Lens and distance

A

Andy-

Suspended / Banned
Messages
23
Edit My Images
Yes
“Absolutely no question is too silly or basic in here”
Ok, then I’ll begin
I’m soon going to buy my first DSLR camera; now that I’ve decided that the 600D or 60D is the most suitable camera body for me (for the vari-angle screen), I’d really appreciate some help on choosing an initial lens.
I’ve seen many great bird shots here, it’s an area that I’ll be particularly interested in – I know it’s all going to be a steep learning curve - but, what I’d like is a sense of what is possible distance-wise.

What is the sort of distance (yards/metres), with this sensor size, from the photographer to the subject, when taken with (for example/budget) a 400mm f5.6 lens, to get a full frame image or decent cropped image? Any birds and ballpark figures will be helpful thank you.
 
I found this calculation on the 'net, but can't remeber where -

1. Find the dimensions of your camera's sensor, horizontal and vertical, and possibly diagonal too.

2. Divide the focal length of the lens being used by one of those dimensions.
If the camera is used in landscape then you'll need the vertical dimension to see if the subject will fill the frame from top to bottom, but depending on the orientation of the camera and the subject one of the other dimensions will be needed.

3. Multiple the size of the subject by the answer from number 2 to get the distance from the subject needed to make sure the subject fills the frame.

Example -
My camera's sensor is 15.6mm vertically. If I was taking a photo of a an object that is 200mm high with a 210m lens, I'd need to be about 2.7m away to make sure it filled the frame.

Dave
 
Thank you for that Dave, one to remember,
So for the 400mm lens, divide it by 14.9mm (for 60D (vertical)), then multiply by (say) subject 200mm high.
Gives approx, 5.37m away for full frame height and the minimum distance able to frame the subject. :thumbs:
Andy
 
Hi Andy and welcome, not sure if this will help you but the first two are shot at just over 280mm and at a distance of around 3.4mtrs and that was with the 70-200F4L plus the 1.4TC. The last two are shot with the 100-400L at about the same distance


IMG_3148_filtered.jpg



IMG_5908_filtered.jpg






 
Very nice pictures Rich and thanks for that, all useful for me,
I'm only going to be able to start initially with one good quality lens, so i'm trying to decide which or what combination (with TC) will be the best option and give the best range.
 
Andy- said:
Very nice pictures Rich and thanks for that, all useful for me,
I'm only going to be able to start initially with one good quality lens, so i'm trying to decide which or what combination (with TC) will be the best option and give the best range.
Click to expand...

:thinking: That can be a tough decision to start off with Andy :D When I first started I had a 300 F4L which I used 99% of the time with the 1.4TC, after a year it met an untimely death :lol: I used the insurance payout to get a 70/200. After a year or so I was looking for a bit more reach, I had the chance of the 100-400 so whent for it. From what I have seen of it I think the 400L is sharper and has a slightly better quality to it than the 100-400, both zooms were good enough for my needs as I could use them for other types of shots such as the kids etc. If you choose a fixed lens of 400mm and above then you are then into specific kit for one purpose only, I would love to have the money to throw at the hobby like most would but if you cannot do that then you have to think seriously about which lens you can make the most use of.
 
The 100-400L lens is great but a bit out of my price range.
I got the 28-135 IS UFM f/3.5-5.6 as a walkabout lens with my 600D and I intend to use it for a while and see what sort of photos I end up taking and then decide on additional lenses.
I expect a higher focal length and a prime portrait lens will be what I go for. I was looking at the 70-300 IS UFM as a possible option.
 
The Sigma range of lenses are worth looking at as well. 150-500 OS at around £700.00 then the 50-500 OS £1200.00 ish and the 120-300 OS f2.8 is a great lens and can take a 2x converter very well to give you 600mm f5.6 but you are looking around £2000.00 by this stage without the converter.
 
The 100-400mm is a great lens, its a little bit pricy though. I bought one used with the intention to sell it after my trip but liked it to much I kept it. You can probably get a decent used one for around £800. I also looked at the Tamron 70-300mm USD VC lens which to me at least looked a better choice than the canon one, better IS sharper and cheaper. I haven't started shooting birds yet, but on the odd occasion I have the 400mm (on a crop sensor) was definitely useful. The 400mm f5.6 is slightly sharper and focuses quicker, but you lose IS and the flexibility of a zoom for a small saving. If you can I would say the 100-400mm is well worth saving for, you will appreciate the push pull zoom to quickly zoom on your target. The build quality is a class above too.
 
I think the answer to the original question is MUCH MUCH MUCH closer than you would think... :D
 
I appreciate all the comments,
From what I’m reading I realise there’s going to have to be a fair bit of compromise.
At this stage I think I’d be wise to go for a zoom lens (versatility trumping extra bit of quality); and concentrate on learning, and improving skills and techniques.

As well as wildlife, I would also like to use this kit at motorcycle (mainly classic) meets and some outdoor sport, I’m thinking a zoom would give me the most pleasure and usability at this stage, and for a good while.

As the 100-400 would be definitely at my upper-limit price, I think the choice Canon lens is between this one and the 70-300.
If I get the impression the 100-400 is generally reliable in service, and it’s not wrong to push the boat out a bit for a lens, I think that will be the choice/compromise. But I’d better investigate the Sigma options as suggested all the same. Weight wise, I intent and need to have things supported as often as possible.
 
Surprising how close you need to get for a sharp frame filling shot Andy, good light also helps with the more reasonably priced lenses and their aperture values

Owned a 400mm f/5.6, but I haven't got the steadiest hands and found it hard to get a sharp shot without a tripod, would be great with IS
Never had the 100-400mm so this is just from what I have read and heard. Good lens and has IS albeit the older version, But can suffer with problems from the zoom tension device after a few years.

I now have a 70-200 IS with 1.4TC and to be honest it's not really long enough for birds, but there is always a compromise to be had. The 70-300mm L IS is also supposed to be excellent although not cheap and cannot take a TC

One other Lens to look at is the Sigma 120-400mm OS, gets good write ups and isn't too pricey

Cheers
Rich
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top