sensor rear button AI Servo AF.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.
11-14-2010, 08:19 AM
Gary Esman

Fine suggestion, might be going out this afternoon to try some flight shots. Might work out great for our larger birds up here, like the trumpeter, but for the smaller waterfowl I like to shoot may not have the reach I would need. Birds up here are much more timid than in Florida. :)

Oh, I think I see a little halo around the Pelican.

Gary.
11-14-2010, 10:04 AM
Jim Fenton

Looks pretty darned good Artie....

I've never been impressed with the Nikon equivalent unfortunately.
11-14-2010, 10:28 AM
Kiran Poonacha

Beautiful pose and compo Guru... great looking frame..
11-14-2010, 10:49 AM
Stu Bowie

Artie, I like the angle, and full wing spread. I would maybe move him up in the frame.
11-14-2010, 11:47 AM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart Bowie

Artie, I like the angle, and full wing spread. I would maybe move him up in the frame.

:) Actually, I added a bit of canvas up top after a big crop from the bottom!
11-14-2010, 12:03 PM
Stu Bowie

Artie, the way I see this, as he is looking down, I feel there should be more space below. There again, if he happens to be flying upwards, then your comp is spot on. ;)
11-14-2010, 09:30 PM
Ákos Lumnitzer

Nice wings-up pose Artie and I like the soft blue BG colors against the Pelican. :)
11-15-2010, 08:03 AM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart Bowie

Artie, I like the angle, and full wing spread. I would maybe move him up in the frame.

Stu, I see your point. When I have some time, I will create a repost based on your suggestion; he was looking to land.
11-15-2010, 11:30 AM
Pao Dolina

Artie,

Would you say the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens with the 2XII teleconverter is better than a Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens?
11-15-2010, 02:15 PM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pao Dolina

Artie, Would you say the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens with the 2XII teleconverter is better than a Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens?

Hi Pao, It depends what you mean by "better." For me it is, though heavier, far better with IS and great flexibility. With the 2X I have a very versatile 140-400mm image stabilized zoom lens. There are lots more images made with this combo both in my recent blog posts and in today's Bulletin; if you check them out you will see that they were made at many different focal lengths.
And there will be more to follow soon on the blog :)
11-15-2010, 06:24 PM
Jay Gould

 Hi Artie,

Up until your recent postings about the new 70-200 II, I was giving up HH BIF Photography due to a tear in my right shoulder muscle which is significant enough to prevent HH the 300 f/2.8 but not at the point of considering surgery.

You wrote in #347: “After just two hours on the cliffs of La Jolla on my first morning, I knew that the combination produced amazingly sharp image. Subsequent opportunities have proven that the combo is the best flight photography rig that I have ever used.”

Given that statement, and I assume you are indicating that opinion within the focal length limitations of 400 (the new lens plus a 2.0 converter), are there other limitations to be considered?

I was going to sell my 7D and the 300 f/2.8.

Now, because I do enjoy HH BIF, I am seriously considering keeping the 7D and only selling the 300 f/2.8. (Anyone interested in a mint condition 300 f/2.8?)

The 70-200II is half of the weight of the 300; yes, with a 2.0 the 300 = 600!

I will now consider buying the 70-200 II with the new teleconverters; would you recommend I keep the 70-200 f/4 or is it redundant?

I also find it interesting that the 70-200 II with the new 2.0 will be very similar in size and weight to the 100-400 and at the 400 focal length will both be f/5.6.

Do you believe that overall the 70-200 II will be more responsive and have a better IQ than the 100-400?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
11-15-2010, 09:09 PM
Arthur Morris

On the shoulder: get a copy of Pete Egoscue's "Pain Free." Also, try to find someone who does ART: active release technique. Been there done that. Also Aaron Mattes "Isolated Active Stretching."

Limitations? The 70-200 2.8 II is plenty heavy at 3.3 pounds.

As far as I know, the Series III TCs will not be anything special with the 2.8 II or the 800.... More on that soon.

The new rig with the 2X kills the 1-4 every which way.

Best answer for you: 70-200 f/4 with a 7D and a 1.4X II TC.....

I'll be heavy at 520mm, you'll be light at 448.

Something for all to consider: Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" states that folks who "thank in advance" are simply too lazy to say thanks when somebody helps them and suggests that the term be expunged from the language.
11-16-2010, 02:45 AM
Pao Dolina

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Hi Pao, It depends what you mean by "better." For me it is, though heavier, far better with IS and great flexibility. With the 2X I have a very versatile 140-400mm image stabilized zoom lens. There are lots more images made with this combo both in my recent blog posts and in today's Bulletin; if you check them out you will see that they were made at many different focal lengths.
And there will be more to follow soon on the blog :)

To clarify, in terms of image quality, AF response speed and AF acquisition and lock? I have the previous 70-200 and I was wondering if it would be worth the upgrade.
11-16-2010, 05:04 AM
Jay Gould

Thanks after the response for the response as well!

Shoulder: had months of various forms of therapy; now instructed no therapy having identified the tear on an ultrasound. Next step is a cortisone shot to see if the inflammation can be alleviated.

Regarding the teleconverters I had perhaps read into your statement in the Bulletin that it was the combination of the two new items, new lens and new 2.0 teleconverter that made the difference.

Quote:

The new rig with the 2X kills the 1-4 every which way.

Would you please expand on this statement? When you say the new rig, are you only referring to the new lens with either the new or old 2X?

I agree that the f/4 with the 1.4 is lighter than the f/2.8 with the 2X; however, we are looking at 280 compared to 400, and the 2.8 with the 2X is still way lighter than the 300 f/2.8 with the 2X.

Thanks for your thoughts and suggested options.

My leanings are to "add some weight to the f/4 + 2X" and have a "play" using the grip that Jim Neiger developed for me and see how that feels. Then, decide whether to upgrade to the f/2.8.

Cheers,
11-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Arthur Morris

Pao,

re:

Comparing the 70-200 2.8 II to the 400 5.6:

To clarify, in terms of image quality: about equal with an edge to the 70-200.

AF response speed: both excellent.

AF acquisition. The 400 acquires much faster.

AF lock: edge to the 70-200 II.

I will add some of my own:

AF tracking accuracy: big edge to the 70-200 II.

Image stabilization: no contest :)

Versatility: a slaughter for the 70-200.

I have the previous 70-200 and I was wondering if it would be worth the upgrade.

I never tried the old 2.8 IS with the 2X but I cannot imagine that there is any comparison at all. The new rig is beyond the beyond. Thanks to Patrick Sparkman for opening my eyes to the possibility.
11-16-2010, 08:52 PM
Arthur Morris

Jay,

re:

]Thanks after the response for the response as well!

YAW.

Shoulder: had months of various forms of therapy; now instructed no therapy having identified the tear on an ultrasound. Next step is a cortisone shot to see if the inflammation can be alleviated.

Let me know if you would like contact info for my health guy in San Diego. He is a genius and he can help you.

Regarding the teleconverters I had perhaps read into your statement in the Bulletin that it was the combination of the two new items, new lens and new 2.0 teleconverter that made the difference.

No. I believe that I clearly stated the 2X II TC. The new ones are Series III.

Would you please expand on this statement? When you say the new rig, are you only referring to the new lens with either the new or old 2X?

New lens with the 2X II TC (not the 2X III TC).

I agree that the f/4 with the 1.4 is lighter than the f/2.8 with the 2X; however, we are looking at 280 compared to 400, and the 2.8 with the 2X is still way lighter than the 300 f/2.8 with the 2X.

All that I was trying to say is that I would not be guaranteeing anything with the new lens, the 2X Tc, AND THE 7D. Or am I confused as to your camera body?

Thanks for your thoughts and suggested options.

YAW.

My leanings are to "add some weight to the f/4 + 2X" and have a "play" using the grip that Jim Neiger developed for me and see how that feels. Then, decide whether to upgrade to the f/2.8.

With the 7D or with the MIV?
11-17-2010, 12:59 AM
Jay Gould

Artie, as always you are so very helpful.

I have been giving this a fair amout of thought in the past day because I am making major changes to what I carry in the field and what I am shooting.

If I carry the 5D2 full frame, and the 7D 1.6 crop, and only carry the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 70-200 II f/2.8 with the 1.4 and 2X, the combinations are endless and I would be carrying focal lengths from 16 - 960 when I mount the 70-200 + 2X on the 7D. I could also carry a couple of extension tubes and my 500D close-up lens.

That would eliminate carrying the 24-105 and the 100 macro in the field when I am simply out for general hiking shooting.

What do you think; have I missed something in my eagerness to lighten and recreate my kit?

I will definitely contact you in advance of the next time I am in San Diego - thanks!
11-17-2010, 03:49 AM
Jay Gould

Further to my last post, I did some quick calculations; I have corrected a math mistake :( as well!

16 - 35 f/2.8 640gr
24 - 105 f/4 670gr
70 - 200 f/4 760gr 2070

16 - 35 f/2.8 640gr
70 - 200 f/2.8 1490gr 2130

The weight difference is insignificant; the available light difference is a significant one full stop.

Instead of using the 24 - 105 and the 70-200 at f/4, when you use the 16 - 35 on the 7D it becomes a 26 - 56 at f/2.8.

Therefore you have 16 - 200 at f/2.8, 157 - 448 at f/4, and 224 - 640 at f/5.6 (not 960 as I mistakenly indicated above; I was unfortunately thinking of my 300 instead of the 200 II).

The result is you are only missing 56 - 70 in the range because the 16-35 will not fit a teleconverter.
11-17-2010, 05:06 AM
Ted Berg

Why is the right wing black :confused:
11-17-2010, 07:19 AM
Arthur Morris

Jay,

1: Are you thinking that the 7D with the 70-200 f/4 and the 2X TC are gonna autofocus?

2: Will you be carrying a light tripod?

3: Do you have our 7D User's Guide?

I am copying this thread to the Photography Gear Forum. Please respond there.
11-17-2010, 12:19 PM
Pao Dolina

Artie,

Thank you for the speedy response.

Now a question about the Series 3 Extenders. Have you had any hands-on experience with the Series 3 Extenders? Are they worth upgrading to from the Series 2 Extenders assuming you are using an 800 IS, 500 IS and 300/2.8 IS?

Two years ago your past review on the 800 IS vs 600 IS + 1.4x II was the swing vote in my getting the 800 IS. For that I am very thankful. :)
11-17-2010, 12:45 PM
Myer Bornstein

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Fenton

Looks pretty darned good Artie....

I've never been impressed with the Nikon equivalent unfortunately.

Jim
Have you tried the newest NIkon 70-200 used it with 1.7x and it is sharp
11-17-2010, 02:37 PM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pao Dolina

Artie,

Thank you for the speedy response.

Now a question about the Series 3 Extenders. Have you had any hands-on experience with the Series 3 Extenders? Are they worth upgrading to from the Series 2 Extenders assuming you are using an 800 IS, 500 IS and 300/2.8 IS?

Two years ago your past review on the 800 IS vs 600 IS + 1.4x II was the swing vote in my getting the 800 IS. For that I am very thankful. :)

Glad to be of help. Nobody has gotten their hands on the series III TCs and now they are being pushed back to March... I would not expect anything great with any lenses other than the four new ones....

See my recent blog post here for a bit more on them.
11-17-2010, 03:41 PM
Pao Dolina

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Glad to be of help. Nobody has gotten their hands on the series III TCs and now they are being pushed back to March... I would not expect anything great with any lenses other than the four new ones....

See my recent blog post here for a bit more on them.

Thank you for the link Artie. I shall push through with the Series III. Who knows I may win the local lotto. :cool:
12-14-2010, 05:12 PM
Andrew Merwin

I sent Artie a PM with the following question & he asked me to post it on this thread so all could read his answer. So, here is the question:

Artie, I read this thread with interest. Do you regret replacing the 1-4 with the 70-200/2.8 + the 2XII TC?
I am thinking of doing the same thing when the 2XIII TC is available. What are your additional thoughts now that you presumably have more experience with this combo (70-200/2.8+2XII TC)?

I wonder if changing the TCs as situations dictate would become cumbersome & bothersome to the point that one was missing images.

I would also love to know others' opinions.
12-14-2010, 05:51 PM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merwin

I sent Artie a PM with the following question & he asked me to post it on this thread so all could read his answer. So, here is the question:

Artie, I read this thread with interest. Do you regret replacing the 1-4 with the 70-200/2.8 + the 2XII TC?
I am thinking of doing the same thing when the 2XIII TC is available. What are your additional thoughts now that you presumably have more experience with this combo (70-200/2.8+2XII TC)?

I wonder if changing the TCs as situations dictate would become cumbersome & bothersome to the point that one was missing images.

I would also love to know others' opinions.

While I made lots of wonderful images over the year's with the 1-4 I feel that the new 70-200 with and without TCs gives me sharper images of higher quality, more consistently accurate AI Servo AF (even with the 2x), far greater flexibility, and f/2.8 and f/4 when I need them. Plus I much prefer a twist zoom to a push pull and in addition, the 70-200 II is far more rugged than the 1-4. Ask 100 folks with a 1-4 whose lens has never been back to Canon for repair and maybe 1/3 of them will raise there hands.

The two pluses for the 1-4 are faster initial AF acquisition than the 70-200 with the 2X and the fact that it is a lot cheaper. I do not mind the slower AF pick-up as I know that once I am locked on all of the images will be sharp.

With the nice zoom range and a knowledge of what I am looking for it is rare for me to switch TCs or go to the lens alone in a given situation.

In your e-mail you asked about the Series III TCs. They will not make a great difference with the "older" lenses including the 70-200 II and the 800 f.5.6. The micro-chips in the Series III TCs are designed to talk only to the four new super-teles--two out and two coming...

Do I regret it? Not in the least. After borrowing a few different copies of the 70-200 II I just ordered my own through the Explorers of Light program :).
12-14-2010, 06:07 PM
Jay Gould

Thanks Artie, did you order the 2.8 or the 4?

I guess my first reaction to the question about missing images: we, especially me, shoot too much and think too little about what we are seeing in the frame.

There was a discussion quite some time ago about how many CF cards should you carry and Roger Clark responded about how few images he actually made. Recently, in a thread I think I started, Desmond commented on not holding down the trigger so often at 7fps. :)
12-14-2010, 06:57 PM
Andrew Merwin

Thanks Artie. I do appreciate your insights & your willingness to share your experience with us.
12-14-2010, 07:43 PM
Arthur Morris

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

Thanks Artie, did you order the 2.8 or the 4?

I guess my first reaction to the question about missing images: we, especially me, shoot too much and think too little about what we are seeing in the frame.

There was a discussion quite some time ago about how many CF cards should you carry and Roger Clark responded about how few images he actually made. Recently, in a thread I think I started, Desmond commented on not holding down the trigger so often at 7fps. :)

Jay, There is no version II of the f/4 IS. The whole discussion above is about the Canon FE 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II.

What question about missing images?

I work with one 32 gb card in each of two bodies most of the time. I have never filled a card. Anywhere.
12-14-2010, 09:07 PM
Andrew Merwin

I had been visiting YNP for 12 years before I found grizzlies to photograph, I was so excited that I shot indiscriminately & quickly filled a 4 gb card with the Mark III. Now I am very selective with the shots I take & usually shoot only 2-4 frames at once.
Because I own only 1 camera, my concern about missing images comes from needing a shorter focal length because my subject gets too close. But that situation also occurs when I need to change from the 500+1.4xTC to the 100-400 because my subject got too close for 700mm or 500mm. This is why I asked the question.
After thinking about this based on my past experience, my concern about missing images while I remove a TC from the 70-200/2.8 is now minimal. Frankly, it seldom happens that a subject gets too close & I am usually wishing for a longer lens.
12-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Arthur Morris

Andrew, In which Pane is the original question?
12-14-2010, 10:27 PM
Andrew Merwin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merwin

I sent Artie a PM with the following question & he asked me to post it on this thread so all could read his answer. So, here is the question:

Artie, I read this thread with interest. Do you regret replacing the 1-4 with the 70-200/2.8 + the 2XII TC?
I am thinking of doing the same thing when the 2XIII TC is available. What are your additional thoughts now that you presumably have more experience with this combo (70-200/2.8+2XII TC)?

I wonder if changing the TCs as situations dictate would become cumbersome & bothersome to the point that one was missing images.

I would also love to know others' opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Andrew, In which Pane is the original question?

Pane #26—see the underlined text above.
12-14-2010, 10:36 PM
Arthur Morris

Thanks. Sorry for my confusion. Of course there will be times when you are changing TCs that you will miss something, and at other times you will miss the shot because you have the wrong TC on.... Such is life. The more that you know about your subjects and the better you have evaluated the situation the less often (to the point of very rarely) will this happen.
12-14-2010, 10:38 PM
Jay Gould

Thanks Artie, I wasn't sure if the f/4 had arrived in the II model; I know you also are a champion of the f/4.

I am on the fence regarding keeping my 300; I am going to sell the f/4 and purchase the f2.8 II as well as the new TCs when they arrive.
12-14-2010, 10:41 PM
Andrew Merwin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Thanks. Sorry for my confusion. Of course there will be times when you are changing TCs that you will miss something, and at other times you will miss the shot because you have the wrong TC on.... Such is life. The more that you know about your subjects and the better you have evaluated the situation the less often (to the point of very rarely) will this happen.

Point taken. Life is a learning lab.
12-15-2010, 05:12 AM
Arthur Morris

Jay, though I have rarely used a 300 f/2.8 it is the preferred lens of the world's best hawk photographers and the II should be insanely sharp and fast focusing. It is on the very heavy side for me for hand holding.