Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About D60 Focal Length  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I was looking at these shots by Colin K. Work:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin K. Work
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Colin K. Work



He was shooting a 300mm lense, with a 2x conveter (= 600 total) and add on the D60 frame multiplier of 1.6 and that gives us 960mm?????

Insane!

I cant believe how clear these photos are. How far away was he?


12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

I guess I can answer that  Smile - first shot was, I guess at a distance of 500 meters (maybe a bit more) ... actually the EXIF file off the camera says it was shot at 10.8 meters ! I guess this is because I was in manual focus mode.

2nd shot, I'd guess around 50 meters.

Of course its not a "genuine" 960mm - the image is exactly what you'd get with a 600mm on 35mm if you only used the center 60% of the image - before anyone asks, these shots are pretty much full frame.

As to the clarity ... the lens is Canon's 300mm f4 LIS - one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, coupled to the Canon 2x convertor which takes very little away from the prime lens ... and of course the image stablising is a big help when handholding that combo - it's a nice set up, but no AF on the D60 at an effective f8 aperture.

And thanks for the plug  Smile

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

Colin, is there AF with the 300 F4 and the 1.4X?
the way youre talking i just may have to get me one of dem F4 300 dogs.

Joe


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Colin,
just had a look at the B&H website- they have 300MM F4 IS for less than 1200 dollars. sounds really tempting. Is yours IS also or straight up?

Joe


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

With the 1.4 extender should give you f5.6 if I am not mistaken, so AF would be still possible......Joe you gotta buy the 400 f2.8 then you can mount a 2x extender and still shoot with the AF. I am speaking from experience  Big grin

Vasco


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Vasco, i spend like stupid on my gear but 400 f2.8 is just out of the question my friend  Big grin -thats one huge reason i bought the D60 -for the 1.6X mag so i dont need the 400 F2.8 -even now with just a measely 70-200 and 2x converter im getting slammin results- at 640mm. D60 is the answer to all my prayers for big lens all these years. I am considering the 300mm F4 primarily because with IS and less than 1200- sounds like a deal!

Joe


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Joe - I have the IS version and can recommend it. Yes, you retain AF with a 1.4 convertor, however, AF performance is slower on ALL Canon bodies with Canon lenses when using a convertor - Canon actually pass this off as a feature - something to do with "ensuring precision of focus". When I use the 1.4, I shoot in MF mode anyway.

The good news is that the 300 f4 has to have one of the most delightful focusing mechanisms I've ever used - and I've used a good range of Canon's top manual focus lenses. If all lenses were like this, you'd wonder why they bothered inventing AF in the first place.

Go for it - coupled with the convertors, its a very versatile package at a very managable size and weight ... and in case your interest ever strays from aircraft, the macro capabilities with the 2x convertor attached are nothing less than phenomenal .

Oh, yes, Mr Canon, if you're reading this, cheques or cash equally welcome  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Colin,
my interest in manual focus is slim to none unless really warranted- but besides that, sounds like a good deal- im gonna do some hard thinking about this- given that i have my 70-200 with converters now and i do ok with it. Gonna need a few days thought. And dont you worry about the canon man, he already has a crapload of my money too!

Joe


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3105 times:

Joe - I will say that if I had first purchased a 100-400 and a 70-200, I doubt I would ever have bothered buying the 300. As it happens, I started with a 70-200 and got the 300 and convertors for extra reach - the 100-400 was a lucky 2nd hand find at a later date, hence the overkill!

But although the 100-400 is my most used lens, and probably will continue to be until I get a 2nd SLR body, simply because its so flexible, the 300 is my favorite for quality and sheer pleasure of use.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Colin, basically theres no burning need for a 300 for me i would say given the thinking i've done and hearing what you have said. right?

Joe


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3068 times:

Can't answer that one Joe - if you need to shoot at 600mm this is probably the most cost effective way to get there without sacrificing quality ... if that's not a big concern for you, then I guess not - the 70-200 with convertors gives you plenty of scope and flexibility up to 400mm.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3085 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Pritchard



Now, it is not a patch on Colin's D60 960mm shots for many reasons but that is also an effective 960mm shot. Was on a D30 not a D60 and also 2 other things, lens was 'bog-standard' 75-300mm and 2x converter was not a Canon one.

I think it was shot from the same location as Colin's shots...car park Colin?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Pritchard



That was at full effective 960mm same equipment as above. Quality is not too good with my equipment as Colin's but I do like having the option of such a large focal length.

LGW



User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

Ben - yes the carpark - I noticed that shot immediately ... you obviously ignored the "keep off" signs I've had errected on my patch  Smile
I must say that the combination of zoom and generic convertor works better than I would have expected - lacking a little in contrast and definition compared to the Canon prime & convertor, but certainly good results.

Actually, in terms of absolute image quality, I think the D30 is a little better than the D60 - ever so slightly smoother and a little less noise, probably down to the sensor having lesser pixel density - I believe Canon have returned to this density with the 1Ds.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
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...
Question About Focal Length. posted Sat Apr 17 2004 03:06:03 by Go3Team
Question About Bangkok Suvarnabhumi International posted Sun Nov 19 2006 15:34:39 by Airimages
Question About Priority Screening posted Sun Nov 19 2006 06:37:48 by XAAPB
A Question About PS Jpeg Options posted Tue Nov 7 2006 10:02:25 by Stil
A Question About Doubles And Motive posted Sun Oct 15 2006 14:49:31 by Psych
Question About Phuket posted Sun Oct 15 2006 09:56:03 by Airimages
Question About Motiv. posted Wed Sep 13 2006 04:51:41 by COIAH756CA
Question About How To Avoid Jaggies posted Tue Aug 29 2006 13:24:58 by Coninpa
Screener Question About Catagory posted Thu Jun 22 2006 16:05:36 by AIRBUSRIDER
Question About Serial Numbers? posted Wed May 24 2006 01:31:56 by Walter2222