Chicago Air Show

[Brainonska511]

I stopped by the Chicago Air Show today. Had a hard time shooting with only a 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron lens on my XT, but I did get this nice shot: _MG_6491.jpg

It's time to get that Canon 200mm f/2.8L....

Edit:

Link to other photos: http://smg.photobucket.com/alb...08-08-17%20Air%20Show/

 

[foghorn67]

I want all of those.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

It's time to get that Canon 200mm f/2.8L....

Probably better with the 100-400mm L IS USM or the 300mm f2.8L IS USM for airshows.

 

[rudder]

Or if you are on a budget... the Canon 70-300 IS. A little cheaper than the 200mm and I bet sharpness is just as good at 200mm. No f/2.8 either but if it is cloudy you can always bump up the ISO.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Heidfirst

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

It's time to get that Canon 200mm f/2.8L....

Probably better with the 100-400mm L IS USM or the 300mm f2.8L IS USM for airshows.

I'm looking at the 200mm f/2.8 cause I don't have anything longer than 75mm and it falls within my budget (under $800). Also, I don't want it just for airshows, but shooting sports from the sidelines, birds in my backyard, and a few other things. After all, 200mm on the XT is ~320mm due to the sensor.

I thought about going with a zoom, at first I was toying with the idea of getting the 70-200mm f/4L IS, but it's a little more than I want to spend. Additionally, I feel that I'd be spending most of my time on the zoomed in part of the lens, so going with the lighter/faster prime would just be a better choice.

 

[spikespiegal]

Ah, the old 'Air Superiority' grouping. Considering only one of those aircraft (the P-51D) ever proved itself against an enemy airforce worth noting.....

Neat shot though.....

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: rudder
Or if you are on a budget... the Canon 70-300 IS. A little cheaper than the 200mm and I bet sharpness is just as good at 200mm. No f/2.8 either but if it is cloudy you can always bump up the ISO.

no.

 

[ivan2]

u need a sensor cleaning =)

nice shot.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ivan2
u need a sensor cleaning =)

nice shot.

It's not the sensor. They are dragonflies that are out of focus. I thought it was dust at first when I saw them, but it isn't the same from picture to picture and if you look at some of them closely, you see the dragonfly shape.

Link to other pictures:
http://smg.photobucket.com/alb...08-08-17%20Air%20Show/

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
Ah, the old 'Air Superiority' grouping. Considering only one of those aircraft (the P-51D) ever proved itself against an enemy airforce worth noting.....

Neat shot though.....

I would call the F-4 and F-15 combat-proven. The Israelis are pretty handy with the F-15, and even then the F-22 has obliterated it in all the training exercises. Not many enemy air forces have tried to confront the US Air Force head-on.

 

[ghostman]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: rudder
Or if you are on a budget... the Canon 70-300 IS. A little cheaper than the 200mm and I bet sharpness is just as good at 200mm. No f/2.8 either but if it is cloudy you can always bump up the ISO.

no.

I agree. Comparing a 200mm prime with a cheaper 70-300mm zoom, there will probably be noticeable differences in sharpness.

Not much out there for comparisons since the lenses are apples and oranges, but here is one:
70-300mm: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935822
200mm w/ 1.4x: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935806

Compared to a 300mm prime, it gets more obvious:
300mm prime: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935814
70-300mm: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935820

Reference: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/70300istest

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ghostman

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: rudder
Or if you are on a budget... the Canon 70-300 IS. A little cheaper than the 200mm and I bet sharpness is just as good at 200mm. No f/2.8 either but if it is cloudy you can always bump up the ISO.

no.

I agree. Comparing a 200mm prime with a cheaper 70-300mm zoom, there will probably be noticeable differences in sharpness.

Not much out there for comparisons since the lenses are apples and oranges, but here is one:
70-300mm: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935822
200mm w/ 1.4x: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935806

Compared to a 300mm prime, it gets more obvious:
300mm prime: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935814
70-300mm: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935820

Reference: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/70300istest

Wow... that's a big difference.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ghostman

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: rudder
Or if you are on a budget... the Canon 70-300 IS. A little cheaper than the 200mm and I bet sharpness is just as good at 200mm. No f/2.8 either but if it is cloudy you can always bump up the ISO.

no.

I agree. Comparing a 200mm prime with a cheaper 70-300mm zoom, there will probably be noticeable differences in sharpness.

Not much out there for comparisons since the lenses are apples and oranges, but here is one:
70-300mm: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935822
200mm w/ 1.4x: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935806

Compared to a 300mm prime, it gets more obvious:
300mm prime: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935814
70-300mm: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/image/83935820

Reference: http://www.pbase.com/photoman/70300istest

I admit the 70-300 is a little soft at 300mm... thats why I said a 200mm to 200mm comparison would be harder to differentiate. I've got some shots that I am amazed at the sharpness of this lens. Could be I lucked out with my copy. At the moment I only have a couple of resized, compressed shots...

Shot at f/5 1/2500s @ 110mm


Not the best examples since I do not have the RAW file accessible now to show crops and such. But I would like to point out the versatility of this lens. Sure the primes have less optical elements in the lens producing shaper images (again some of my shots you need to pixel peep to tell the difference) but I spent the whole day not having to change lenses.

EDIT: Here are some better pics:

Wife's friend @70mm (4 meg)

Wife's friend @70mm (cropped)


chair @235mm (7meg)


chair @235mm (cropped)

End zone marker @ 300mm (4 meg)

End zone marker @ 300mm (cropped)

 

[spikespiegal]

I would call the F-4 and F-15 combat-proven

Boy, that Syrian airforce is sure a test for the export F-15 Given The Israeli army is so good at modifying/improving U.S. weapons, I'm surprised their version of the F-15 doesn't transform into Starscream or something.

On second thought, U.S. F-15 drivers had pretty good luck against Serbian Mig-29s, although the Serb pilots admitted post interview that most of their radars weren't working due to parts issues.

The F4 didn't have a gun in it, and spent most of it's time zooming away from Korean war era Migs in Vietnam unless there was a numerical superiority.

Not many enemy air forces have tried to confront the US Air Force head-on.

That's because skyscrapers in Manhattan and our reliance on crude oil are far easier targets.:roll:

 

[spikespiegal]

Not many enemy air forces have tried to confront the US Air Force head-on.

Not when skyscrapers in Manhattan and our reliance on crude oil are far easier targets. Let the airforce defend, uh, air.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

I would call the F-4 and F-15 combat-proven

Boy, that Syrian airforce is sure a test for the export F-15 Given The Israeli army is so good at modifying/improving U.S. weapons, I'm surprised their version of the F-15 doesn't transform into Starscream or something.

On second thought, U.S. F-15 drivers had pretty good luck against Serbian Mig-29s, although the Serb pilots admitted post interview that most of their radars weren't working due to parts issues.

The F4 didn't have a gun in it, and spent most of it's time zooming away from Korean war era Migs in Vietnam unless there was a numerical superiority.

Not many enemy air forces have tried to confront the US Air Force head-on.

That's because skyscrapers in Manhattan and our reliance on crude oil are far easier targets.:roll:

The F4 did not have a gun initially, it was added in later.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: spikespiegal

I would call the F-4 and F-15 combat-proven

Boy, that Syrian airforce is sure a test for the export F-15 Given The Israeli army is so good at modifying/improving U.S. weapons, I'm surprised their version of the F-15 doesn't transform into Starscream or something.

On second thought, U.S. F-15 drivers had pretty good luck against Serbian Mig-29s, although the Serb pilots admitted post interview that most of their radars weren't working due to parts issues.

The F4 didn't have a gun in it, and spent most of it's time zooming away from Korean war era Migs in Vietnam unless there was a numerical superiority.

Not many enemy air forces have tried to confront the US Air Force head-on.

That's because skyscrapers in Manhattan and our reliance on crude oil are far easier targets.:roll:

The F4 did not have a gun initially, it was added in later.

True, but it was an external pod. IIRC all fighter jets since have included guns, if only with a couple seconds worth of ammunition.

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511


I'm looking at the 200mm f/2.8 cause I don't have anything longer than 75mm and it falls within my budget (under $800). Also, I don't want it just for airshows, but shooting sports from the sidelines, birds in my backyard, and a few other things. After all, 200mm on the XT is ~320mm due to the sensor.

Still think that you will need longer than 200mm (320mm effective in 35mm terms).

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

The F4 did not have a gun initially, it was added in later.

True, but it was an external pod. IIRC all fighter jets since have included guns, if only with a couple seconds worth of ammunition.

The F-4E & J at least had an internal 20mm gun.

An interesting book to read is Clashes by Marshall Michel

 

[Jawo]

Cool Pics...I got a pic very similar to that when I went to Andrews AFB open house in May. I primarily used the EF 70-300 IS USM, and it worked out really well. However, I didn't go pixel peeping. For $550 its a quite versatile lens.