Jeff Keller wrote:
> YMMV but when I'm using a long lens it is most often trying to capture
> a bird or other creature. The DOF of the CAT lenses is plenty if I can
> focus it.
My experience differs. Here, the DOF of 600/8 is so shallow that the fur
closest to the camera is in focus, but the face and fur along the back
are not. One could argue that a tiny bit different focus setting would
solve that. But that's as close as I could focus and the critters have
the unfortunate (photographically) tendency to move slightly even when
"sitting still". Which factor was most at work here, I don't know. For a
less than full pixel crop, like the preceding image, at a reasonable
display size, it's no problem.
And for birds in flight, I don't have the chops to hit the focus often
enough to make it worthwhile. AF is the solution to that one for me. An
AF tele on a small sensor DSLR works wonders. 480 mm, f11, AF, BAM
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/FilmvsDigi/FvD03.htm>.
> I've also used the 750/6 to pick off a distant light house
> and a power plant. DOF was not a problem for either of those. The
> distance compression can yield nice images.
>
No problem there, I agree, although the sheer amount of ari the image
comes through limits resolution most of the time
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Maine/Sigma600/pages/02_1631.htm>.
> I've used my 350/5.6 and 450/4.5 much less but neither of those give
> me worries about too shallow of DOF.
>
I found the DOF of the 350/5.6 troublesome. I had to really pay
attention to what I was doing. I decided that a conventional 300 mm was
a better bet for me. When it works, the DOF can be very nice, but the
OOF effects are strange
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Garden04/pages/3649_16.htm>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|