While it was a pretty awful weekend for railfanning around Denver, I managed to head out and shoot a couple shots anyways. Mostly I’ll use these as examples of what not to do, he he he…
As always, be sure to expand the pix for the best viewing experience.
Taken at Blue Mountain Road with a Super Takumar 500mm f4.5 with an M42-Canon EF adaptor. That’s an 800mm focal length equivalent! Of course, this would have been a lot easier to use with image stabilization, or a high shutter speed. There is a little ghosting from camera movement, but not too bad. You can’t really tell on this small .jpg.
Taken at 80th ave with the 70-200mm f2.8L. Again, a non-stabilized lens (man…I really nead to get an IS version of this 'un). What bugs me most in this picture is the lens flare of the ditchlights. Another reason to use primes, kiddies, or at least watch the angle that the headlight/ditchlight is coming into your lens at.
Sorry for the cruddy stuff. There may be a trip to the C&TS within the next two weeks. I promise some better stuff if I make it there.
nice shots, Chris. But you do need to get the IS lenses – they are absolutely awesome, and if you’ve never used one the first time you do it will blow you away!
Oh I’ve used them…just haven’t bought any yet. I think the 70-200mm IS is next, and then its time to save up for the 300mm f2.8L IS (by far the best lens I’ve ever used).
800mm?! Whoa, be careful with that much power, my friend! (You’re making my 300mm IS lens seem woefully inadequate.)
In regards to your second photo… remove that lens filter and you’ll see those pesky green spots disappear. I too had that problem, before I realized that they aren’t worth it. Learn more in Trackside with Erik and Mike Vol. 8 recap, where I described this very problem and the solution (removing my UV filter).
He he he…believe it or not, both were on a tripod. With 800mm (equiv), even on a tripod, its hard to keep it still around 1/20th. Besides, have you ever tried to hand hold a 500mm f4.5? [;)]I’m not sure why I even bothered taking a picture at that speed. I guess I got tired of the deluge that was our weekend in Denver, and simply had to take a picture of something, even if it was a terrible shot. Sigh…one of these weekends, I’ll be able to shoot with the sun behind me! What a treat that’ll be!
When i got my first decent camera (since stolen – together with the notebook that contained all the info about what my first five years of photographs were of and where they were taken
I was told that UV filter is needed, not for filter purposes but solely to protect the precious lens from damage. So if you remove the filter I guess you’d better be extra careful
Dave Nelson
G’day, Y’all,
A 300 mm lens without a matched multiplier is a wasted lens. It is long enough to impress bystanders, but too short to really get the compression one needs for stunning, no background shots. I consider my 300 f4 Canon with 2x multiplier a standard lens for daylight, outdoor sports in newspaper work.
Jock Ellis
I was told the same thing. Like any tool, it has it’s uses. It’s basically clear glass anyhow… Obviously if it’s causing problems, off it comes. Just put it back when you’re done, so you can still protect that expensive lens.
