Lens advice, please

Kate wrote:
 > I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that seemed
 > to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that someone
 > here might be able to help.
 >
 > I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a few
 > months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas)

It's a good one. Don't feel bad about the choice.

 > , together with a
 > 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife
 > photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I find
 > that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm,
 > either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the
 > tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture
 > with the subject I am having to crop the image,

Is this due to not being able to focus close enough or not being able to
get close enough to the subject? I think this is where you need to focus
your attention. You want to be able to take advantage of the entire sensor.
If you need to crop you are dumbing down your camera.

I don't think you have a quality issue with either the body or the lens.

 > after resampling. I
 > then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic
 > aberrations. It is very frustrating. The question I specifically
 > wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon body,
 > would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon
 > lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?
 >
 > Many thanks
 > Kate

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q5y3e.3567$tI6.3130@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
 > Kate wrote:
  >> I have looked through a lot of NGs but could not find one that
  >> seemed
  >> to give the kind of advice I am looking for, so I hoped that
  >> someone
  >> here might be able to help.
  >>
  >> I am very new to digital SLR photography and bought a Canon 300D a
  >> few
  >> months ago (couldn`t afford a better one, alas)
 >
 > It's a good one. Don't feel bad about the choice.
 >
  >> , together with a
  >> 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USB lens. I am most interested in wildlife
  >> photography, especially dragon/damselflies and birds. However, I
  >> find
  >> that I am not getting good, clear, shots with this lens at 300mm,
  >> either with or without a tripod (I know to turn off the IS with the
  >> tripod). Even at that zoom, in order to fill the resulting picture
  >> with the subject I am having to crop the image,
 >
 > Is this due to not being able to focus close enough or not being
 > able to get close enough to the subject? I think this is where you
 > need to focus your attention. You want to be able to take advantage
 > of the entire sensor. If you need to crop you are dumbing down your
 > camera.
 >
 > I don't think you have a quality issue with either the body or
 > the lens.
 >
  >> after resampling. I
  >> then have to sharpen them which exaggerates noise and chromatic
  >> aberrations. It is very frustrating. The question I specifically
  >> wanted to ask is this : bearing in mind the quality of the Canon
  >> body,
  >> would I get much better results if I invested in an L series Canon
  >> lens - say, the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM?
  >>
  >> Many thanks
  >> Kate
 >
 > --
 > Joseph Meehan
 >
 > 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper in
the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I have
set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the focus,
using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be able
to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then sneak
up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much), but
missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field, but
with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak in
focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want to
spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique
that is at fault.

Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only
removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften
the images too much. I have tried converting the images to Lab mode
and blurring the magenta and cyan channels, but then I get left with
black speckles. I have also tried using RAW but didn`t notice much
improvement. As I have been using continuous rather than single-shot
mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to
the CF card.

Thank you again
Kate<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

Kate wrote:

 > .. The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
 > As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
 > concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
 > it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
 > a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. ..


I do feel for you. I have the same problem, but I am not yet ready to
spend the kind of money I would need to get a lens long enough and fast
enough to get to job done.

Your primary problem is you need to crop too much. Your suggested
solutions will not help enough to be worth the cost. You are going to be
spending a 2 or more thousand £. to get what you need.





--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

Kate wrote:

 > The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.

Have you considered using a teleconverter? B&H carries them:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=" target="_blank">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=</a>
You'll lose light using one and your autofocus may not function.
Personally, I almost never use autofocus with a long lens anyway. Quite
a bit cheaper than buying another lens though.

 > Paul : I have downloaded a demo version of Dfine v.1.0, which not only
 > removes noise but jpeg artifacts as well but it does seem to soften
 > the images too much. I have tried converting the images to Lab mode
 > and blurring the magenta and cyan channels, but then I get left with
 > black speckles. I have also tried using RAW but didn`t notice much
 > improvement. As I have been using continuous rather than single-shot
 > mode, there was also the problem of the time it took to send them to
 > the CF card.

Paint Shop Pro 9 has a Digital Camera Noise Removal filter that works
wonders. It does take some skill to use the filter properly. I do have
..pdfs on both DCNR and the Chromatic Aberration Removal filter if you
decide to download the PSP9 demo. They're rather large, as .pdfs usually
are, but I could email them to you if you wanted to see them.


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.neocognition.com/" target="_blank">http://www.neocognition.com/</a>

PSP Tutorial Links:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.psplinks.com/" target="_blank">http://www.psplinks.com/</a>

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/" target="_blank">http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

"Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:d2mpol$6m3$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk:

 >

 > The problem could be that I cannot get close enough to the subject.
 > As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have been
 > concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I can get
 > it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are but
 > a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
 > experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper in
 > the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
 > little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I have
 > set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the focus,
 > using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
 > When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be able
 > to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
 > they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
 > CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then sneak
 > up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
 > minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much), but
 > missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
 > know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field, but
 > with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak in
 > focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
 > doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
 > Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want to
 > spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my technique
 > that is at fault.


  The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is typical
of most zooms. However, it usually sharpens up if you're using an aperture
of f11 or f16.

  Which will also help your depth of field. As the aperture is reduced
in size (the f-number increasing), your depth of field will increase. Small
errors in focus can also be compensated for in this way.

  The problem this leads to is that your shutter speed will become even
slower. The IS in the lens will assist this, but I'd recommend using a
tripod instead. This may lead to a couple of additional problems:

  1. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed will be able
to catch sharply. Not much you can do about this, except try to get more
light on your subject.

  2. If the camera is on a setting allowing it to choose the ISO, it
may be defaulting down to a high speed such as 800 or 1600, which will
increase image noise by a considerable amount. I would suggest setting ISO
within the range of 100-400, which should keep image quality higher. But
this means the shutter speed may remain slow...

  And that's the problem of nature photographers everywhere . Trust
me, I deal with this all the time. Eventually, you seek subjects that you
can exploit better. Or start looking at using strobes, especially with
extenders or multiple strobes set up around your subject for more natural-
looking light...

  At greater distances or with smaller subjects, don't trust autofocus.
The focus sensor may be either not accurate enough, or the subject so small
that the sensor isn't getting the subject at all, but the background. Go
with manual focus, and if the subject is close, use your Depth Of Field
Preview on the 300D to examine the subject for necessary focus (another fun
thing to do, since the viewfinder will darken down when you do this).

  As for getting closer focus, an inexpensive set of extension tubes
will shorten the close-focusing distance of that lens (which is just under
2 meters, right?). They have no lens elements so will not effect the image
quality, nor is it required to go with expensive or OEM makes - however,
they *will* reduce the light a little bit, like closing down the aperture
another stop. I have a set of three Kenkos that work just fine with every
lens I own, including the non-IS version of your lens. Do a websearch on
macro work and you'll learn more about extension tubes.

  Sharpening: Try converting to LAB and selecting the Brighness
channel, and sharpen within that only. What this does is adjust contrast
only in brights and darks, and not the contrast between different colors,
and works much better for sharpening without increasing noise at all. View
the results at 200% and watch high contrast areas - if 'halos' appear,
you're going too far, so back off some.

  Noise can be treated a couple of different ways. You know about
blurring within color channels, which can help, but try it in different
image modes like RGB or CMYK too - noise differs from camera to camera, and
some sensors tend to favor green noise over red, for instance.

  Additionally, you can select the color itself that gives you the
worst problems and blur that (I usually prefer the Noise/Median command in
Photoshop for this, rather than any of the Blurring), or select the color
where the noise is most visible within, like dark greys, and Median *that*
instead. In other words, don't treat the color of the noise, but the color
it's most visible within, which usually leaves the detail areas of your
image alone. Again in Photoshop, you can select a color range like dark
grey, but then use the polygonal lassoo tool and hold down the Alt key to
*Deselect* key areas of the image, where you want to retain the most
detail. Also look into using the History Brush, which will convert key
areas back to original appearance before you started alterations. So what
happens is, you blur out the noise, but then wipe the detail areas with the
History Brush to restore them, and only them, to the starting point.

  That may give you an edge in a couple of areas - hope it helps. Good
luck!


  - Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.wading-in.net" target="_blank">www.wading-in.net</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

"Al Denelsbeck" <news.RemoveThis@wadingin.net> wrote in message
news:Xns962D4F3CB6649sandalsatwadinginnet@66.26.32.8...
 > "Kate" <@*slamaspam*.demon.co.uk> wrote in
 > news:d2mpol$6m3$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk:
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> As the odonata aren`t about yet in this part of the world, I have
  >> been concentrating on birds. I have built a hide but the closest I
  >> can
  >>get
  >> it to the feeders in the garden is about 18 feet, so the birds are
  >> but
  >> a small part of the image as a whole. That is why I crop. I have
  >>experimented, and when I stand about 8 ft away, images are sharper
  >>in
  >> the camera view screen and I would only have to crop the sides a
  >> little. Unfortunately, the birds won`t let me get that close! I
  >> have
  >> set the camera up so that the centre spot is where I want the
  >> focus,
  >> using Tv mode, and have also tried some of the pre-set modes.
  >> When it comes to the odonata season, I had hoped that I would be
  >> able
  >> to get good shots of them from several yards away, as, inevitably,
  >> they will perch in inaccessible places. Previously, using a Nikon
  >> CoolPix 4500, I had to wait until they perched nearby and then
  >> sneak
  >> up on them. I did get lots of good, sharp, shots that only needed
  >> minimal sharpening (they still needed cropping, but not so much),
  >> but
  >> missed many that I might have got with a zoom or telephoto lens. I
  >> know that with telephotos you get a very shallow depth of field,
  >> but
  >> with the 75-300mm at 300 it is so shallow I can get a bird`s beak
  >> in
  >> focus, but not the feet. I think there may be something that I am
  >> doing wrong or not doing at all, but cannot think what it might be.
  >> Any suggestions would be very helpful, please. I really don`t want
  >> to
  >> spend over £1K on a lens and find that, after all, it is my
  >> technique
  >> that is at fault.


 > The 75-300 softens a little bit at the 300mm end, and this is
 > typical
 >of most zooms. However, it usually sharpens up if you're using an
 >aperture
 >of f11 or f16.
 >
 > Which will also help your depth of field. As the aperture is
 > reduced
 >in size (the f-number increasing), your depth of field will increase.
 >Small
 >errors in focus can also be compensated for in this way.
 >
 > The problem this leads to is that your shutter speed will become
 > even
 >slower. The IS in the lens will assist this, but I'd recommend using
 >a
 >tripod instead. This may lead to a couple of additional problems:
 >
 > 1. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed will be
 > able
 >to catch sharply. Not much you can do about this, except try to get
 >more
 >light on your subject.
 >
 > 2. If the camera is on a setting allowing it to choose the ISO,
 > it
 >may be defaulting down to a high speed such as 800 or 1600, which
 >will
 >increase image noise by a considerable amount. I would suggest
 >setting ISO
 >within the range of 100-400, which should keep image quality higher.
 >But
 >this means the shutter speed may remain slow...
 >
 > And that's the problem of nature photographers everywhere .
 > Trust
 >me, I deal with this all the time. Eventually, you seek subjects that
 >you
 >can exploit better. Or start looking at using strobes, especially
 >with
 >extenders or multiple strobes set up around your subject for more
 >natural-
 >looking light...
 >
 > At greater distances or with smaller subjects, don't trust
 > autofocus.
 >The focus sensor may be either not accurate enough, or the subject so
 >small
 >that the sensor isn't getting the subject at all, but the background.
 >Go
 >with manual focus, and if the subject is close, use your Depth Of
 >Field
 >Preview on the 300D to examine the subject for necessary focus
 >(another fun
 >thing to do, since the viewfinder will darken down when you do this).
 >
 > As for getting closer focus, an inexpensive set of extension
 > tubes
 >will shorten the close-focusing distance of that lens (which is just
 >under
 >2 meters, right?). They have no lens elements so will not effect the
 >image
 >quality, nor is it required to go with expensive or OEM makes -
 >however,
 >they *will* reduce the light a little bit, like closing down the
 >aperture
 >another stop. I have a set of three Kenkos that work just fine with
 >every
 >lens I own, including the non-IS version of your lens. Do a websearch
 >on
 >macro work and you'll learn more about extension tubes.
 >
 > Sharpening: Try converting to LAB and selecting the Brighness
 >channel, and sharpen within that only. What this does is adjust
 >contrast
 >only in brights and darks, and not the contrast between different
 >colors,
 >and works much better for sharpening without increasing noise at all.
 >View
 >the results at 200% and watch high contrast areas - if 'halos'
 >appear,
 >you're going too far, so back off some.
 >
 > Noise can be treated a couple of different ways. You know about
 >blurring within color channels, which can help, but try it in
 >different
 >image modes like RGB or CMYK too - noise differs from camera to
 >camera, and
 >some sensors tend to favor green noise over red, for instance.
 >
 > Additionally, you can select the color itself that gives you the
 >worst problems and blur that (I usually prefer the Noise/Median
 >command in
 >Photoshop for this, rather than any of the Blurring), or select the
 >color
 >where the noise is most visible within, like dark greys, and Median
 >*that*
 >instead. In other words, don't treat the color of the noise, but the
 >color
 >it's most visible within, which usually leaves the detail areas of
 >your
 >image alone. Again in Photoshop, you can select a color range like
 >dark
 >grey, but then use the polygonal lassoo tool and hold down the Alt
 >key to
 >*Deselect* key areas of the image, where you want to retain the most
 >detail. Also look into using the History Brush, which will convert
 >key
 >areas back to original appearance before you started alterations. So
 >what
 >happens is, you blur out the noise, but then wipe the detail areas
 >with the
 >History Brush to restore them, and only them, to the starting point.
 >
 > That may give you an edge in a couple of areas - hope it helps.
 > Good
 >luck!
 >
 >
 >- Al.
 >
 >
 > To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
<font color=purple> > Online photo gallery at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.wading-in.net</font" target="_blank">www.wading-in.net</font</a>>

Lots of helpful advice and useful suggestions, so thanks for that.

I have mostly been using shutter speed mode (Canon call it Tv mode)
and trying to get f.8 by using a higher ISO, but even at 400 ISO I
notice a considerable increase in noise, so I do try to use 200 ISO or
lower most of the time. Unfortunately, with photographing odonata,
the option to set up flash units is impossible. However, this is
compensated for somewhat by their preference for warm, sunny
conditions. They do move very quickly and change direction in an
instant, so I have to wait until they have perched, but I still like
to use a high shutter speed if possible. As I mentioned earlier, they
tend to use awkward places to land (for a photographer), say, reeds in
the middle of ponds, or outer branches high up in trees. Hence my need
for a zoom lens : you never know how near or far they will be when
they come to rest. With the bird photography, I did consider getting
some remote flash units, but as I understand that they are triggered
by the flash unit on the camera and I am in a hide with just the lens
sticking out, I didn`t think it would work. Regarding choosing less
demanding subjects, I _like_ photographing dragonflies and birds!

Perhaps a teleconverter would be a possibility, and certainly cheaper
than a longer zoom lens, although I have read that with the lens I
have already, they do not give quite such good results as with lenses
with better optics.

Angela : thanks for the tip about Paint Shop Pro. I already have
Photoshop v.6, Photoshop Elements v.2, and Corel PhotoPaint vs.9 and
11 and don`t know if I could stand having yet another program! I have
been looking on line for plug-ins and stand-alone software that deals
with jpeg artefacts and noise, and am trying some demo versions.
Still, as a perfectionist, I feel as if I should get it right in the
first place without having to make extensive corrections. As regards
using manual focus, I am not sure that I would have the time : with
odonata and birds you have to seize the moment sometimes.

Al : I am going to try your suggestion of converting to Lab and
sharpening in the Brightness channel, although it does seem that
shadows and darker areas generally give the most problems, regardless
of colour, so sharpening in the Brightness channel might make it
worse? I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
_closer_ to the subject? What I was hoping to achieve was to almost
fill the picture with the sharply-focussed subject (a bird or a
dragonfly, for example) whilst still remaining, say, 5.5 metres away.
Am I asking for too much on a limited budget? I think Joseph is
probably right when he says that having to crop so much is my main
problem, and I gather that he does not think the 100-400mm lens I
suggested earlier would be sufficient? Even with a teleconverter,
Joseph? And thanks for your sympathy BTW

I shall persevere and hope to get it right before the odonata season
starts in May, but any further advice would be much appreciated.

Regards
Kate<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

Kate wrote:
  >
 > ... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
 > reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get
 > _closer_ to the subject?


It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in <grin>. I don't know what
combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
diopter I don't know.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

paul wrote:

 > Kate wrote:
  > >
 >
  >> ... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they reduce
  >> the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to get _closer_
  >> to the subject?
 >
 >
 >
 > It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in <grin>. I don't know what
 > combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether macro, tubes,
 > diopter I don't know.

None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do without
frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill the frame
with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing distance. I
have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack them all on a
lens, I can get within inches of what I want to photograph. This works
great for stuff like floral portraits. Obviously, if I tried to use them
with something like a butterfly, the butterfly would just fly off when I
got too close.

The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group today:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php" target="_blank">http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</a>


--
Angela M. Cable
Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.neocognition.com/" target="_blank">http://www.neocognition.com/</a>

PSP Tutorial Links:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.psplinks.com/" target="_blank">http://www.psplinks.com/</a>

5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/" target="_blank">http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

Angela M. Cable wrote:
 >
 > The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to use
 > a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as best she
 > can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in another group
 > today:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</font" target="_blank">http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</font</a>>


17,000 mm telephoto ought to do the trick. It says you need full
daylight for best results. At what distance would a butterfly fill the
screen on this?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

"Angela M. Cable" <cable.DeleteThis@sweetwaterhsa.com> wrote in message
news:eMg4e.2602$uC2.14264@eagle.america.net...
 > paul wrote:
 >
  >> Kate wrote:
   >> >
  >>
   >>> ... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
   >>> reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
   >>> get _closer_ to the subject?
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in <grin>. I don't know
  >> what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
  >> macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.
 >
 > None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
 > that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
 > without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
 > the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
 > distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
 > them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
 > photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
 > Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
 > the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.
 >
 > The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
 > use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
 > best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
 > another group today:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</font" target="_blank">http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</font</a>>
 >
 >
 > --
 > Angela M. Cable
 > Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
 > Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.neocognition.com/</font" target="_blank">http://www.neocognition.com/</font</a>>
 >
 > PSP Tutorial Links:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.psplinks.com/</font" target="_blank">http://www.psplinks.com/</font</a>>
 >
 > 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/</font" target="_blank">http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/</font</a>>

Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
have defined the problem perfectly.

However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
need to stand 18ft away from it? Or, from the other way around, what
set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
formula I could use? I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
(used to have?)

Kate<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

Kate wrote:
 > "Angela M. Cable" <cable.TakeThisOut@sweetwaterhsa.com> wrote in message
 > news:eMg4e.2602$uC2.14264@eagle.america.net...
  >> paul wrote:
  >>
   >>> Kate wrote:
   >>> >
   >>>
   >>>> ... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
   >>>> reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
   >>>> get _closer_ to the subject?
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>
   >>> It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in <grin>. I don't know
   >>> what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
   >>> macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.
  >>
  >> None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
  >> that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
  >> without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
  >> the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
  >> distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
  >> them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
  >> photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
  >> Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
  >> the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.
  >>
  >> The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
  >> use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
  >> best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
  >> another group today:
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</font" target="_blank">http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php</font</a>>
  >>
  >>
  >> --
  >> Angela M. Cable
  >> Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
  >> Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.neocognition.com/</font" target="_blank">http://www.neocognition.com/</font</a>>
  >>
  >> PSP Tutorial Links:
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.psplinks.com/</font" target="_blank">http://www.psplinks.com/</font</a>>
  >>
  >> 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more:
<font color=green>  >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/</font" target="_blank">http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/</font</a>>
 >
 > Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
 > have defined the problem perfectly.
 >
 > However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
 > fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
 > need to stand 18ft away from it?

By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.

 > Or, from the other way around, what
 > set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
 > formula I could use?

h = subject size
I = image size (film or sensor size)
v = distance to subject
f = focal length of lens

I x v
f = ----------
h


 > I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
 > lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
 > Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
 > stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
 > (used to have?)
 >
 > Kate

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

Joseph Meehan wrote:

 > Kate wrote:
 >
  >>"Angela M. Cable" <cable.DeleteThis@sweetwaterhsa.com> wrote in message
  >>news:eMg4e.2602$uC2.14264@eagle.america.net...
  >>
   >>>paul wrote:
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>>Kate wrote:
   >>>> >
   >>>>
   >>>>>... I checked out information on extension tubes and as they
   >>>>>reduce the focussing distance, doesn`t that mean I would have to
   >>>>>get _closer_ to the subject?
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>
   >>>>It is handy to be able to stand back & zoom in <grin>. I don't know
   >>>>what combination gives that, obviously a long lens but whether
   >>>>macro, tubes, diopter I don't know.
   >>>
   >>>None of those three things will do what she wants. All three require
   >>>that you basically "zoom with your feet", something she can't do
   >>>without frightening off the subject. All of these will let you fill
   >>>the frame with a small subject, but it's at the expense of focussing
   >>>distance. I have a set of three diopters (+4, +2. +1), if I stack
   >>>them all on a lens, I can get within inches of what I want to
   >>>photograph. This works great for stuff like floral portraits.
   >>>Obviously, if I tried to use them with something like a butterfly,
   >>>the butterfly would just fly off when I got too close.
   >>>
   >>>The only option I see for her, short of buying a longer lens, is to
   >>>use a teleconverter and then just deal with the loss of light as
   >>>best she can. Speaking of longer lenses, somebody posted this in
   >>>another group today:
   >>>http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/images/images17.php
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>--
   >>>Angela M. Cable
   >>>Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester
   >>>Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source:
   >>>http://www.neocognition.com/
   >>>
   >>>PSP Tutorial Links:
   >>>http://www.psplinks.com/
   >>>
   >>>5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more:
   >>>http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
  >>
  >>Exactly, Angela! Perhaps I didn`t make myself clear earlier, but you
  >>have defined the problem perfectly.
  >>
  >>However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
  >>fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
  >>need to stand 18ft away from it?
 >
 >
 > By my rough calculations that would be about right for the typical
 > digital camera for a 35mm you will need more like 600mm lens.




A 200mm with a 2x converter has a 600mm FOV for a D70 (or 640 on a
Rebel). I have that for a D70 with a +2 diopter for closeups and I did
the following diagram:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/Misc/photography/lenses/closeup-range.pdf>
I mighta screwed it up, very tedious & I'd need to go through the whole
thing again more carefully but this should be approximately what to
expect. The circles indicate the size of the long end of the frame to
scale at the distance captured. Most of the possible variations with
this setup are shown.

With TC (teleconverter) & DO (diopter) the focus ring moved you between
1/2" filling the frame at 2 ft away from the sensor and 3" filling the
frame at around 32" distance.

With closeup diopter and no teleconverter, the 70-200 goes from around
1-1/2" to 4" at around 4-feet.

Without the closeup diopter, 5" fills the screen at about 5 feet to
infinity, 10" at 10 feet.

The teleconverter with no diopter fills the screen with 2-1/2" at 2-feet
to infinity. It's about 6" wide at 10 feet, great for small birds. If
you need to be back 20 feet then you need 800mm.


There ought to be a simpler way to diagram this, I can hardly understand
it. I think it's just different for any given lens design but the basics
should be similar.



 >
 >
  >>Or, from the other way around, what
  >>set-up would I need to do this, please? Is there a mathematical
  >>formula I could use?
 >
 >
 > h = subject size
 > I = image size (film or sensor size)
 > v = distance to subject
 > f = focal length of lens
 >
 > I x v
 > f = ----------
 > h
 >
 >
 >
  >>I have read quite a lot of reviews about zoom
  >>lenses, but have yet to find one that answered this vexing question.
  >>Of course, the lens featured on your link would do the job, if I could
  >>stand in the next county and had muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger
  >>(used to have?)
  >>
  >>Kate
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please 

  >> However, will a 100-400mm with a 1.4x teleconverter fill, or nearly
  >> fill, the frame with a subject that is only about 4-6 ins. high if I
  >> need to stand 18ft away from it?



I have posted a few images using the 100-400 with both
1.4x and 2x converter that might help you decide. Ease of use and loss
of autofocus is another matter!!

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html" target="_blank">http://www.virtually-unlimited.co.uk/test/test.html</a>

John<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Lens advice, please