Hello folks

 

I've got a Canon 1000d, which is my first SLR.  I love the camera, which I bought on here.

 

It came with the standard 18-55 lens, which is a nice enough little lens, but at Eastbourne Airborne last month I got a little carried away and took 721 pictures.  All of little planes, a long way off.

 

I think it's time I delved into a lens where I can bring things a bit closer.  I'm a happy amateur and don't have aspirations of being David Bailey, so don't need anything particularly s****y (s w a n k y - oh for goodness sake!) .  A friend has suggested moving to a 150 or 200.

 

So any tips or recommendations would be gratefully received. 

 

TIA

 

Gaz

I use a EF 28-70mm as an all rounder, works great.

Even a substantial zoom will struggle to make the planes bigger!

The second lens I bought was a Canon 55-250 which I am impressed with.  From memory it didn't cost a fortune.  Or try London Camera Exchange as they do second hand stuff.

I would agree with mk4gtitrubo above - the 55-250 would probably be the cheapest route for a longer lens and will get you decent pictures (not the best lens in the world but should be acceptable).

 

I bought the Sigma 70-300 when I had my 400D a few years back - decent enough lens and certainly lasted me well until I made the decision to upgrade to a Sigma 50-500 (which is a whole different price range).

 

A key to using longer lenses in particular is to try to keep the shutter speed to below 1/focal length so at 250 you should aim for 1/250. This is without taking image stabilisation in to account which can help by 3 stops (a stop being a doubling of halving of the shutter speed). IS would (possibly) allow for 1/125 (1 stop), 1/60(2 stops) or 1/30(3 stops) without movement blur being a huge issue.

 

One thing to bear in mind for airshows though is the use of shutter speed for shooting certain aircraft:

1) fast jets - shoot as fast as you like.

2) Propeller planes - try to limit the shutter speed to allow for propeller blur other wise it looks like the aircraft is floating without a moving engine. I would generally stay as slow as possible (maybe 1/100) to allow for some blur.

I'm sure my first camera came with a Canon 55-250mm as mentioned above.  Link below:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-Selected-Digital/dp/B000V9D5LG

 

Now use a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and I love it but is not exactly cheap.

 

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77929/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=70-200mm%20f2.8%20DG%20OS%20Lens%20for%20Canon%20EF&gclid=CN_sxcjJ48ACFRMatAodrkwAcw

 

Also for a cheap all round lens can't beat a nifty fifty.  Prime but very capable.

 

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/12878/Show.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA&utm_term=EF%2050mm%20f1.8%20MK2&gclid=CL7Lm-LJ48ACFUXLtAodvCsAyw

I've got the EF 75-300 mm f/4.0-5.6 III which can be found at a good price, beyond 250 though I've had issues with image stability.

I've got the EF 75-300 mm f/4.0-5.6 III which can be found at a good price, beyond 250 though I've had issues with image stability.

That is why you have to be aware of the rule of thumb of 1/focal length.

 

Albeit it is a generalisation but for most people it does work to limit movement blur. Some people with shakier hands can find they might need to go quicker, I have found with practise, good posture and careful breathing I can go a reasonable amount slower. Some chat about it on a different forum that I am a member off - linky

Thanks for the replies and advice chaps 

 

Sounds like the 55-250mm is a good bet then.

 

Gaz

Thanks for the replies and advice chaps 

 

Sounds like the 55-250mm is a good bet then.

 

Gaz

Yes I would say so (on a bang for buck basis) but also practise to allow you to get the best performance out of it.

I have a sigma 135-400 f4.5-5.6 APO non IS. It's fine for bright days, and has a great reach to enable some frame filling shots. IMHO whatever big glass, budget for a mono or tripod.

 

The old trick of your legs being the best zoom is kind of blown at airshows as you can't get that close. I used it on trackdays where panning is easy to predict after one lap

 

Went out on Sunday to catch the lancasters over derwent. When deciding between lenses I went for the 18-200 IS canon, it wasn't a bright day and I was into the sun to cap it all.  However I learnt that taking photos of camouflaged planes against trees and earth means very little for the focus engine to pick out... But not frame filling at less than half a mile horizontal, so I should of used the sigma

 

Had the event lasted more than a few moments I may of switched.

 

Anyhow it; the sigma 135-400, is for sale if it's of interest we can discuss...

PM sent Colin 

 

The old trick of your legs being the best zoom is kind of blown at airshows as you can't get that close. 

 

I did consider running after the Red Arrows, but decided it was probably not going to achieve much.  In my younger days maybe... 

 

Gaz

A friend who is a professional aircraft photographer uses a 300mm prime for his airshow work.

I got a 70-300 Canon lens for my Eos 500D a couple of years back - was at Waddington air show at the time and managed to persuade SWMBO by showing her the pics I took with the standard, "free with the body" 18-55mm.

 

The lens I got was actually designed for the old school 35mm film SLR's so the 300mm end of it actually equates to around 400mm on the DSLR - AF is a little slower than on the newer lenses but it was a bargain at £50 and takes superb shots:

Apologies if the pic isn't visible, I'm in the process of moving stuff from FB to photobucket at the moment and this didn't get moved yet

70-300 tamron will do you nice, I got mine brand new for about £100, I now use a 70-200 fx lens on a dx body so get a good focal length. A monopod will be useful but also setting up the camera helps, multi AF points and AF-c for your auto focus so it can keep up with the plane. Sometimes you don't want a super fast shutter speed for copters and propella planes so you can see the blur. That comes down to steady hands and panning 

Anyhow it; the sigma 135-400, is for sale if it's of interest we can discuss...

 

Guess who's now the proud owner of a Sigma 135-400?  :sun: 

 

(Cheers Colin  )

 

Gaz

Enjoy it. Also Kilted advice on top of all that other stuff is going to really help too.

I have had Canon for years, I can highly recommend the 70-300mm IS (Canon Lens) it is very good value for money, it was even described as "L" quality in a standard lens by one of the camera mags!

 

 One thing I will say, always buy the best you can afford, a Canon lens on a Canon body will always be better than after market lenses, also don't be afraid to buy second hand, I bought a 100-400mm that looked well used but the image quality is fantastic.

 

 

 Here is a plane taken with the 100-400

 

 

 

and the 70-300 lens on a 400D body through a mesh fence

 

Here is a good website for reviews of lenses. Once you find the lens you want to know about I find the SLR website gives an excellent review also.

 

http://www.eflens.com

 

 Here is why the 70-300 IS lens is worth buying.  http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11

 

70-300mm IS USM lens     equivalent of 112-480mm allowing for your camera body crop factor

Your standard 18-55mm will struggle with shots of planes in the air, THOUGH, by shooting at maximum resolution and using a photo editor to "wash" the image, you can get some results but 100+mm is a better size to start with and they arent that expensive

 

I took this with a 18-140mm on my Nikon

 

 

Its not great but at least viewable

 

before the wash and after

 

Rather than start a new thread I thought I would just hijack this one so hope the op doesn't mind.

 

Last week I visited RAF Conningsby to see the Typhoon display pilot do his Pre Display Authorisation flight.  Loads of people there with the same idea.  Lovely clear day with lots of sun and a heat haze in the sky.  I have a Canon EOS 450D that i have had for a while now.  I had the 55 - 250mm 5.6 lens fitted. 

 

First of all I had problems because the camera was o completely the wrong setting.  My fault because we had ages before any flying took place and I stupidly did not check the setting rather just relied on what they are on normally.  I normally shoot on AV with continuous burst but I must have caught the camera as it was on M.  All of the first pictures are completely over exposed by miles as the sky is just pure white.  Eventually I twigged and changed it back to AV but noticed it was set on cloudy in the white balance.  Changed that back onto bright sunshine as it was and just kept banging away.

For a start I took a few of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Dakota bimbling about and those pictures are not too bad.  Then the Typhoon took off and I just kept my finger on the button and panned with it each and every time it was near enough. 

 

All in all I took in excess of 450 pictures and when I downloaded them onto the laptop I deleted half of them as they were blurred, blown or just rubbish.  OK I know that is one of the beauties of digital cameras because you can be choosy.  What I am left with though is still very poor and to be honest quite frustrating.  For a start I would have expected the lens to be able to cope with the distance involved but when I crop the pictures they are all grainy and many of them blurred.

 

I was shooting on RAW plus L setting and the IS was switched on.

 

Having done a bit of research last night on line I have to say I am not much wiser to what the problems(s) could be.  I have read on one site that IS is of no use for a moving object and obviously I was panning for the shots so both the object and I am moving.  I also read in here and elsewhere about the speed setting but as I am shooting on AV I cannot change the speed setting as it is done automatically isn't it?

 

So my question really is should I be using AV or should I be using something where I can change the shutter speed?  Also should I leave IS switched on or not?  I am thinking of looking for a longer lens second hand but the 70 - 300mm one mentioned in here would not make that much difference so is it better to go for something upto 400mm?

 

I have not posted any of the pictures in here because I am unsure if it would help due to the size limit.  Any help would be appreciated. 

 

I have used the camera for a number of years now and produced fairly good pictures and it has been used for a Moto GP at Silverstone and many railway pictures of trains at all manner of speeds without problem.

 

I know now to check the settings each and every time I use the camera and to use the Hitorgram and view what I have just taken to see if anything is wrong so I have learned a lesson thankfully.  I would just like to find out why the pictures are so grainy when cropped.  Friend who took pictures on his point and shoot has far better results just with digital zoom which is all a crop is anyway.  Puzzling.  Any help would be appreciated. 

I just keep practising.  A tripod is an absolute necessity as I can't keep a camera steady for the life of me.  I was really disappointed with the photo's I put up in the photography thread of the mist at Beachy Head recently (some of which were at 400, and the light was fading fast) and other people have taken much better photo's.  I seem to do better with a 13 year old point and shoot Minolta, but I've not given up yet.

 

Trying to take photo's of bats at dusk and the ISS in perfect conditions are recent challenges where I've failed miserably!

 

Gaz

Even a substantial zoom will struggle to make the planes bigger!

Not a very helpful post from an avid photographer

I run a Sigma 18-250 for most situations, but if I want to get closer (ie making the planes bigger) I have a Sigma 50-500

Just out of interest on the making things bigger bit, this was at 55:

 

 

And this was at 400:

 

 

Just to show the difference.

 

Gaz

I see the Sigma lenses are considerably cheaper than the Canon ones I have seen Brian.  I don't want to be paying more for a lens than I did for the camera and two lenses!  It won't be in daily or even weekly use but it would be good to have something I can produce better shots with as and when I go again.

 

I just cannot understand why when shot on the largest file format it becomes grainy so quickly when it is cropped.  Of course it is difficult to say just how far an aircraft is away but even then some of the shots are well within what I would have expected to be able to crop for a good close up.