I wish I had better equipment ..... examples attached..

[ottor]

I have a Rebel XSI....... just a Rebel. I have the "Kit" lenses.... this is from the 75-300 "Non" IS kit..... One of these days, I'll be able to make a little jump up. I did get a 50mm 1.8, and I probably should be happy that I was able to get that, but.... Damn, good stuff costs a lot !!!

I've done the best I can, with what I have....

This little fella just absolutely knew that I couldn't see him !!!!

With 8 different kinds of feeders in the backyard, they all have got pretty used to me by now..... I was sitting against the fence, and this little bandit checked me out, walked over the top of the fence above my head where the water bowl is, and splashed water on my head !! Thought I needed to bring him something instead of just sitting there !!!

Here's a little Ceder Waxwing that has been prowling around the last week or so.... I guess until I get some better equipment, I'll have to crop the crap out of them.... :meh:

If anyone lives in Idaho, and has a nice Super-Zoom for sale ....... Well, ..... I can wash dishes.. Oh, and I can cook too!!

Rick

 

[D-B-J]

yeah, cause the pictures are just AWFUL! No, but seriously, they're pretty good. Considering the fact that your gear may not be "amazing," i see some rather good pictures.

#2 is definately a winner.

 

[Dallmeyer]

Great pictures Ottor!

 

[Derrel]

Rick,
You know that squirrel is thinking something like, "Dude!!! What happened to your fur,man!! It's all on your face--and it's white!!! Where's your back hair!!! What the he(( happened to your tail!??"

Anyway, cute shot of the little bandit. Probably has a string of bird feeders and cat dishes he raids, daily...Enough anthropomorphizing of squirrel thoughts for (attempted) comedic value...you're so right! Better-quality telephoto lenses cost more money these days than many people want to be able to spend, and the lower-cost 70-300 and such zooms from Canon and Nikon tend to have chromatic aberration which softens the pictures at lengths longer than about 200mm. The squirrel photo is a good example of chromatic aberration, and it is also visible in the bird pictures too. CA causes that sort of "video-y" look to images, like a sort of all-over minute ghosting or secondary image that prevents a sharp,crisp,clear rendering. It can also cause magenta or green or purplish fringing around the edges of objects. CA comes in two types: lateral, which can be removed by software, and longitudinal CA, which occurs in front of and behind the point of sharpest focus, and which is basically not-fixable.

If you want to get a longer,sharper lens for a good price, you need to think "manual focus" for the most part, and "used lens". Some options are things like the rather cheap ($100) inexpensive 500mm f/8 pre-set lenses like Quantaray, with an extension tube, so that you can focus close, and by close I mean like 10 feet. Without extension, the focus only comes in to something like 26 feet. In the summer time, 500mm at f/8 at ISO 400 and decent weather is going to be okay for this kind of backyard nature stuff. The quality is not that bad....and since it's a prime, the CA is reasonably well-corrected....image quality is better than most lower-end 70-300 lenses.

You could also look at some other older, manual focus lenses from Olympus, Vivitar, Nikon, or Pentax, which would need an adapter, and maybe a 1.4x telephoto converter. These would be manual focus options, but we're talking about lenses that might run you $125-$350 or so for a 300mm f/4 or f/4.5 but with "good optics"....20-30 years old, but formerly a $699 lens, 20-30 years ago. Manual focus will be adequate for these types of bird/nature shots...something like an older Nikon 400mm f/5.6 that's beat-up for example, is a lot less money than a new super-telephoto,and can be adapted to a Canon body with a $20 adapter. Something to think about. Prime lenses will give better image quality than zooms, and will work better with converters, for the most part. Nikon's 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF is a good choice for a cheap, yet still ED-glass lens that's available in the $250 range now,and has a superb internal focusing action and works pretty well on a Canon body, due to the special feather-touch internal focusing system.

 

[MSnowy]

Really like second pic

 

[shrutebucks]

Better-quality telephoto lenses cost more money these days than many people want to be able to spend, and the lower-cost 70-300 and such zooms from Canon and Nikon tend to have chromatic aberration which softens the pictures at lengths longer than about 200mm. The squirrel photo is a good example of chromatic aberration, and it is also visible in the bird pictures too. CA causes that sort of "video-y" look to images, like a sort of all-over minute ghosting or secondary image that prevents a sharp,crisp,clear rendering. It can also cause magenta or green or purplish fringing around the edges of objects. CA comes in two types: lateral, which can be removed by software, and longitudinal CA, which occurs in front of and behind the point of sharpest focus, and which is basically not-fixable.

If you want to get a longer,sharper lens for a good price, you need to think "manual focus" for the most part, and "used lens". Some options are things like the rather cheap ($100) inexpensive 500mm f/8 pre-set lenses like Quantaray, with an extension tube, so that you can focus close, and by close I mean like 10 feet. Without extension, the focus only comes in to something like 26 feet. In the summer time, 500mm at f/8 at ISO 400 and decent weather is going to be okay for this kind of backyard nature stuff. The quality is not that bad....and since it's a prime, the CA is reasonably well-corrected....image quality is better than most lower-end 70-300 lenses.

You could also look at some other older, manual focus lenses from Olympus, Vivitar, Nikon, or Pentax, which would need an adapter, and maybe a 1.4x telephoto converter. These would be manual focus options, but we're talking about lenses that might run you $125-$350 or so for a 300mm f/4 or f/4.5 but with "good optics"....20-30 years old, but formerly a $699 lens, 20-30 years ago. Manual focus will be adequate for these types of bird/nature shots...something like an older Nikon 400mm f/5.6 that's beat-up for example, is a lot less money than a new super-telephoto,and can be adapted to a Canon body with a $20 adapter. Something to think about. Prime lenses will give better image quality than zooms, and will work better with converters, for the most part. Nikon's 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF is a good choice for a cheap, yet still ED-glass lens that's available in the $250 range now,and has a superb internal focusing action and works pretty well on a Canon body, due to the special feather-touch internal focusing system.

thanks for the good info! i too am slowly adding to my collection of camera gear, but am nowhere close to affording different lenses. i like your ideas about looking into older, manual focused lenses.

 

[ottor]

Rick,
You know that squirrel is thinking something like, "Dude!!! What happened to your fur,man!! It's all on your face--and it's white!!! Where's your back hair!!! What the he(( happened to your tail!??"

Anyway, cute shot of the little bandit. Probably has a string of bird feeders and cat dishes he raids, daily...Enough anthropomorphizing of squirrel thoughts for (attempted) comedic value...you're so right! Better-quality telephoto lenses cost more money these days than many people want to be able to spend, and the lower-cost 70-300 and such zooms from Canon and Nikon tend to have chromatic aberration which softens the pictures at lengths longer than about 200mm. The squirrel photo is a good example of chromatic aberration, and it is also visible in the bird pictures too. CA causes that sort of "video-y" look to images, like a sort of all-over minute ghosting or secondary image that prevents a sharp,crisp,clear rendering. It can also cause magenta or green or purplish fringing around the edges of objects. CA comes in two types: lateral, which can be removed by software, and longitudinal CA, which occurs in front of and behind the point of sharpest focus, and which is basically not-fixable.

If you want to get a longer,sharper lens for a good price, you need to think "manual focus" for the most part, and "used lens". Some options are things like the rather cheap ($100) inexpensive 500mm f/8 pre-set lenses like Quantaray, with an extension tube, so that you can focus close, and by close I mean like 10 feet. Without extension, the focus only comes in to something like 26 feet. In the summer time, 500mm at f/8 at ISO 400 and decent weather is going to be okay for this kind of backyard nature stuff. The quality is not that bad....and since it's a prime, the CA is reasonably well-corrected....image quality is better than most lower-end 70-300 lenses.

You could also look at some other older, manual focus lenses from Olympus, Vivitar, Nikon, or Pentax, which would need an adapter, and maybe a 1.4x telephoto converter. These would be manual focus options, but we're talking about lenses that might run you $125-$350 or so for a 300mm f/4 or f/4.5 but with "good optics"....20-30 years old, but formerly a $699 lens, 20-30 years ago. Manual focus will be adequate for these types of bird/nature shots...something like an older Nikon 400mm f/5.6 that's beat-up for example, is a lot less money than a new super-telephoto,and can be adapted to a Canon body with a $20 adapter. Something to think about. Prime lenses will give better image quality than zooms, and will work better with converters, for the most part. Nikon's 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF is a good choice for a cheap, yet still ED-glass lens that's available in the $250 range now,and has a superb internal focusing action and works pretty well on a Canon body, due to the special feather-touch internal focusing system.

I had no idea that older, and other brand lens's would fit on my Canon, even with an adapter....

Does this include lenses that were only used for "Film" cameras, or do they need to be digital lenses??

THANKS - that kinna opens up options I never knew about....

r

 

[myfotoguy]

It's a great series Ottor. You are doing great with what you have. I'm with you though, I have a few lenes I would like to have (sigh).

 

[EFHATCH1990]

I'd like to see more of the Ceder Waxwing cool looking bird!

 

[Derrel]

Canon EOS bodies will accept Nikon F, Leica R, Contax/Yashica bayonet lenses, Olympus OM mount lenses, the M42 thread mount aka "Pentax thread mount" aka "Universal Thread mount", and Pentax K-mount lenses--all with simple, metal adapters that will allow infinity focusing, with no glass elements. Here is an article that has a lot of information,and photos, of absolutely top-quality, precision engineered adapters sold by a popular web site. Adapters: Leica R or Nikon F to EOS 

There is also a huge marketplace that deals in much lower-cost adapters, that retail for $14 to $40, sold through eBay. One of the largest reputable USA dealers is a company named Fotodiox, which specializes in lens adapters of all types, as well as filter adapter rings, reversing rings, and basically a whole lot of small, metal camera accessories. These adapters are available in black, anodized aluminum construction, and also chrome-plated brass or bronze construction, which is in my opinion, typically better-made, lathe-turned then plated stuff. Fotodiox also sells adapters that allow the use of medium-format lenses on Canon EOS cameras...I have also seem some pretty good work done by Mamiya medium format lenses on Nikon bodies.

Lenses do not have to be "digital" designs. In telephoto lenses, most of the lenses will be aligning the light rays fairly perpendicular to the sensor, and so there is very little in the way of a "digital" lens in the telephoto or tele-zoom world. If you have a Canon EOS digital body, it will shoot photos in manual, match-diode metering mode, as well as Av automatic modes, reasonably well. There are millions, literally millions, of manual focusing lenses available and some are quite low-cost. Some of the better lenses will be older Nikon,Pentax,Olympus,Leica R,or Yashica/Contax lenses. You will need to focus manually, and the lens diaphragm will need to be manually stopped down or opened up, but this is not that big of an issue at f/2.8 to f/5.6 or so--the view through the finder will be reasonably bright in decent light.

 

[vtf]

not sure if I'd like these animals staring me down. But great pictures nonetheless.

 

[--ares--]

Great bold and sharp images, you are doing great work with what you have, and that is all the matters.

 

[Tiberius47]

If this isn't proof that you don't need top of the line kit to get good shots, I don't know what is.

 

[Hardrock]

I cant see the pictures due to them being blocked at work. I have the non IS non Usm version of that lens and its not very sharp like you said. But if you can shoot a f8 the images will improve alot (not prime material) but way better than f5.6. Hope this helps.

 

[burstintoflame81]

Great pics Ottor. I just looked at your Flickr page. Were all of these pics taken with those same lenses? Very very nice work. Lots of nice golden hour lighting shots. Very impressive.