Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Need more reach

  1. #1
    Member shoturtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC and Frankfurt AM
    Posts
    44

    Need more reach

    After shooting at jfk yesterday, I really need more reach to spot there. Unlike FRA, where my spots all I need is a 200mm<. So I am trying to decided if I should go whole hog and get a canon 100-400L or just add a keno 1.4x dgx TC. Any opinions or other options out there?
    Last edited by shoturtle; 08-02-2011 at 05:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Cary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,984
    If you have the money, go for the 100-400. I used to use the Canon 70-200 2.8 + Canon 1.4x II at JFK, and the results were a tad soft at 200mm, and the reach still wasn't quite there for some locations. JFK is the reason I bought the 100-400.
    AeroPX Aviation Photography - Website | Facebook
    AVP Talk (Aviation Photography Talk) - http://avptalk.com
    1/400 Diecast Aircraft Models - http://diecastwings.com

  3. #3
    Member shoturtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC and Frankfurt AM
    Posts
    44
    That was what I was thinking, but I have a dislike of big heavy lenses. That is the only reason I never brought the 100-400L, and I use the non L 70-300 for most my shooting. I like to travel light. But next to JFK, my other spotting airports do not need a 400mm. Do I get a lens for just jfk.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Cary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,984
    Depends on how much you plan on shooting JFK. With a 1.4x extender, you won't really notice that much a difference from places like HoBe. The 100-400 is heavy, but is about the same length or smaller than the 70-200mm 2.8 when storing.
    AeroPX Aviation Photography - Website | Facebook
    AVP Talk (Aviation Photography Talk) - http://avptalk.com
    1/400 Diecast Aircraft Models - http://diecastwings.com

  5. #5
    Senior Member ANITIX87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    354
    100-400 is by far my most-used lens at JFK. For the mounds and Panera, it's absolutely perfect. For Inwood it's still a little short, and for HoBe it's perfect for widebodies (but still quite short for the little stuff).

    I'm also relatively certain Manny's lens of choice is the 200-400 f/4 and that he uses this the most for JFK. Nick uses his 80-200 for the closer spots, and his 300 f/4 for the farther ones (he may have an 80-400, too).

    You really can't go wrong with the 100-400. It's sharp, really not that heavy (especially if you have a battery grip, then the balance is perfect), and for the price, you won't beat it (even the 400 f/5.6, which is lighter, doesn't perform as well in certain conditions).

    Don't dally with a teleconverter. Get a lens suited to it, and you'll be thankful. And then if you go to another airport in Europe (since FRA is your local), it may just be the most useful thing in your bag. I used the 100-400 last winter at GVA and ZRH (along with my 18-135, I'll admit) and it wasn't too much lens from many of the spots.

    TIS
    Antonis Panayotatos
    Owner, Photographer
    www.stellaryear.com

    Canon 5D MkIII, Canon 7DMkII: Canon 24-70L USM II, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4ART, Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM

  6. #6
    Member shoturtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC and Frankfurt AM
    Posts
    44
    At FRA my lens of choice is a 85 or 100 primes, do not need any longer form the spot I shoot at. The 100-400L would be a 1 airport lens. I just can not seem to pull the trigger on the 100-400L because of the, but the kenko will AF with the 100-400L in good lighting. 1400 on a lens I will only use at jfk, tough decision.

  7. #7
    perhaps try renting...not sure how it is overseas but over in the states you can get a lot of good rentals pretty dang easily.
    Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

  8. #8
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    Get both, for different reasons :-)

    You really always want to have the focal length you want as purely as possible. a TC will always be a compromise. My rule is a simple one. SUBJECT DISTANCE is key! Stay close to your subject and use the focal length to magnify smaller subjects to fill the frame.

    Hobe is a problem because it is phisically difficult to get closer so you need more focal length... no questions you would want a 500mm minimum with a crop sensor of high MP count for the best results and ability to crop with more pixels left to play with.

    I would only use the TC on a really fast exotic optic. And getting a KEnko TC will also reduce quality even further.

    However, if you are strapped for cash or simply are not that quality conscious, the TC is certainly a good way to hold you up.

    I use a Nikon TC 17 which is 1.7x on my 200-400mm f/4 with so-so results at close range and HORRIBLE results at long range. But that also has to do with my lens which is poor to begin with at distant subjects.

    Once you get really long on distance, exotics like the 600mm f/4s and the 800mm f/5.6 have a much different optical formula than say a 400mm f/4 which really designed for close range but high magnification... it is really designed for Baseball! 90 feet is the sweet spot for the 400mm f/4 from Canon and Nikon.

    Just get the 100-400mm and be happy for a long time. I know folks who have switched from Nikon to Canon just so they can shoot the 100-400mm :-)
    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  9. #9
    Member shoturtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC and Frankfurt AM
    Posts
    44
    I have a adorama account as NYC is home also. I have rented the 100-400L before. That is why I know that it would not be used except for spotting. It is just a bit to bulky to carry around.

  10. #10
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    And I forgot to add, I am OBSESSED with quality images. Yes, my 200-400mm f/4 is super heavy, very expensive and worth it when you see the results... no CA, flaring, ghosting, nada.. super sharp even at f/4, corner to corner and almost zero vignetting at f/4 on full frame, none on crop sensor!

    Even so, I am thinking of investing on slower, cheaper alternative like a 80-400mm Nikkor or similar for a more stealthier and portable setup. Yes, I love the quality but sometimes, when the conditions are not exactly great for wielding the beast, a smaller package can get the shot quickly and unnoticed... there are always compromises to make.
    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  11. #11
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    Quote Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
    I have a adorama account as NYC is home also. I have rented the 100-400L before. That is why I know that it would not be used except for spotting. It is just a bit to bulky to carry around.
    Ha! if you think that's bulky, stop listening to me then LOL... seriosuly, it is totally compact when tucked away in the short position and not heavy at all.

    I think my 70-200mm f/2.8 + TC17 is likely heavier!
    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  12. #12
    Member shoturtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC and Frankfurt AM
    Posts
    44
    I rent the canon 70-200 2.8l mk2 allot, that is a anchor. I just prefer lighter lenses.

  13. #13
    Program Coordinator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,077
    Alrightly, I'll just say it - I sold my 100-400 for the 70-200 f/2.8 II and I won't look back. The lens is way, way better than the 100-400...and in my opinion when the 1.4 ext is added on it, it is still sharper than the 100-400. I've also used the 70-300L is quite nice.

  14. #14
    Senior Member megatop412's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia(south Jersey, actually)
    Posts
    3,279
    For a while I actually entertained the idea of switching to Canon just to be able to use the 100-400. I'll admit it was tempting. Then I found the Sigma 150-500 and I forgot all about it.

    The 150-500 is in no way a 'pro' lens, but you have to ask yourself...are you needing pro results, or will simply 'good-looking' shots do? Until this is my paying gig, the Sigma is just fine. It's a bargain for what it does, and it comes in a Canon mount as well.

  15. #15
    Senior Member JDANDO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    KMSP, KANE
    Posts
    863
    My 100-400 gets a lot of use; KJFK, CYUL, KBOS, KMSP, KCMH, KPHX, etc. If I can only pack one lens for spotting, it is this one. If you think it is too big and bulky try and rent/borrow the 400L F5.6. Light, fast focusing and very sharp, you only give up flexibility.
    Jeremy in Minnesota

    My pictures on jp.net

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •