Low Level - what lenses

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

A bit of a follow-on from my more general enquiry elsewhere...

What lenses are you folks using for low level photography at present?

Would appreciate any feedback on good sizes, fixed or zoom, good/bad optics etc.

Smile

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

Martin from lowfly has recommended that 300mm more than adequate.

However most of us that have been and the regulars are using 100-400's and fixed lens outfits.

I have even used my 50-500 lens. It depends where you are in the low fly areas.

Location : Mildenhall

It really depends on the location.
100-400 is ok at most.
Dave.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

The trusty Canon 100-400IS seems to come up a lot. My experience was that it wasn't all that great optically - some others seem to think so too - any thoughts?

What about Sigma's stuff?

Moderator Location : Between Coventry and Leicester

The Bigma 50-500 is not a bad lens. covers many focal lengths.
Low Level - what lenses Lowlevelharrier

Subject: Re: Low Level - what lenses 2009-06-17, 05:06

I have changed my Canon 100-400L for the latest Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 only 3 months ago. The reason for the change was my 100-400L lost quality and alot of light at the 400mm end. The valleys in Wales (and I suppose it's the case for other areas) can be poorly lit at times and the f2.8 really helps. Ok, it's not IS but with the correct panning, you can overcome this and the quality of the new Sigma speaks for itself. It is a fantastic lens. I would have purchased the Canon 300mm f2.8 but cost put me out of the market for that one, I am now glad I purchased the Sigma because the versatility of the zoom outways the prime 300mm, especially when a C-130 flies past. Wink

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Interesting! I'm getting a lot of feedback which suggests that IS systems aren't all they're cracked up to be in any case. In some instances on technical tests, they often offer much less than the 2-3 stops of stabilisation they claim to produce. I guess the big question is whether (as you say) the flexibility of a zoom outweighs the better optical quality of a fixed lens?

Vulcan, I read a lot about the big Sigma lens but what do you think about the results? I would imagine that an awful lot of shots must be lost due to camera shake? Likewise, just how useful is a 500mm? Is there actually much use for it? I never found much use even for 400mm so I wonder whether the bigger lenses can be a bit too big for the job?

Moderator Location : Between Coventry and Leicester

I find a small 70-300mm gives a lot more camera shake then the 50-500.
this is down to the weight and balance of the lens.
for props and going down to 1/60th of say a static spit with prop turning then shake will be evident.
a tripod shorts this out thou.

panning at 1/160 is not a problem.

the 50mm end of the 50-500 is very good and useable in many areas. over 420mm the lens goes soft at F8-F9, for the money its a good allrounder.for this hobby

Location : edinburgh Spotter Watch Member : no

Using the 100-400mm myself I have never had much problem quality wise other than operator induced! Roll Eyes

The lens always being enough wether it be in the Loop or Lakes.
But the 300mm F2.8 does seem to be a more favourable choice and you can always add a 1.4X to it if you feel you arent getting close enough.

500mm might be useful if you want something coming in at you head on.

Location : Aberystwyth Spotter Watch Member : no

I've seen lots of 100-400 lenses used on the Mountains in Wales and I've used a few different ones myself, here's a mini-review of sorts which might be useful (should this be its own thread)?:

Canon 100-300 USM
This was the first combo I tried at low level, the lens is fairly cheap but has a USM motor which gives you reasonably quick focusing in good light. The max aperture size at 300mm is f/5.6 which isn't much use in the winter - the lens is also quite soft at 300 and needs to be stopped down to F/8 to be really sharp - only any use on the brightest of days.

Canon 300 F/4L
This is a fantastic prime lens and a good length to use in the mach loop. The focusing is very fast and the lens is very sharp at F/4. The reasonable max aperture means that the 300 F/4 can take a 1.4TC and retain focusing on most bodies. The real benefit of this lens is the price, I bought mine from the classifieds on talk photography for about £300 - super bargain!

Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 [Canon Fit]
Not a bad lens at all but very heavy - I mean really heavy! The image quality is pretty good, certainly rivals the Canon 300 when both are at F/4. The wide aperture of F/2.8 allows the camera body to focus the lens in lower light, making this useful for use on those darker days in the loop.

[This year I switched from Canon to Nikon]
Sigma 100-300 F/4 [Nikon Fit]
Another decent quality Sigma lens, perhaps a little more contrasty than the 120-300 and almost as sharp at F/4. The HSM motor in both of the Sigma lenses is pretty good and almost as fast as the Nikon AF-S and Canon USM systems. The lens is still quite heavy and very long but does a very good job of staying sharp all the way through the range.

Nikkor 300 F/4D (IF) AF-S ED
I once read that the only lens better than the Nikkor 300 F/4D is the F/2.8D and having seen results from both I'd probably agree. The lens is very very sharp and offers excellent contrast and colour reproduction. The AF-S motor is fast and quiet - this lens really shines when a 1.4x teleconvertor is attached* where the difference to image quality is imperceivable. It really is a great lens but its also double the price of the Canon offering. I'd say it is a little better all round but its certainly not twice as good.

Primes vs Zooms
Primes will almost always be sharper, especially when used wide open - if you don't want to compromise on image quality then this is the way to go. Zoom lenses offer more flexibility, very useful when photographing from a fixed location. With prime lenses your only choice is to "zoom with your feet" which can mean lots of moving around depending on what comes around the corner. I prefer shooting with primes because they give you one less thing to worry about, if the aircraft comes too close to fill the frame I'll move to focus on the cockpit or some other creative measure.

Image Stabilisation or Vibration Control
Depends - A 300 F/6.3 with VR isn't really going to be any use, A 300 F/2.8 VR might be more useful but I've never bothered with VR or IS so I can't give an informed opinion.

Hope this helps Thumbs Up

Subject: Re: Low Level - what lenses 2009-07-03, 08:32

Hi have both sigma and Canon lenses...My Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is one hell of a lens and in my opinion..SHARPER than the Canon.....As Jason has said it is alot cheaper..it is heavy but I actually think that this helps...Low level is NO AIRSHOW...You will not be holding the body and lens all day as you are at some airshows so the weight argument does not really hold true...If your budget stretches..get the Sigma..!!!

I love mine.Had it 3 years now and it is very versatile for the larger aircraft that frequent the LFA....
Enjoy the climbs..enjoy the views and most of all enjoy the sights and sounds of jets down in the weeds..

Neil.

Location : Aberystwyth Spotter Watch Member : no

PhoenixFlyer wrote:: Hi have both sigma and Canon lenses...My Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is one hell of a lens and in my opinion..SHARPER than the Canon.....As Jason has said it is alot cheaper..it is heavy but I actually think that this helps...Low level is NO AIRSHOW...You will not be holding the body and lens all day as you are at some airshows so the weight argument does not really hold true...If your budget stretches..get the Sigma..!!!

I love mine.Had it 3 years now and it is very versatile for the larger aircraft that frequent the LFA....
Enjoy the climbs..enjoy the views and most of all enjoy the sights and sounds of jets down in the weeds..

Neil.

On the weight issue - thats fine if you don't go to airshows or you can afford to buy a lens for both but if you can only afford one telephoto lens for aviation which includes airshows and low flying stuff then weight might be a big issue for you.