New 'L' lens bird pics

[hotspur]

I unpacked my first L series lens this morning

its a 400mm prime F5.6, i got specifically for bird photography,

sports action,and it may be good for astro photography,i really

just wanted some resonable bird photos,

Here are some that i took within the first hour of testing,

apart from size reduction,and crop,no other adjustments.

I am rather pleased,as these pics are hand held,leaning on fence post.

PS,if anyone wants to buy my two month old 70-300mm lens,its for

sale in camera sales,i will not be needing it for my bird photography

regards Hotspur

[Liz]

Beaautiful shots Chris, you must be happy with them.
Have you noticed a big increase in quality with the new lens?

[acropolite]

An excellent choice Chris, that lens takes a 1.4x TC very nicely as well. I've actually seen images from that lens with a 1.4 and 2x converter stacked and the results were still very good. You have to be vey happy with those shots.

[hotspur]

Yes.Liz,a large improvement,its a prime lens which means no zoom

fewer elements,very sharpe images,it feels like it focouses quicker.as i said these images taken within first hour of use,hand held.i am told
when used with tripod,even better results,also its new,need to get use to it,but so far its pretty easy to get to get images like the above.

I bought it for bird photography,and in that field want to hopefully get
some good raptor pics with it.

The lens was worth the money,i would recommend L lenses:thumbsup:

cheers

[dpastern]

Phil - sure, it'll take the TCs, but you won't get AF unless you have a 1 series body. Even then, with the 2x TC, you won't get AF with a 1 series body, only with the 1.4x TC.

Chris - excellent shots. That's a super lens you have there, it'll serve you will for years to come. Artie Morris swears by this lens too. If you don't know who he is, Google him and enjoy. Oh, and get his Book (on CD) - well worth the cost imho.

Dave

[Octane]

Chris,

Congratulations on the purchase of that super lens!

And, your first tweet shots look fantastic, too. A marked improvement over the 70-300mm shots.

Well done!

Now, turn it to the heavens and take some nebulas. :)

Regards,
Humayun

[hotspur]

Thanks Humayun

Its by looking at experienced peoples' pics,like yourself that helped

me make the right decsion in investing in a piece of quality gear.A big thanks to Dennis Simons for all his advice and imput.

I am thinking about a 70 -200 F2.8 non IS for my next one.

I am told there is two camps regarding IS or non IS,whats your view Humayun and Acropolite?

I am not experienced enough to have a strong view,but from what i
have used in the past.i feel i am leaning towards non IS.

I hear there is two camps regarding UV filters,what are peoples thoughts on these.?

Thanks again Humayan,its nice to get words of encourgment from experienced photogaphers,

[astroron]

Nice shot's Chris.
Well Done

[Quark]

Hi Chris,

Really like these shots of yours. So much detail from a great lens, indeed.
Chris, I have no experience with such a lens as this, I wonder how far were you able to be from the subject?

Regards
Trevor

[jjjnettie]

Beautiful work Chris.
What a wonderful lens!

[Octane]

Chris,

From the viewpoint of photographing weddings, IS is a must in dimly lit churches and indoor events.

Having said that, I use my 200mm f/2.8L prime that doesn't have IS, for the formal portaits after the ceremony and every shot is crisp! Even in late afternoon shots, at f/2.8-f/5.6.

If you can afford the IS version of the 70-200, get it (there's a fair amount of premium over the non-IS version). Ultimately, just bear in mind that it is a heavy beast, and, your final decision will rest on what you wish to photograph.

Regards,
Humayun

[leon]

Excellent work Chris, very sharp indeed, have to agree they are a beaut lens.

Leon

[acropolite]

Chris, if you intend to do terrestrial, IS is a big plus, as for filters, I try to avoid them, in my experience filters often soften the image or introduce additional reflections.

On the other hand if you're rough on your gear and likely to knock your lenses then filters are good insurance, in that case buy the best you can afford (Kenko Pro or Hoya Pro for example) and buy slim versions if you are using wide angle.

As for the 70-200, I went for the F4 IS version, it's much cheaper, lighter, more compact and is reputed to be as sharp or sharper.

Unless you really need the extra speed of the 2.8 or want a really shallow DOF there's little point in spending the extra on the 2.8, the difference in price will buy you a good macro lens.

[dugnsuz]

Top work Chris - that lens is excellent in your hands.
Doug

[Nightskystargaz]

:), nice bird pic's.

:thanx:,

Tom

[ving]

nice work sire!

i have heard the 100-400L is sharper than the prime... judging by these the zoom would have to be sharper than a razor.