I had it confused with the eastern jackdaw :) Nice specie introduction.
PS: I have the same issue with my 500mm lens. At full focal length its simply impossible to get it sharp. Software sharpening helps but increases the noise visibility often.
Lion
Class 12 of 12
Joost Thissen
Posted 7 months ago, modified 7 months ago
I would expect your 500mm to be better because it is quite big and does not have such an extreme zoom range.
Since I see the softness of my superzoom I understand a bit why people would also spend €6000 for a 300mm lens.
I am lately hardly using my 18-250mm. The 90mm macro lens is on the camera most of the times. It is ideal in nature because it is perfect for subjects up close like flowers and also works well for subjects farther away. There isn't that much quality difference between an enlarged photo made with the 90mm lens or a soft photo made at 250mm with the superzoom.
For walking around on events I use the fixed 35mm/f1.8. It is sharp, fast for action shots and the fixed focal length forces me to not get to much details in the picture. They say the viewing angle of a 35mm lens is somewhat equal to the area the human eye sees sharp.
When I need a wide angle for instance for group or interior photo's I use the 8-16mm lens. Below 12mm the edges get stretched and rooms look larger then they really are. I am still learning to use or deal with these effects.
In the Netherlands, the most wildlife I shoot is also macro, so the 105mm macro is my favorite as well. In terms of quality and performance, it is also by far the best lens in my set. The rest really sucks compared to this lens.
However, on our wildlife journeys abroad, I can't do without the 500mm for capturing wild mammals and birds that are far away. 500mm is my only option since my kit lens is 18-105mm. Both the macro and kit have a reach that is too limited in those situations.
Although when I bought the 500mm I thought it was fantastic, I'm now seeing the limitations and how even at this prize it is an entry-level super tele lens. Main problem: I shoot by hand and thus at least need a shutter speed of 1/500s. Since the lens is not that light sensitive, this raises the iso by a lot, which introduces noise. And thats in good light conditions. In poor light conditions (which I experience a lot, in forests or when faced with backlight) things get even worse.
I can't solve it, since I can't afford anything better and I can't use a tripod in the situations I find myself in. Practically, if I did my focus correctly, I manage the problem in post processing. Often, passive viewers will not notice it, especially not in smaller formats. If you're being pro critical though, you can see where this lens has its limitations.
I am considering for the long term to see if one day I can switch to a better quality 400mm. I rather crop at good quality then have poor quality with more range, but the gap cannot be as large as 105 - 500.
Lenses are soo expensive, the good ones. My next lens will be an f4 70..200mm one, 77mm, still affordabe. I'd like the f2.8 one more, but it is less sharp, even with a multistep stabilizer. Needs more light though, but 1K is too much for a lens, too much for me. Though we are buidling a new kitchen as external part of the house even the f4 has to wait:)
wildlife community
Comments (5)
Collapse replies Expand replies
PS: I have the same issue with my 500mm lens. At full focal length its simply impossible to get it sharp. Software sharpening helps but increases the noise visibility often.
Since I see the softness of my superzoom I understand a bit why people would also spend €6000 for a 300mm lens.
I am lately hardly using my 18-250mm. The 90mm macro lens is on the camera most of the times. It is ideal in nature because it is perfect for subjects up close like flowers and also works well for subjects farther away. There isn't that much quality difference between an enlarged photo made with the 90mm lens or a soft photo made at 250mm with the superzoom.
For walking around on events I use the fixed 35mm/f1.8. It is sharp, fast for action shots and the fixed focal length forces me to not get to much details in the picture. They say the viewing angle of a 35mm lens is somewhat equal to the area the human eye sees sharp.
When I need a wide angle for instance for group or interior photo's I use the 8-16mm lens. Below 12mm the edges get stretched and rooms look larger then they really are. I am still learning to use or deal with these effects.
However, on our wildlife journeys abroad, I can't do without the 500mm for capturing wild mammals and birds that are far away. 500mm is my only option since my kit lens is 18-105mm. Both the macro and kit have a reach that is too limited in those situations.
Although when I bought the 500mm I thought it was fantastic, I'm now seeing the limitations and how even at this prize it is an entry-level super tele lens. Main problem: I shoot by hand and thus at least need a shutter speed of 1/500s. Since the lens is not that light sensitive, this raises the iso by a lot, which introduces noise. And thats in good light conditions. In poor light conditions (which I experience a lot, in forests or when faced with backlight) things get even worse.
I can't solve it, since I can't afford anything better and I can't use a tripod in the situations I find myself in. Practically, if I did my focus correctly, I manage the problem in post processing. Often, passive viewers will not notice it, especially not in smaller formats. If you're being pro critical though, you can see where this lens has its limitations.
I am considering for the long term to see if one day I can switch to a better quality 400mm. I rather crop at good quality then have poor quality with more range, but the gap cannot be as large as 105 - 500.