Mygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
I agree with the problem facing when the aircraft is on top.. It's really difficult to manage this with a tripod.. In these cases a monopod can help.. but normally I use the camera without them, probably because when I see one aircraft in high altitude is a quick photo ( I'm at home and have no time to prepare everything...)
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
I have never tried uploading one of these images, must do so one day, but the only way they are going to get accepted is when the trail forms a part of the image.
I get reasonable images with a Sigma 50-500 on a Canon 20D (aircraft at cruising altitude)
Mick Bajcar
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1317 times:
Chuffy,
With a 600mm lens you need an extra, extra sturdy & long tripod & also a professional head. We're talking about hundreds of pounds. The roof of a car mostly will do, so I'd try without a tripod first.
Chuffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
Thanks TS.
Would you go for a more exspensive lower zoom or a cheaper big one, just for the sole purpose of photographing at high alt from the ground?
Chuffy
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 2): Lots of dustspots on both your shots TS, please consider a reupload
Wow, how did those slip by? No equalization required here!
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Quoting Chuffy (Reply 8): Would you go for a more exspensive lower zoom or a cheaper big one, just for the sole purpose of photographing at high alt from the ground?
Hm, I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. If you want to shoot airliners in upper air space only, buy the longest lens you can get (afford). As a rule of thumb, prime lenses are more expensive but also much better in quality. I'm sure the Canon EF 500 f/4L IS or Canon 600 f/4L IS would be excellent choices, especially if equipped with a teleconverter, but they are out of reach for the vast majority of photographers, including me.
If you want to spend less money check out the Canon 100-400, the Sigma 50-500 or the Sigma 170-500. Both the Sigma zooms don't have image stabilizers, but that shouldn't be a major problem with exposure times of 1/500s. A lens that is mentioned again & again in forums is the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L. Also doesn't have an image stabilizer, but it's supposed to be tack-sharp even wide open. With my 100-400 I only use f/8 or even smaller apertures. Otherwise everything looks blurry.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 9): Wow, how did those slip by? No equalization required here!
When uploading a photo just type in your credit card number in the remark field. This works wonders!
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
