Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Telephoto Evidence Required Please  
User currently offlineChuffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1968 times:

Hello my learned friends.
Are there any pictures on a.net taken with a tripod on the ground of aircraft leaving contrails/high alt.

If so what was the lens used.


Thanks


Chuffy

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1955 times:

Why do you think a tripod is necessary? When I shoot airliners in high altitude I usually have more than enough light even with ISO 100.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T Seythal
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T Seythal


Taken with a Canon 100-400 at 400mm & f/8.

There are better shots of other people in the database, some with visible rego underneath the wing.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Piotr Tyranski
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Janne Laukkonen - FAP



User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1952 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Lots of dustspots on both your shots TS, please consider a reupload Wink

I agree though, you don't need a tripod to shoot contrails. Might also not be very practical if the aircraft is exactly above you.

Cheers
Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1929 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...)

Enrique


User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 2):
Lots of dustspots on both your shots TS, please consider a reupload

Those were accepted in the good old days ...


User currently offlineChuffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Thank you for your inputs.

I mentioned a tripod because I will be shooting at angles between 30 and 70 degrees as thats the flightpath over my house.

There is a mega large 600/1300mm with a 2 times converter available for cheap money, if this is its only use, is it up to the work?
I have a 300d.

Or is more money better spent on less zoom?

Chuffy


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1669 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1863 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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


User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1852 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.

Thomas


User currently offlineChuffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1784 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


User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1760 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!


User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1716 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! Big grin


User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting Chuffy (Reply 8):
exspensive lower zoom or a cheaper big one

What is expensive or cheap for you?

Enrique


User currently offlineChuffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Quoting Mygind66 (Reply 11):
What is expensive or cheap for you?

About 300 gbp

Chuffy


User currently offlineTS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

Quoting Chuffy (Reply 12):
About 300 gbp

Let's ask this way:
1. What is expensive for you?
2. What is cheap for you?


User currently offlineChuffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

Well I have found an Optica 600/1300mm with 2x converter for 170 GBP or so, an expensive lens would be anything over about 500 GBP

Cheers
Chuffy


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Opinions Required... Please! posted Sat Apr 22 2006 13:38:40 by Eadster
Telephoto Lenses!? Please Help! posted Wed Jan 2 2002 12:20:02 by Ndizani
Some Rejection Input, Please posted Wed Dec 6 2006 04:12:14 by Futterman
Help With Contrast Please posted Tue Dec 5 2006 20:45:54 by LOCsta
Please Help Me Purchase A Camera Under $1000 posted Tue Dec 5 2006 20:35:16 by Vio
Florian Sindermann - Please Contact Me posted Tue Dec 5 2006 11:31:57 by Granite
Let's Get Clear On This Please! posted Mon Dec 4 2006 21:28:52 by ThierryD
Blurry Rejection Help Please posted Mon Dec 4 2006 18:19:13 by Kukkudrill
A Quick Opinion From The Screeners Please! posted Wed Nov 29 2006 17:51:47 by Lufthansi
Dejected!Screener Help Please posted Wed Nov 29 2006 14:18:09 by Ranger703