Photo question, 600mm?

[T. Adams]

A question for you Canon users out there. Has anybody tried the 300 f/4L with the new 2X on it? Last year I used the 300mm with the 1.4X attached (420mm), and got some decent pics. My guess is 600mm would be too long to catch them coming down the front stretch. I don't think the entire plane would fit in the frame. Has anybody tried 600mm? The photo shown below was taken with the 300mm and 1.4X last year. I think at 600mm if I pan good enough, and get the shutter speed up a little more I may get a few decent shots??

[AAFO_WSagar]

Hi Tim,

I'm a "Nikonian" so I can't answer your question directly but...

That's a pretty good shot already!

I think a lot of us get hooked on filling the frame with the subject and sometimes we lose a lot of what the action is about when we do that. I can tell about where you were from the angle of the shot and that is a good shot from that location (if you were where I think you were)

Personally, I shoot with a Sigma 50-500 zoom and out at 500, unless the conditions are just right, you will almost never get a really clear shot.

Heat waves are a big factor at Reno and even the wind. Iv'e had my arms blown around quite a bit even with that big hunk of glass (read, very heavy) hung on the already quite heavy D1 body that I use..

I think yer right on track with what you are getting and a 2x might drop your available light down to a point that you can not speed up the shutter much.. not that you want to anyway, don't want to stop the prop.. from looking at this shot, you've got some room to speed up and still get a decent blur but this is a very decent shot.. in fact, very good IMHO!

Wayne

[T. Adams]

Those "Evil" Nikon people!!

I know what you mean about filling the frame. Here is another one with the 300mm + 1.4X, it fills it real nice. I think 600mm will be a bit much. If you guess right I was standing in the pits down by the fuel truck for the Dago, and Voodoo pics.


Sorry the pic is so small, I could not downsize it right at work.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Evil Nikon Guy ;-)

Yep, I figured that was about where you were.. in reality, the 500mm on the D1, with the 1.5 magnification factor, becomes a 750mm lens. (the chip in the D1 series is slightly smaller than a 35mm slide frame, so effectively, each image is slightly cropped giving the 1.5 mag effect)

Maybe a 600 then is not so bad.. although, with the D1 cropping thing, you have effectively the 750 but with only the limitations (lens shake, light etc) of a 500...

It'd be pretty hard to hand hold a 600 unless you're really steady..

the 300 with the 1.4 seems a good place to be.

Wayne

[T. Adams]

Hand holding

It is not too bad holding the 300 + the 2X. Trying to take a picture of a static
plane yeah it moves all over, but when you have to pan with the planes flying by it seems to be easier to get a good shot. I know it is a lot better than holding a 600mm prime, which basically, without 800 speed film your screwed. Canon's 600mm f/4L weighs in at a little over 13lbs!!!!, and the damn thing costs $7,000 from the "discount" web shops like B&H in NYC.

[wolfee]

I am a Minolta 7xi user. and have taken pix with the 300 2.8 with the 2x doubler on it. let me tell you, it is a beast to hand hold. and panning an object travling at 500 mph would be most difficult at best. Unless you use a good mono pod. A mono pod gives the freedom to pan and tilt, all the while keeping the cammera stedy. Thoe it can take a bit to get used to shooting with a mono pod. Instead of twisting your body to pan, now you have to use your feet. I have used this set up very sucussfuly shooting rodeos, and auto racing.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[T. Adams]

Monopods

Well the 300 f/2.8 is a whole different animal. There is a considerable size difference between the f/2.8 and f/4. In the Canon lineup the f/2.8 weighs 3 lbs. more than the f/4. Panning with the 300 f/4 is really no problem. I did use a monopod last year but not on panning shots. It restricts you too much. The planes are always changing altitudes and you can't adjust a monopod up and down as they fly by. If I try to tilt it, I just end up lifting it up off the ground. Sometimes I swore I might nail someone with it. I do use it if I have a long lens on to get shots of the engine run ups when they are testing or starting up for the races though.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Monopods

Originally posted by T. Adams
I swore I might nail someone with it

A couple years ago at Oshkosh, during the warbird demos (lots of mock bombs and stuff.. This guy was beside me on the photo platform with a little throwaway, one use camera.. I did not mean to but every time I panned with my 500, I'd whack him on top of the head as swung left.. he finally squatted down a but...


The things we have to do to get the shot..

[wolfee]

You know I had the same problem with the mono pod comming off of the ground. then I bought a pan and tilt head from Bogan, and that took care of that problem. Just remember to lock the tilting head when you move on to your next spot to shoot from.
This also took care of another problem that I was having. I had a hard time getting the mono pod to extend high enough for me. and with the head on it, it gave me the extra height I needed.

[T. Adams]

Monopod head

I also have a 3 way head from Bogen the 3047. It is a rather large head though. I use it on the tripod all the time. For me I just find taking action shots at airshows/airraces, and drag races is a whole lot easier if you have the freedom to move around, squat, standup, whatever you need to do without having the monopod in the way.

I will still have it with me at Reno, for the static photos.

Now if some one would like to loan me about $5,500 I could get a new Canon 500mm f/4 IS, and use that monopod ALL the time

[wolfee]

Hear! Hear!!! Amen! Me To!

[T. Adams]

I have an EOS 3 which will autofocus at f/8, so I am set to try a few shots with the 300 f/4L and the 2X.