Very often we on this forum get questions on the suitability of 100-400 for fast action such as BIF. In addition, people sometimes ask me how to do BIF photography if "there are no birds around". If a bird like Cooper's Hawk shows up at you backyard feeder, it's usually gone in a flash, plus that kinda visit happens once in a blue moon anyway. So how can you possibly become proficient at shooting Cooper's Hawks in flight ?
First, I consider the 100-400 AF drive to be generally too slow for many bird species. Which doesn't mean that good BIF shots don't happen with it, however, the issue there is the keeper rate/chancess of success (risk of missed shots).
Therefore, if I anticipate some fast Cooper's action in my backyard, 100-400 is one of the last lenses I will have on my camera.
However, for some birds such as geese, herons, egrets, cormorants, Caspian Terns, large Buteo hawks, Turkey Vultures and Albino Peregrine Falcons (i.e., seagulls ) the 100-400 AF is quite adequate. Which brings us to the second issue: what birds are there in sufficient numbers to be able to develop/maintain the skill of shooting them in flight. Well, seagulls are certainly very good and common targets in many coastal (large lake) areas around the world. Their flight pattern is relatively easy to track and they do not require much light for proper exposure. Moreover, given an interesting background as well as bird flight attitude, it is certainly possible to produce pleasing shots involving a bird as mundane as a seagull. Even man-made structures could be used for background where natural backdrop of some merit is not available. IMO anything is better than a uniformly vacant sky, if that can be helped.
So let us see your 100-400 BIF action images. I don't care if you shoot Bald Eagles, Canada Geese or Dragon Flies with it, the lens doesn't know if a bird you are pointing it at is at the verge of extinction or half-domesticated. The objective is to try to draw some kind of BIF application boundary for 100-400 lens.
PetKal wrote: So let us see your 100-400 BIF action images. I don't care if you shoot Bald Eagles, Canada Geese or Dragon Flies with it, the lens doesn't know if a bird you are pointing it at is at the verge of extinction or half-domesticated. The objective is to try to draw some kind of BIF application boundary for 100-400 lens.
Very nice shot, Paul, let us just confirm a couple of issues:
(1) That was 100-400
(2) Although on N&W Board they do not really distinguish between the two or any other mode as long as the target is airborne, we on this lens performance forum need to be more precise: was that a "hover" or a "flight" ?
I'm really quite poor at following these guys once they start moving though so I'd blame the rest of this series on me and not the lens. Also, it's tough from a canoe!
PetKal wrote:
Very nice shot, Paul, let us just confirm a couple of issues:
(1) That was 100-400
(2) Although on N&W Board they do not really distinguish between the two or any other mode as long as the target is airborne, we on this lens performance forum need to be more precise: was that a "hover" or a "flight" ?
(1) Yes
(2) As admitted on the flickr page... "hover"! My hat is off to those who get good DIF shots of DFs moving at any appreciable speed.
steeeven wrote: I think this counts as in flightI'm really quite poor at following these guys once they start moving though so I'd blame the rest of this series on me and not the lens. Also, it's tough from a canoe!
A very fine image. Yeah, I'd call that "in flight 0+300 msec"
I think the bottom line is that birds/insects in-hover one can get in "one shot AF" mode.....becomes affectively shooting a stationary target.
I took this beauty when I still had my 100-400. This is a very rare seagull known locally as a "Flying Bird Gull". I think I have the only photo of this bird in Vero Beach, FL.
As an aside, I have no camera now so I guess you guys are safe for awhile.
PetKal wrote:
I think the bottom line is that birds/insects in-hover one can get in "one shot AF" mode.....becomes affectively shooting a stationary target.
Let me assure you that getting the hovering DF shots, while not as hard as getting shots of DFs speeding over ground, are not as simple as shooting a stationary target with "one shot AF."
-They dart around and don't hover very long.
-They are very close, and when they change position, they can dart completely out of your viewfinder view, and you don't know which way they went. At their new position, given the very close distances involved, they may be way, way, OOF.
-DOF is very shallow relative to body size.
-The background can be very distracting to AF.
My procedure is something along the lines of (I) aim quickly at full telephoto and use MF to get most of the way there for focus (otherwise, the background often wreaks havoc), then (II) activate AF in AI Servo to lock focus on the eyes. With the shallow DOF, AI Servo may be compensating either for photographer motion or subject motion. This is similar to how one may use AI Servo when doing human portraiture with fast glass.
DIS Ottawa wrote:
The next real step up seems to be the 300 2.8 with or without the 1.4 EX and that's $5k!
Well, the AF drive on 400 f/5.6 is plenty fast...as long as light is good.
On targets which are not in the best of light, 300 f/4 IS (and non-IS) have a distinct advantage over 400 f/5.6 because they allow faster camera focusing. Servo AF is even more dependent on good target light than One Shot AF. That's what gives large aperture lenses an advantage, although they might not be as fast in moving their focusing group back and forth. 85L is the prime example of that.
John Power wrote:
I took this beauty when I still had my 100-400. This is a very rare seagull known locally as a "Flying Bird Gull". I think I have the only photo of this bird in Vero Beach, FL.
No camera ? May I suggest 7D? It comes with some sorta horizon levelling gizmo.
John Power wrote:
I took this beauty when I still had my 100-400. This is a very rare seagull known locally as a "Flying Bird Gull". I think I have the only photo of this bird in Vero Beach, FL.
As an aside, I have no camera now so I guess you guys are safe for awhile.
http://i37./28lcdw3.jpg
I find this disgusting and offensive. And I resent it. LOOK at the horizon! No wonder you no longer have a camera.
) the 100-400 AF is quite adequate. Which brings us to the second issue: what birds are there in sufficient numbers to be able to develop/maintain the skill of shooting them in flight. Well, seagulls are certainly very good and common targets in many coastal (large lake) areas around the world. Their flight pattern is relatively easy to track and they do not require much light for proper exposure. Moreover, given an interesting background as well as bird flight attitude, it is certainly possible to produce pleasing shots involving a bird as mundane as a seagull. Even man-made structures could be used for background where natural backdrop of some merit is not available. IMO anything is better than a uniformly vacant sky, if that can be helped.
I was looking forward to an albino peregrine!! I got lucky once and found an albino purple martin.....
You own very good copy of this zoom.