[Paul B]

When I last visited the Verdon, one of the things that I really loved was the fact that there were large vultures circling on the thermals almost all of the time, on some routes (here and Vilanova de Meia) they came really close.

Unfortunately the best shot I managed was quite frankly shit. At the time I was limited to 55mm and heavy cropping on my 1000d. I've done some digging and love this:

http://flic.kr/p/5tzGqv

amongst other pics. His are between 300 and 400mm, F/6.3 ish (on a crop body).

Currently I've got a 5d MK II and the 70-200 F/4 amongst other things and I was hoping I could try and get something a bit more useful than my first attempt but that combination still leaves me a little short and I haven't got masses of cash to throw at this.

So far I see my options (after canvasing some opinion) as:



1. Someone from the forum has generously offered to let me borrow his 70-300, which has the added bonus of IS.
2. Buy something and then sell it, Canon 100-400 (I haven't got the cash), Sigma 150-500 (lower residuals and I really don't have the cash), or Tokina 80-400 (see cash problem and also its supposedly poor at the business end, plus no IS).
3. Tele-converters. The 1.4x offerings retain AF, the 2x doesn't. Supposedly the kenko offerings are just as good as canon and taping the reporting contact tricks the camera into AFing. Given the 5d Mk II's reputation for AF I can't see this being rapid, or working. I should be able to eliminate the 1.5x disadvantage because of the high-res sensor, I hope.
4. A little left field: Mirror Lens, I can get a 500mm F/6 ish lens for about the same as the kenko TC (£100) or a longer 800mm for £20 more. I've had a look at some sample shots and I can't decide how the results will look in the situation as linked above. Donut Bokeh isn't fabulous and anything in front of the focus point looks horrendous (to my eyes), that said a few shots I've seen are nice:


The magic's in the doughnut hole! by Joel Hanawalt, on Flickr

if a bit of a novelty?

Anyone care to offer their opinion on the above, or anything else that might help me get a half decent vulture shot?

[slackline]

What about renting a lens?

Don't know anywhere local, but do know that its possible.

Make sure you've got insurance cover though! 

[Johnny Brown]

Either borrow the 70-300 or get hold of a 1.4x converter. I wouldn't bother with any of the other options. Lots more info on the Wildlife Photography - Lens Ideas thread which this would be better merged with.

Its always worth putting in a bit of fieldcraft too. You might find they are closer when they first get going in the morning, or last thing at night. The wildlife photography the general rule is that you get putting more time in is a shorter route to success than more money. Or as Shaw put it 'to become a better nature photographer, become a better naturalist'.

[SA Chris]

I ended up going for the Sigma 120-400, and have been generally pleased with the results, but not totally blown away. Sometimes wonder if you are specifically after something for Wildlife photos, then as fast a 400-500 or so prime you can afford is a better bet.

[Johnny Brown]

as fast a 400-500 or so prime you can afford is a better bet

Very true. The problems being the only choices are either a £100 mirror lens, or £2-3000 even second hand. Cheapest serious option would be an old second-hand manual 300/2.8 with both converters. Or an AF 300/4, though its not really long enough unless a crop body. But this is all in the other thread...

[dave]

If its soaring birds in the sky you're after, surely the bokeh of the reflex lenses is irrelevant? Would be lightweight too.

[Johnny Brown]

Judging by the link he's posted above the view is looking down. I'd suspect a shorter AF lens would be more use than a longer manual one. A 500mm has a lot of issues you won't expect if you've not used long lenses before - just getting the bird in frame will be a big challenge, and then you have to focus. By which time its gone.

[slackline]

Judging by the link he's posted above the view is looking down.

Yes, must of the time in Verdon your above the vultures.  My best shot from last year (which is pretty shit really)...


Griffon Vulture by slack---line, on Flickr

[Paul B]

Its always worth putting in a bit of fieldcraft too. You might find they are closer when they first get going in the morning, or last thing at night. The wildlife photography the general rule is that you get putting more time in is a shorter route to success than more money. Or as Shaw put it 'to become a better nature photographer, become a better naturalist'.

I'm quite happy to spend my rest days attempting to get some shots. From what I've read, one of the routes (Durandal) abs in to a large cave which the vultures use a lot. Its one of the shorter routes at about 4 pitches (100m) so there might be a chance of getting a bit closer if I convince Nat to either lead that one or carry the brick mark II on her back, failing that there's always the ascenders. Any fieldcraft beta is very welcome given I mostly point my lens at people and then burn their retinas with flash.

It looks like if you tape over the contacts on tele converters you can force AF at >f/5.6 (i.e. the 2x) with good results for the 70-200 F/4, so is the 1.4x still the way to go (the 2x is actually cheaper)?

Feel free to merge the threads if it'll make JB--line happy.

[Johnny Brown]

A 2x will give you a lens with an effective max aperture of f8. I'd be surprised if the AF will do any more than limp along with that constraint, and the viewfinder will be pretty dark. And if you're stopping down a bit, which would be sensible, you're going to be dealing with long lens shake at ~f11, which is going to mean high ISO.

A 1.4x will give you proper AF, and a more useable viewfinder, and less need for high ISO.

At the end of the day are you going to do any more than upload them to flickr? In which case you won't need pixels, low ISO etc, just sharp focus and a heavy crop. Worrying about all the other things is based on you printing at A3+, which you won't.

I'm sure I've already written all of this on the other thread.

[Paul B]

At the end of the day are you going to do any more than upload them to flickr?

Likely not.

I'm sure I've already written all of this on the other thread.

I've just checked the VF and with the DOF preview button down at F/11 its still bright enough even on this lovely sheffield afternoon!
I couldn't ascertain if your only reasoning was AF limping along or it was a combination of other things. The brick does offer insane ISO performance so its ok up to 3200 in most situations, 6400 at a push (not good on UK limestone), I was just weighing up one stop extra stop versus an extra 120mm of length (more if I borrow that 300).

Besides the top and bottom end of the day, any other useful tips? (don't [or maybe do] fall off the edge of the gorge?)

[cofe]

I think JB thinks you should just get a 1.4x converter. I'd do that before he decks you. For the love of god.

You'd probably still have A4 sized pics even if you cropped half the pixels, and your camera works in available darkness.

[Johnny Brown]

The main issue is the effect on AF. I'm not convinced any AF will perform with an effective f8 lens. And with your whizzo camera, you can do what the fuck you like with the files except post-focus.

[Paul B]

Harrisons have both the 1.4x and 2x sigma converters in as well as the "Bigma" 50-500, I'll pop in tomorrow see whats what. I'm not sure they'll be too psyched for me to take some insulation tape with me mind you.

There seems to be mixed messages about the tape trick, some stating it works fine others say it stutters in all but the brightest light/highest contrast subjects. Interestingly the 1D series will AF at a reported aperture >5.6, and clearly the D4 will too.

[Control freak]

The main issue is the effect on AF. I'm not convinced any AF will perform with an effective f8 lens. And with your whizzo camera, you can do what the fuck you like with the files except post-focus.

Apart from the 1 series bodies, non of the canon bodies will provide AF at a minimum aperture of F8. The all require 5.6.  You can tape some pins as you said but its probably not your best solution. If you can stretch to the 100-400 I can recommend it. Its (relatively) compact and sharp (so long as you can track what your shooting at 400mm)

[Johnny Brown]

There seems to be mixed messages about the tape trick, some stating it works fine others say it stutters

This inconsistency will be partly due to a) different lenses/ bodies and b) different expectations.  You might be able to get accurate AF on a static subject, but it won't be quick, and if it will comfortably track focus on a flying bird I'll eat my hat.

My Sigma 1.4x works great on my Sigma f2.8 lenses. On my Nikon 300/4 its not really useable - stuttering focus, poor sharpness wide open. I would try the Canon too if you can.

[Paul B]

The kind people at harrisons entertained me for an hour and let me try out a number of options, I took the shots home and pixel peeped until my heart was content:

Sigma 50-150 - far too heavy, this weighs more than the 5d and 70-200 plus tele converter by itself by a far amount. Pretty poor at the short end (not that it really matters).

Canon 100-400 - heavy again.

1.4 x on the 70-200 - I can't see this being long enough although it'll obviously be easier to track things with. Autofocus speed didn't seem to be affacted nor IQ (that I could see). I couldn't test a 2x as the second hand one had sold and they were out of canon variants.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 + 1.4x - interesting combo this. I can trade the 70-200 and basically only pay for the TCon, sharpness and IQ seemed pretty good and it was relatively light although it wasn't quite as good as my current 70-200. The example had some dirt in the focus mechanism so it was stick <2.5m but that could be rectified on warranty after the trip.

Canon 400mm F/5.6 - by far the best, very light for its size, sharp as hell and very contrasty. I'm tempted to buy one and then sell it in a months time if I can find one second hand in good condition quickly enough (and if my insurance will cover it whilst away).

hmmm

[dave]

Sigma 100-300 f/4 + 1.4x - interesting combo this. I can trade the 70-200 and basically only pay for the TCon,

Now I even I know that you'd have to be mad to sell a canon 70-200/4 (which as far as I'm aware is something of a classic) for some sigma thing.

Either get a 1.4 tc (and sell it later) and/or buy/borrow a cheap crop body (and sell it later, except if you've borrowed it...) which gets you a 1.5x advantage. The latter option would give you a 300m equiv, with no loss of lens speed or TC focussing issues. The things that you a pay a premium for with fullframe body (i.e. low noise at 6-figure ISOs) I imagine will be wasted on broad daylight wildlife shots, whereas the extra reach of a crop body you could do with. Plus you could then always crop further- cropping to a 400mm equiv won't be a problem, plus unlike actually using a 400mm lens you'll actually be able to see where the fuck the bird is in the finder beforehand.

[Paul B]

I'm not buying a body. At least (used) L glass retains the majority of its value!

[cofe]

Buying a body is a great idea. Get a 20D for fuck all, keep it as a back up body or sell it when you get back. It won't lose it's value, and youll have a 300mm plus equiv. 20D is a good camera.

[Johnny Brown]

A crop body is a daft idea - just crop the 5D file and get a better file with more pixels.

What Dave said about trading the 70-200 for a 100-300. Unless you've got other issues with the 70-200? A 400/5.6 is a great lens, ideal entry lens for wildlife photography. If you find one, I'd hang on to it.

Either way it all seems like a hell of a big fuss to get a couple of vulture shots. I'd still say the only sensible options are either a) crop, or b) get a 1.4x converter.

[dave]

A crop body is a daft idea - just crop the 5D file and get a better file with more pixels

A 5dii fileat 200mm cropped to 400mm eqiv leaves you with what, about 5mp?  Pretty sure even an old 10mp crop sensor cropped to 400 mm equiv would beat that.

[Paul B]

What Dave said about trading the 70-200 for a 100-300. Unless you've got other issues with the 70-200? A 400/5.6 is a great lens, ideal entry lens for wildlife photography. If you find one, I'd hang on to it.

Since the 85mm came along I rarely opt for it unless I need the length but that alone isn't enough to sell it.

[quote
Either way it all seems like a hell of a big fuss 
[/quote]

You're not wrong.

[Johnny Brown]

A 5dii fileat 200mm cropped to 400mm eqiv leaves you with what, about 5mp?  Pretty sure even an old 10mp crop sensor cropped to 400 mm equiv would beat that.

Nah, pixel density on the two cameras are about about the same. So it doesn't matter how much you throw away round the sides, you'd get roughly the same result only with the superior noise of the 5dII. Certainly no benefit in getting a crop body unless you go for a more recent one with significantly higher pixel density.

[Paul B]

I think I'm pretty sure of the direction I'm going to go now. Thanks for the input, even if JB had to type it again