A few questions:

[Billy]

1) Anyone ever rent a lens online? What site? I've looked here so far.

2) If you had enough $ to get EITHER a great telephoto lens (for example 300mm, f2.8) OR get a camera body with such high resolution that you could effectively crop wildlife photos to look the "same" as if they'd been taken with the lens above, which would you choose? Assume the lens in the second case is also fast and good quality, but lacks the zoom. What's the trade-off? Is there some quantitative way to determine this? Geeky responses encouraged here.

3) If I set the parameters on my Canon Digital Rebel such that it does some in-camera sharpening, and I shoot RAW+JPEG, does the sharpening apply only to the JPEG image. Does that sharpening (and any parameter such as contrast, etc) effect the RAW file at all? Or is the RAW file completely ignorant (in a good way) of those in-camera settings?

4) Is there a setting on my camera to get the wind to stop blowing when I take pictures of flowers?

 

[DougPaul]

2) If you had enough $ to get EITHER a great telephoto lens (for example 300mm, f2.8) OR get a camera body with such high resolution that you could effectively crop wildlife photos to look the "same" as if they'd been taken with the lens above, which would you choose? Assume the lens in the second case is also fast and good quality, but lacks the zoom. What's the trade-off? Is there some quantitative way to determine this? Geeky responses encouraged here.

A crop body effectively just uses the center portion of the equivalent full-frame sensor camera. For example, my Digital Rebel XTi has a 10MP sensor and a crop factor of 1.6. This is the equivalent of cropping out the center 62.5% x 62.5% of a 25.8MP full-frame sensor image. (In the P&S world, this is called digital zoom...)

FWIW, good lenses last a long time. Digital camera bodies become obsolete in a year or two. (Obsolete in the sense that they are replaced by a newer model--obviously they will work longer.)

Your choice.

3) If I set the parameters on my Canon Digital Rebel such that it does some in-camera sharpening, and I shoot RAW+JPEG, does the sharpening apply only to the JPEG image. Does that sharpening (and any parameter such as contrast, etc) effect the RAW file at all? Or is the RAW file completely ignorant (in a good way) of those in-camera settings?

RAW is the direct read-out from the sensor. It is affected only by the lens settings, the ISO, and the exposure time. (And what you point the camera at... Think of it as a digital negative.) All other settings only affect the the JPEG.

4) Is there a setting on my camera to get the wind to stop blowing when I take pictures of flowers?

Yes--when you press the exposure button.

Doug

 

[Mark Schaefer]

2) If you had enough $ to get EITHER a great telephoto lens (for example 300mm, f2.8) OR get a camera body with such high resolution that you could effectively crop wildlife photos to look the "same" as if they'd been taken with the lens above, which would you choose? Assume the lens in the second case is also fast and good quality, but lacks the zoom. What's the trade-off? Is there some quantitative way to determine this? Geeky responses encouraged here.

Choose the telephoto lens. I will keep this nontechnical.

When you do a severe crop you are throwing away large amounts of you camera's sensory capability. That is true whether you are using a digital (as opposed to an optical) zoom, or if you are cropping with software on your computer. It is true whether you are using a top flight SLR or a point and shoot camera.

When you use a telephoto lens you are magnifying the image onto the camera's sensors and using more of those sensors. That will result in higher quality images. It is always best to choose the appropriate lens and/or zoom just far enough to include your desired subject matter. Keep the needed cropping to a minimum.

Choosing a fixed focal length lens might be limiting, but if your experience indicates that you really need a high quality 300mm lens, then so be it.

4) Is there a setting on my camera to get the wind to stop blowing when I take pictures of flowers?

Sadly no. Sometimes you may create an interesting image capturing the effect of the wind by emphasizing the motion blur of the flowers and other subjects. It may be difficult and involve some trial and error to find a shutter speed which will show a pleasing amount of blur. Trying to capture light breezes rather than gale force winds may be more rewarding. But the big blows might be interesting as well.

Motion blur photos are often far more effective than the standard static sharp images. Go with the flow occasionally.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

Go with the flow occasionally.

Words of wisdom in many other contexts as well!!!!!

 

[nartreb]

2) is an interesting question.

By "lacks the zoom" do you mean 50mm? If so you're talking about having 1/6 the reach of a 300mm. You'd need a sixfold increase in resolution to compensate. (That's a thirty-six-fold increase in pixel count.) Good luck with that.

Even if you're talking about a 150mm vs a 300mm, you're into big bucks for the requisite fourfold pixel increase, and DougPaul has an excellent point: a year from now a $2000 lens will be worth about $1800; a $2000 body will be worth about $1000. Spending big on a body is an extravagance; spending big on a lens is merely a poor financial return.

PS for wildlife I like my 400mm image-stabilized lens. Anything longer and I'd need a tripod.

 

[Grumpy]

...

2) If you had enough $ to get EITHER a great telephoto lens (for example 300mm, f2.8) OR get a camera body with such high resolution that you could effectively crop wildlife photos to look the "same" as if they'd been taken with the lens above, which would you choose? Assume the lens in the second case is also fast and good quality, but lacks the zoom. What's the trade-off? Is there some quantitative way to determine this? Geeky responses encouraged here.

...

Of course, given my true druthers, I would get both the lens and the camera body. But, to grapple with this chicken-or-egg question …

If the camera body you have is satisfactory (for your purposes) go for the lens. Accessorize with a tele extender (or “converter”) to give you more “reach.” The extender will, however, reduce the effective maximum aperture of the lens.

Looking at specific lens choices, my general rule is, “faster = better.” I also have become fond of zoom lenses. But there are exceptions.

So let’s look at the 300mm f/2.8 prime lens. With a full frame digital camera body this works like a 300mm lens on 35mm film (the usual standard of comparison). In other terms, it acts like about a 6X binocular.

On a digital body with a sensor sized to yield a 1.5X or 1.6X “magnification” or “crop” factor, the 300mm behaves more like a 450mm or 480mm lens, or about a 9X – 10X binocular. Add on a 1.4X extender (reducing maximum lens aperture by one f/stop) using that body and a 300mm f/2.8, and you have the equivalent of a 630mm – 670mm lens with an f/4 max aperture, which is a very impressive setup.

You will save yourself a few bucks by going with a 300mm f/4 lens and 1.4 extender. Same focal length factors apply, but now, with the extender you have a f/5.6 lens, which is very usable but usually is at the limit for effective use of autofocus.

Personally, I am very impressed with Nikon’s 200-400mm f/4 zoom lens. Super quality, but it is pricey. Usable with an extender.

Some folks like the 200mm f/2 prime lens with 1.4 and 1.7 or 2.0 extenders. On a digital body with 1.5 crop factor, that starts out as the equivalent of an incredibly fast 300mm lens! With the 1.7 extender you lose about 1.5 f-stops of lens speed, but you still are at a max aperture of f/3.5 or so. The 2X extender will cut max aperture by two f/stops, leaving you with what amounts to a 400mm f/4 prime lens to start, which is very impressive.

You may want to consider one of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, with an extender.

I guess the bottom line is that you have lots of choices. What you wind up getting depends on your needs (real or perceived) and what your purse can stand.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

One other thought...

What use to expect to have for this lens? If you plan to carry it long distances (eg hiking), an f2.8 300mm lens will be a lot heavier (and bigger to carry) than an f4 300mm lens.

Doug

 

[Billy]

Thanks for all the technical feedback. I should've been more clear in the original post on question #2. I wasn't thinking prime lens, I was thinking about a fast 70-200 or 70-300. I might rent one (for Yellowstone this summer), but when I look at them online and the subsequent drooling starts, that's when I imagine buying one....thus question #2. Doesn't hurt to dream. Yes, carrying a lot of glass makes for a heavy pack, but Yellowstone is worth it. Previous trip there, the two items I most regretted not having were binoculars and a good long zoom lens. This time hopefully I'll have both.

 

[MichaelJ]

Get the glass. I recently borrowed a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L series lens to photograph at the Boston Marathon with my 40D. The difference from my f/4-5.6 70-300mm "regular" series lens was quite dramatic. Not simply the much wider aperture, which allowed for fast shutter speeds at long zooms without boosting the sensitivity (and noise), but overall the professional quality and higher-grade materials just made for visibly crisper, clearer photos, with fewer anomalies and aberrations.

For the right event, a high end lens is definitely worth it (though you'll still want at least a half-decent body; in particular, I wouldn't put a big heavy L lens on a composite plastic body, that's just asking for trouble), but at $1,600 and up, unless you take a LOT of photos, renting is the better route.

 

[Grumpy]

Filling Out The Kit

Don’t overlook camera support if you’re bent on using longer lenses, even those with the vibration reduction feature (or whatever proprietary term your choice of manufacturer uses for it).

A solid monopod can be useful; a good tripod is even better. Both can help boost sharpness even with shorter focal length lenses.

Choose a good tripod head. A good quality ballhead designed for the heaviest loads you expect it to carry, plus a little safety margin, is fast and flexible. Gimbal heads are great for big, heavy long lenses.

Dovetail mounting plates or brackets for the lens or camera combined with fast acting clamps on the tripod head (or monopod) make the setup more usable.

G.

 

[Billy]

...I wouldn't put a big heavy L lens on a composite plastic body, that's just asking for trouble...

I'm curious about this sentence. Could you elaborate on that? Thanks.

 

[DougPaul]

...I wouldn't put a big heavy L lens on a composite plastic body, that's just asking for trouble...

I'm curious about this sentence. Could you elaborate on that? Thanks.

When the lenses get really big and heavy, you mount the lens on the tripod and hang the camera body off the lens.

IMO, the plastic body is fine, but may not be strong enough for you to lift the lens-camera combo by the body. Just lift it by the lens and you should be ok.

Doug

 

[MichaelJ]

Lifting it by the body could crack the body. Be very careful, especially with the older models like the original Rebel. Even if it doesn't crack the body, it can deform slightly and give you an uneven focal plane. If you use a big honkin' heavy lens with a metal body, you have to be careful. With a plastic body, be super, ultra careful to never let the weight of the lens pull on the camera.

 

[Grumpy]

When the lenses get really big and heavy, you mount the lens on the tripod and hang the camera body off the lens.

IMO, the plastic body is fine, but may not be strong enough for you to lift the lens-camera combo by the body. Just lift it by the lens and you should be ok.

Doug

Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens weighs in at 51.9 oz -- 3.3 lb. It extends approximately 8 in. from the camera body, without a lens hood attached. It is, in short, something of a beast.

While this lens does come equipped with its own tripod collar and mounting foot -- so the lens can be mounted to a tripod or monopod -- it most commonly is used hand held, and is commonly carried attached to a camera body. There is no provision (lugs setup) on the lens for attaching a carrying strap. So virtually all the weight (and torque) produced by that lens is concentrated right on the lens mount as the whole setup is slung over a shoulder or around the neck on a camera strap.

As a point of fact, this (or an earlier equivalent) is one of the 2 lenses in the basic shop camera kit used by the newspaper I do work for. The other is a 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom (or equivalent) which weighs in at about 26 oz. The camera body is a top-end Nikon digital SLR (nearly 3 lb). Overhaul work lists on several of those SLR bodies over the years have included lens mount replacement. Some of the lens mount issues may involve electrical contacts, etc., but mechanical wear-and-tear and damage is the prime factor.

At one time years ago I owned a half dozen Pentax MX film camera bodies, which were very stout little units. I also had a 300mm f/4 lens with no tripod foot that got a lot of use for sports. It was heavy enough to literally crack one of the metal camera bodies around the lens mount.

I know the modern plastics are very, very tough. But I do wonder about their durability in camera bodies when big, heavy lenses are mounted.

G.