Yakim Peled wrote: PetKal wrote:
200 f/2 IS does Common Terns.
These are all close to 100% crops. The little buggers just wouldn\'t come within the normal reach of a 200mm lens.
Which begs for the obvious question: Why don\'t you use a longer lens when shooting BIF?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I suppose the idea here is to showcase capabilities of a particular lens, and not share the best tern shot one has ever made.
Talking about \"ideal\" FL though, one is at the mercy of many factors......in the case of these particular birds, it is primarily the location of fish schools which either brings them closer to the shore or more distant. A zoom or a couple of primes would be a better solution for coping with unpredictable.
A longer lens often doesn\'t guarantee better captures......either MFD may be too long, the lens is heavier and harder to keep swinging to and fro, and longer lenses are generally of slower aperture and thus do not have as fast focus pickup, a narrower FOV also means it takes a bit longer to zero on a bird in flight.
However, for this kind of a distance as in the images below, the 200mm lens wouldn\'t have been viable at all, even 500mm that the shots were taken with was a bit short , 800mm would have been perfect FL-wise if I did have one and if I could use it handheld.
I guess , what I am trying to say is that one should work with what one\'s got.
Jul 15, 2009 at 09:00 AM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #7305573 « Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots! »
