Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Major Gear Bag Changes ???

  1. #1
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default Major Gear Bag Changes ???

    Attached Images Attached Images
     
    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.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan
    Posts
    1,359
    Threads
    152
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Haverhill, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    313
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Looks pretty darned good Artie....

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

  4. #4
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, Karnataka
    Posts
    3,800
    Threads
    236
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Beautiful pose and compo Guru... great looking frame..

  5. #5
    Lifetime Member Stu Bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Centurion, South Africa
    Posts
    21,360
    Threads
    1,435
    Thank You Posts

    Default

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

  6. #6
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Bowie View Post
    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!
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  7. #7
    Lifetime Member Stu Bowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Centurion, South Africa
    Posts
    21,360
    Threads
    1,435
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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. ;)

  8. #8
    Ákos Lumnitzer
    Guest

    Default

    Nice wings-up pose Artie and I like the soft blue BG colors against the Pelican. :)

  9. #9
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Bowie View Post
    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.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  10. #10
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    420
    Threads
    126
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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. #11
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pao Dolina View Post
    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 :)
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  12. #12
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  13. #13
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  14. #14
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    420
    Threads
    126
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Morris View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.

    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,
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  16. #16
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  17. #17
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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?
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  18. #18
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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!
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  19. #19
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  20. #20
    Ted Berg
    Guest

    Default

    Why is the right wing black :confused:

  21. #21
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    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.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Jay,

    Have you considered a CF tripod with a gimbal head to use your 300 on? I find it is very versatile in tracking fast moving subjects and greatly relieves stress on the arms. And when you need reach, have you tried stacked 2x + 1.4x TCs? It works very well but I really need a tripod for that. or at least on a bean bag..

    Roger

  23. #23
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Maryland's Eastern Shore, beside Fairlee Creek near the Chesapeake Bay
    Posts
    1,961
    Threads
    344
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Artie:

    Terrific action image! :), with the following suggestions for improvement:

    I agree with the comment made above that there seems to be a halo around the bird. Can that be fixed?

    The black areas on the wings wings are truly black, and devoid of feather detail.

    The sky on my calibrated Apple monitor appears a bit aquamarine, instead of true blue.

    Finally, since since the bird is flying to the right and looking down, I would crop a bit of canvas off of the top and left, and add more canvas below.

    Norm

  24. #24
    Lifetime Member Doug Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    11,879
    Threads
    917
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    If you're looking for a hand held BIF lens, consider the 400 f/5.6 Jay. Unless you've got birds that are as cooperative as Artie's Florida birds and need some flexibility in focal length! :)
    Upcoming Workshops: Bosque del Apache 2019, Ecuador 2020 (details coming soon)
    Website -
    Facebook - 500px

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics