# First piccies with new lens, any bird fans out there?



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Personally, I'm not a great fan of birds, however, with my bad back what better way to spend an hour or so than setting up the tripod and baiting a few of the locals into a candid photo shoot 
These are test shots with the Sigma 120-300 f2.8; I've just stuck the x1.4 telecon on to get closer, but the birds have disappeared for now....
The Magpie is the one I'm after, we have 5 in our area but they're not stupid and know a set up when they see it, I'll persevere with these stunning birds.

Onto a few pics (for now):

Blackbirds:


















Crow









As close as I could get to the Magpie:









Cute wee Robin:


















Starling


----------



## Needs a clean (May 24, 2008)

Nice pics Gary, however when i read the title, i thought it was a follow up on this thread!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=98522


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Fantastic shots of the birds there.:thumb: Robins are so timid at this time of year. I had one sit on my foot up at the allotement one day I digress. The new lens seems to be working well


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

glad youre having fun - pics look a bit ghosty, try sticking the shutter speed up higher for better clarity?

robin's the best on of the bunch, nice and clear


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

All were on aperture priority at ISO160. I've lost the light now and looks like rain, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

also think the pics look bit ghosty,dont look to sharp but what do i know lol.

love the pic of the robin!


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

Gary-360 said:


> All were on aperture priority at ISO160. I've lost the light now and looks like rain, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow


stick on manual and do it yourself  cant say ive ever bothered with Av or Tv (canon) straight to manual, know the outcome then :thumb:

drew


----------



## Eddy (Apr 13, 2008)

Those are some awesome pics mate, Im assuming this is with the lens you were talking about yesterday. so as a complete newb to photography, if you were using say a cheapo lens of the same spec and took those same shots, how different would the picture be? would it be all blurry or not as much colour or defenition?

Eddy


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

Considering it's your first play with the lens I think ther'e excellent:thumb:


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Eddy said:


> Those are some awesome pics mate, Im assuming this is with the lens you were talking about yesterday. so as a complete newb to photography, if you were using say a cheapo lens of the same spec and took those same shots, how different would the picture be? would it be all blurry or not as much colour or defenition?
> 
> Eddy


The blurr is called "Bokeh" and is created using depth of field. Using a large aperture (small f number), it throws foreground and background out of focus leading to blurred image. This can also be created by using a zoom lens at a relatively small (f5.6-f8) at the long end.
For good bokeh, the background should be an equal (or there abouts) distance to the rear of the subject as the subject is to the lens (equidistant if you will).

There are some great examples of bokeh to be found via google


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

ryanuk said:


> also think the pics look bit ghosty,dont look to sharp but what do i know lol.!


Looking at the EXIF they're all shot at f/3.5 or f/4. Might improve if you stop down to around f/8 as, based on what I've read, most lenses seem to give optimum quality around the f/8-f/11 mark. Might be worth searching through some reviews to what the sweet-spot for that lens is.


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

parish said:


> Looking at the EXIF they're all shot at f/3.5 or f/4. Might improve if you stop down to around f/8 as, based on what I've read, most lenses seem to give optimum quality around the f/8-f/11 mark. Might be worth searching through some reviews to what the sweet-spot for that lens is.


I was thinking the same thing but couldn't wait to go out and play


----------



## Alex L (Oct 25, 2005)

Great pics Gary, love the Robin pics


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

parish said:


> Looking at the EXIF they're all shot at f/3.5 or f/4. Might improve if you stop down to around f/8 as, based on what I've read, most lenses seem to give optimum quality around the f/8-f/11 mark. Might be worth searching through some reviews to what the sweet-spot for that lens is.


Just done a bit of digging and the sweet spot seems to be a couple of stops below wide open, so f4'sh is about right.
I'll try bumping up the ISO or dial in a bit of EV next go.


----------



## Dave KG (Feb 23, 2006)

Really like these pictures, and just saw the lens thread also - very impressive... Miles out of my personal photography capabilities just now, perhaps one day 

Lovely shots


----------



## joe_0_1 (Apr 7, 2007)

Awesome mate! Awesome!


----------



## S63 (Jan 5, 2007)

Dave KG said:


> Really like these pictures, and just saw the lens thread also - very impressive... Miles out of my personal photography capabilities just now, perhaps one day
> 
> Lovely shots


totally disagree with you Dave (I can't tell you how long I've wanted to say that), without taking away any of Garys' obvious talent and skills, his bird shots aren't the most difficult to achieve with some practice, the hard bit is getting your wallet out and buying a decent long lens! Great fun though, must be a man thing wandering around with a huge lens mounted on your camera body, although somewhat tiring after a few hours.


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Dave KG said:


> Really like these pictures, and just saw the lens thread also - very impressive... Miles out of my personal photography capabilities just now, perhaps one day
> 
> Lovely shots


Dave, I've seen some of your pics and they are very good, coupled with your love of walking the hills, you're privy to more photographic opportunities than I'll ever have, make the most of it and enjoy.

Gary


----------



## Mike V (Apr 7, 2007)

Lol, I was reading this thread earlier in Uni when a hot blond leaned in behind me and said 'wow are those yours, they're pretty cool!'

Explained I was on a forum looking at someone else work.


----------



## spitfire (Feb 10, 2007)

Mike V said:


> Lol, I was reading this thread earlier in Uni when a hot blond leaned in behind me and said 'wow are those yours, they're pretty cool!'
> 
> Explained I was on a forum looking at someone else work.


Silly man, she wasn't interested in the cars. You blew it


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Mike V said:


> Lol, I was reading this thread earlier in Uni when a hot blond leaned in behind me and said 'wow are those yours, they're pretty cool!'
> 
> Explained I was on a forum looking at someone else work.


Does she do modelling?.............................


----------



## Mike V (Apr 7, 2007)

Gary-360 said:


> Does she do modelling?.............................


A fellow photographer actually. :thumb:


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

:lol: :thumb:


----------



## Eddy (Apr 13, 2008)

Gary-360 said:


> The blurr is called "Bokeh" and is created using depth of field. Using a large aperture (small f number), it throws foreground and background out of focus leading to blurred image. This can also be created by using a zoom lens at a relatively small (f5.6-f8) at the long end.
> For good bokeh, the background should be an equal (or there abouts) distance to the rear of the subject as the subject is to the lens (equidistant if you will).
> 
> There are some great examples of bokeh to be found via google


Thanks for that mate, hope I can remember all that:thumb:

Ok so it might of been the way I wrote it but I was actually asking a slightly different question to the one you answered. What I was trying to find out is if you had taken those exact same pictures with the same camera but used a lens that cost say £100ish instead of your nice new expensive lens (can't remember exact cost) how much worse would the end results of been.

I was just assuming that a cheaper lens would of maybe not had as much detail in the pictures or something like that. I am a newb awaiting buying a dslr so I am sorry if this is a basic question, I'm very keen to learn what can be achived with different equipment etc. Hope that makes sense

Eddy


----------



## Gary-360 (Apr 26, 2008)

Eddy said:


> Thanks for that mate, hope I can remember all that:thumb:
> 
> Ok so it might of been the way I wrote it but I was actually asking a slightly different question to the one you answered. What I was trying to find out is if you had taken those exact same pictures with the same camera but used a lens that cost say £100ish instead of your nice new expensive lens (can't remember exact cost) how much worse would the end results of been.
> 
> ...


The end results may require a little more tweaking in PS, but you should still get a good capture.
Budget lenses are just that, they're not cheap and nasty by any means but they are made for a consumer market and do not go through the same rigorous testing of Pro lenses. The glass may be of slightly lesser quality and normally, the body is made from plastic not metal/alloy.
If you are in doubt of buying a lens, have a search through Google for reviews, good/bad points etc. and what you really require.


----------

