[Closed] New photography related toy

Can't wait to see very few fuzzy pictures of birds...

Why? You won't enjoy them.

Might help

[img] [/img]

One is on my christmas list 🙂

Seem like they'd not be much use for moving wildlife tho..?

[i]few fuzzy pictures of birds...[/i]

maybe a hotel room closer to the beach next time?

I did some research on long lenses before I bought one. Which is mostly why I bought a 55-200 and didn't spend much money on it (£55 Tamron off Ebay) Too much camera shake over 200mm, so you need a fast lens which is expensive! 🙂
I've only really used it in anger once, and it was pretty decent I'd say.... -

[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4648312648_afc35d05e7_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4648312648_afc35d05e7_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/4648312648/ ]IMG_7075[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

The old rule-of-thumb is that to shoot sharply handheld (without image stabilisation) you need to have a shutter speed that is (at most) 1 over the focal length.

Which I think means at 600mm (equiv) you'll need to be shooting at 1/600s or faster.
To do that at f5.6 you'll need some decent light or a high ISO.

I've got the 40-150mm one too, because it was silly cheap, but when I was on hols in the Rockies there was loads of wildlife, and 150mm (300m equiv) just wasn't enough.

I could take pictures indoors at 1/6s at full zoom, but not outside.

One of the less blurred ones, a chickadee, on a very dull greasy day.

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5238257542_50fce166db_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5289/5238257542_50fce166db_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5238257542/ ]chickadee[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

And a snake!

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5237662489_7924171ea5_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5237662489_7924171ea5_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/5237662489/ ]snake[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr

I've got a cheap Sigma 70-300 F4.5-5.6 APO lens that I sometimes carry when travelling lightish, and I've found it surprisingly capable hand-held as long as the light is decent - especially as my camera has in-body shake reduction.

This is an example taken at 300mm (1/180 at F8 and ISO400):
[img] [/img]

Even at 300mm you need to be reasonably close to the bird to fill the frame, plus it's best if you don't use the lens wide open if you can help it.

I could take pictures indoors at 1/6s at full zoom, but not outside.

At 300mm equiv without stabilisation? 😯
Blimey, you have much steadier hands than me then! I should probably lay off the booze...

At 300mm equiv without stabilisation?
Blimey, you have much steadier hands than me then! I should probably lay off the booze..

No, I have in-body stabilisation. And that was reclining in an armchair all propped up from the elbows. There was still visible shake, but it looks like you just have to keep it within the capabilities of the IS and you're ok. And it's 600mm equiv, 300mm real 🙂

epicsteve - that's a stunning shot!

Theres me saving like mad to buy a Nikon 70-200vr lens, to get some neat Bokeh shots.

I might just go and have a look at that Sigma now 😉

Out of intrest, how close were you focusing & how far away was the blurred background?

Another one of the same Robin:
[img] [/img]

I can't remember how far I was from the bird but it couldn't have been all that far (10-15ft at a guess perhaps) as I used the on-camera flash for a bit of fill and you can see that in it's eye. The background was a reasonable distance away but with at 300mm and F8 it doesn't take much for it to go all blurry if you're focusing on an object quite close.

The APO version of the Sigma is a surprisingly capable lens, plus it also focuses quite close which makes it pretty versatile. I paid something like £50 for mine 2nd hand as well, so can't argue at that. When travelling heavier I carry an 80-200 F2.8 (a Tokina ATX-Pro) with a high quality 2x converter. It's much, much better than the Sigma up to 200mm (i.e. when I'm not using the converter) but the difference isn't anywhere near as great at 300mm.

This is a 100% crop from the original photo to show how much detail there is - I think it's pretty decent for such a cheap lens:
[img] [/img]
You can see a little CA round the beak but it's not bad at all (and my 80-200 F2.8 also suffers from that when the converter is used).

Is that a baby robin?

Not a clue - although he was a little chubster!