Mygind66 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...)
Dendrobatid 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)
TS 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.