Buffalo, zoom help please....

[Greg McCary]

I took this picture with a Rokinon 4.5 200mm lens that I have never really been happy with. I think I could do better than this. Since I am film do any of you film shooters know of a better quality lens without taking out a loan? I would love to go to a 300mm. I think that I went by the book on this on. I shot 1/250 @ 5.6 with a polarizer and supported the camera on a fence post. Is Rokinon a cheap lens?
Greg

[GB1]

You're right, it isnt very sharp at all. It seems surreal almost. Rokinon? I've never heard of that brand. And that's a bad sign. They could be decent, but given that you believe you used an adaquate SS and support etc and the shot still isnt very sharp, it's a good bet that the lens could be it.

However -- what's with the strangely colored grass and also the pink things above the Buff's hump? Was it like that? If not, you could have a bad roll of film that's been sitting in the heat too long.

[freygr]

Well how far away is the Buffalo? You F stop is only one stop from wide open, Try using it set at F8 or F11. The Buffalo is in focus but the back ground is not, so that lense at that F stop and focus point, the DOF doesn't go to infininty. This is a problem with long lenses and the lower F stops. Also if you get the F stop too high the sharpness will also suffer.

[Greg McCary]

GB1 The pink over the hump is a house and I am not sure of the grass color. Maybe something I did in PS. I do think that I used enough support. I read on on of these threads that if you use a zoom, zoomed all the way up it will make the picture soft or something. So I backed off just a little. I have been looking for a replacement lens on e-bay. Are Sigma's good lenses? I used a lower aperature so I could shoot above 1/200. The Buffalo was probably 25-30 yards away or so. I have never done well with this lens at all, even with a tripod. It does fair from shorter distances, but suffers at longer ones...
Greg

[EOSThree]

Greg, you basically get what you pay for in a lens. If the lens is inexpensive it usually doesn't yield pro results. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina all make fine lenses, they also make some real duds. The best lenses from the third party manufacturers are very good lenses, but they will cost you what OEM pro lenses do. There aren't any shortcuts when it comes to lenses, a quality lens will cost a quality price. What kind of body do you shoot with? I am familiar with Canon's line up, but beyond that I am pretty weak. This site has some good reviews on it, another site to look at is:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
You should come up with an idea of what you might buy, then ask here for experience with that lens.
I hope you don't mind I took a couple of minutes on your photo:

[Greg McCary]

I was using a very old yashica on this one, but probably won't invest alot of money in it because I also have Rebel 2000. The Canon info will come in handy, Thanks

[GB1]

I bet you can get a great deal on a used Sigma or Tamron lens for that camera on eBay. People are sort of dumping those film camera lenses in favor of the digital-only lenses.

Btw, I've heard that Sigma doesnt really do their own manufacturing of lenses but instead takes bids from different manufacturers. That can result in big variances in quality. So better read up on the specific Sigma lens you're thinking about getting first. -GB

[zrfraser]

I have a Sigma 70-300mm lens and at wide open it is horrible. I generally use about f/8 or f/11 and usually get sharp results. If I'm supporting the camera I don't worry too much about the shutter speed, as long as my subject isn't moving. I doubt your buffalo was moving very quickly so if your camera was supported well enough then you could have used 1/125 or even 1/60 if you were brave and very steady. I akin shooting with a camera to shooting with a gun. If you breathe right and support the rifle and squeeze the trigger you will always get good results.

Z

[EOSThree]

Any film lens will work fine on a digital camera, but an "optimized for digital" lens will vingnette horribly(the photo will have dark corners)on a film camera. Canon has several 75-300mm incarnations including one with IS(image stabilization). I think you can find these used at a fairly resonable price. When I say resonable, remember you will spend a lot more on lenses than you did on your camera body or your Rokinon. Canon also has a new 70-300mm IS that is a little sharper than the older incarnations. Canon has a few 70-210 lenses that are OK, and a 70-200 f/4L lens that is fantastic. Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have several lenses along these lines, decide what range you are looking for, and check sites like here and photo zone and decide how much compromise in quality you are willing to accept, and pick a lens out. Browsing galleries at P base using specific lenses in the search parameters is a good way to help determine if a lens is decent. Look for shots wide open (small f numbers such as f/3.5), and stopped down(f/8 or smaller). Lenses tend to be softer at the ends of their aperture range, and sharpest in the middle of their range.
The color cast, softness, and poor contrast in your photo all can be traced back to the inexpensive lens mounted on your body. The body is just a fancy light box, your lens will get the image to the film, spend you money there for best image quality, an expensive body will do nothing for image quality, it will just make capturing the image easier.

[GB1]

Any film lens will work fine on a digital camera, but an "optimized for digital" lens will vingnette horribly(the photo will have dark corners)on a film camera.

EOSThree - From what I've heard, not so with Nikon cameras. Most of their digital SLRs will not work with the older lenses ... they won't meter The new D80 (I think that's what it is) says that you can use older lenses, but only "CPU" lenses, whatever that is.

[Ronnoco]

Why not simply move in closer? I have gone right into a herd.

Ronnoco

[Greg McCary]

I can't cross the fence. The gentelman that owns the property is very wealthy and paranoid, on and off in prison. We know the caretaker well. But no one is allowed on the farm. He has a large heard and they are very shy. You don't get close often.

[Greg McCary]

Thanks Z,
Now that my wife is into photography I think I will shop around for another AF Canon. Maybe I can find one with a 300mm.
Greg

[EOSThree]

EOSThree - From what I've heard, not so with Nikon cameras. Most of their digital SLRs will not work with the older lenses ... they won't meter The new D80 (I think that's what it is) says that you can use older lenses, but only "CPU" lenses, whatever that is.

I'm not a Noink guy, I forgot that they have changed things enough that some of thier older AF lenses won't work on newer cameras. That's actually pretty poor of Noink not to make their lenses backward compatible. All EOS lenses work with all EOS bodies. The Rebel 2000 should take any of Canon's EF lenses, or any 3rd party lenses for Canon AF bodies. There are some issues with the third party lenses on some Canon bodies, but all Canon EF(auto focus)lenses will work on all Canon Auto Focus bodies.

Why not simply move in closer? I have gone right into a herd.

You're crazy. More people have been injured by Bison in Yellowstone than by Grizzly Bears. Bear Attacks are very rare in the park, but Bison attacks occur yearly. They look slow and ungainly, but can move surprisingly fast and inflict serious damage with their horns.

[Greg McCary]

[You're crazy. More people have been injured by Bison in Yellowstone than by Grizzly Bears. Bear Attacks are very rare in the park, but Bison attacks occur yearly. They look slow and ungainly, but can move surprisingly fast and inflict serious damage with their horns.[/QUOTE]


I have heard this as well. They look pretty tame and the caretaker feeds them daily, but I wouldn't want one of these guys after me. One of them is a good two foot higher than the four foot fence they are behind. He is as big as my Durango and i'm not joking. The one pictured here is one of the smallest...