Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Canon 800mm IS
From: len-001 at verizon.net (Leonard Taupier)
Date: Fri Dec 26 15:01:11 2008
References: <E09513FE-C8F8-415A-A47F-9410C46F6089@gmail.com> <C57AC000.47221%mark@rabinergroup.com> <7ac27f4f0812261434jaa59b1et26cdb1cc444be274@mail.gmail.com>

The problem may be because it is an IS lens. I assume the lens, at 10  
lbs, most likely is on a tripod. If so there are minute vibrations  
between the lens and the tripod which cause the IS to try and  
correct. This correction can also cause the autofocus to continuosly  
focus, or bounce, causing the photo to be slightly out of focus. It  
is shutter speed dependent of course. The best way to get a sharp  
photo with this long of a lens is to have both IS and autofocus off  
when mounted on a tripod.  The grizzly photo was taken at 1/250 sec  
which is slow enough to account for this kind of problem. The moose  
photo was taken at 1/800 sec which should be fast enough to overcome  
the problem so the photo appears sharp in the back focus area. I have  
spent a long time on this issue trying to figure out why some of my  
photos were not as sharp as they should be and not nearly as good as  
my handheld shots. It is no coincidence that the sharpest photos with  
long lenses belong to the photographer that shots with manual focus  
equipment. Also some of the sharpest long autofocus lens shots used  
sand bags and not a tripod. Of course these are only my opinions  
based on my own experiences and observations.

Len


On Dec 26, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Richard Man wrote:

> Yea, but the Canon is an IS lens, so that should give 2 stops at  
> least. Now
> compare them to our "Birdman of Sacramento." Doug uses a shoulder  
> stock and
> a monopod and not a tripod, and does razor sharp wothe non-IS Leica  
> lens of
> 400 and 560mm.
>
> It's the techniques and the skills of the photographer here that  
> makes the
> difference.
>
> I have to agree that it's the lowering of standards. When things  
> are "good
> enough," then the definition of "good enough" will just keep going  
> down
> until it hits a bottom, and it's "good enough" until you compare  
> them with
> masterpieces.
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Mark Rabiner  
> <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Lewis Kemper the photographer it says here in the text I glance  
>> over claims
>> he uses a tripod for just about everything all the time. So you'd  
>> think it
>> was not that....
>> But at 1,280mm I hope he used the rule of thumb rule and also had a
>> carefully braced tripod  AND A 1,280TH OF A SECOND -
>> And be there.
>> And didn't make any other mistakes. Like don't breath.
>> As such super telephoto photography is a whole different ballgame  
>> than
>> you're normally dealing with. I'd always heard.
>> Sandbags on my tripod legs for an appetizer I'd order.
>> Who knows what else?
>> Might be as difficult as macro micro photography.
>> You might need to drug your ameba to slow them down first!
>>
>
>
> -- 
> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
> // b: http://rfman.wordpress.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Canon 800mm IS)
Reply from rmcclure2 at woh.rr.com (rob mcclure) ([Leica] Canon 800mm IS)
In reply to: Message from leowesson at gmail.com (leowesson) ([Leica] Canon 800mm IS)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Canon 800mm IS)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Canon 800mm IS)