REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

Soundy · 05-29-2009, 10:31 AM

The annual Pitt Meadows Airport Day is coming up in July, and for the past two years now it has included the return of a proper airshow in addition to the static displays and a small classic-car show. I tried to organize a little photo trip for it last year but that fizzled... so I'm trying again this year!

Date is Sunday, July 19. Show runs 10:00-4:30 followed by a Rick Tippe concert. Admission for the whole day is $12 for adults.

Anyone interested in coming along, post it here, or add yourself to the event on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?ei...3547330&ref=ts

Senna4ever · 05-30-2009, 04:38 PM

Sweet.

Also, don't forget the Abbottsford Airshow, August 8, 9, 10!

Soundy · 05-30-2009, 04:41 PM

I haven't been to the Abby show since I was a kid... even back then it was a zoo. I've never been able to convince myself to pay the money they want to take all day in traffic to get there, just to be able to park 20 miles away, and then sit in traffic for hours again to get home :P

Fortunately, the Pitt Meadows airport is about a 15-minute bike ride from home

Senna4ever · 05-30-2009, 05:09 PM

It's not that bad.

I've never been to the Pitt Meadows one, so I'm interested in going. I can't make a commitment yet though. Should I bring the 400 or 500? How close are you to the action?

Soundy · 05-30-2009, 05:40 PM

It's a small airport, so nothing is very far away. They don't have the big show items like the jets and such, so it's not a monster draw like Abby, either.. getting up close should be no problem.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&sourc...36006&t=h&z=15

Senna4ever · 07-19-2009, 06:30 PM

SHIT! I totally forgot about this!!!

Soundy · 07-19-2009, 07:02 PM

Was a good day! Sunny, few light puffy clouds, bit of a breeze... little dusty in the viewing field, but not too hot. Going through some 930 shots right now (6.5fps is dangerous!). This was where I used that 400/2.8L mentioned in the lens thread, BTW... not for any planes, because my buddy was using it the whole time, but I squeezed off a few shots at Rick Tippe and was most impressed by the ultra-fast focus!

Senna4ever · 07-19-2009, 10:14 PM

Haha...an airshow is the last place you'd want to use a 400mm f2.8. The 400mm f5.6L is much better suited.

Soundy · 07-19-2009, 10:24 PM

Yeah, well... us poor folk make do with what we have. I used my EF 75-300 f/4-5.6. :P

peazs · 07-20-2009, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

Haha...an airshow is the last place you'd want to use a 400mm f2.8. The 400mm f5.6L is much better suited.

don't know anything about the 2 lenses, but why's that? curious on the pros/cons for using those lenses during an airshow

Soundy · 07-21-2009, 12:17 AM

Main reason, I would think, is that the f/5.6 would be a LOT lighter than the f/2.8 (that thing was a HEAVY BEAST), and thus a lot easier to track a fast-moving target. The smaller aperture would also mean a good bit deeper DOF, which would reduce the chance of the planes being out of focus.

Still waiting for buddy to post some of his pics - he has a 40D as well, so it'll be nice to see how that 400/2.8 worked for him on the planes.

Senna4ever · 07-21-2009, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peazs

don't know anything about the 2 lenses, but why's that? curious on the pros/cons for using those lenses during an airshow

The 400mm f2.8 is so big and so heavy, it's impossible to handhold for more than a 20 seconds before your arms get tired and start to wobble. Of course the IS/VR does compensate for this to a certain extent, but it gets physically tiring! I'll bring out the 400mm f2.8 so you can test this for yourself. You'll need a Wimberly type head to pan smoothly...and with the high speeds of the planes, the sheer mass of the lens (12 lbs! vs. 2.8 lbs) makes it difficult to get the lens moving. This is why Bootslut can get good birds in flight photos (check the bird photography thread) with his 400mm f5.6, and I can't because I use the 400mm f2.8. With airshows, you'll almost never shoot wider than f8, so the extra heft isn't a necessity. I'd say both lenses are equally sharp though.

The 400mm f2.8 is excels in sports and wildlife photography where you need to isolate your subject from the background. The f5.6 is also good for wildlife and sports, but you'll need more light, lacks IS/VR and you lose that buttery smooth bokeh created by the f2.8 aperture.

The 400mm f2.8 is shorter than a 500mm f4, but it's wider and heavier. They are all a dream to use, but they all serve slightly different purposes. I'd say the 500mm f4 is the best compromise of them all - lighter, less expensive & more reach.

Just to give you an idea on the comparative sizes of the lenses:
400mm f5.6 mounted on a 40D (not my photo):

Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR mounted on a D300:

Nikon 500mm f4 mounted on D300:

Canon 500mm f4 IS mounted on 5DmkII:

If you want to test drive any of these combos, I can bring them out anytime.

Soundy · 07-21-2009, 12:51 AM

Hey, I was getting around 1/1600 shutters at f/5.6 and ISO 100 on my EF75-300... so even with a big hefty lens like that it should be a fast enough shutter to compensate for a fair amount of shake. Fortunately it was a really bright day, so light wasn't a problem AT ALL

Senna4ever · 07-21-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Hey, I was getting around 1/1600 shutters at f/5.6 and ISO 100 on my EF75-300... so even with a big hefty lens like that it should be a fast enough shutter to compensate for a fair amount of shake. Fortunately it was a really bright day, so light wasn't a problem AT ALL

On a bright sunny summer day. Once you get into shade, or a cloudy day in winter, you're gonna miss the f2.8. Those hummingbird nest shots I took would have been impossible with the f5.6.

Boostslut · 07-21-2009, 01:12 PM

Senna makes good points (of course). I love my 400mm F5.6 because its so light, and yeahs why i can get decent BIF pictures. Even during the day i shoot on my 40D at around 200-400ISO to get decent shutter speeds. On my 5D i had the ISO upto 1600 during the day to get hummingbird photo's, and lots of motion blur. I can't wait till the air show comes around so i can get some planes in the air! Can't wait!

The 400 2.8 = form, function, but major weight!
The 400 5.6 = function over form, and quite light (i still use a mono-pod with a head on it most of the time when i can) My 5.6 fails in the shade! haha...

Senna i'd love to try out the 500mm sometime. I'm interested in the lens, and heard its a good combo of reach, weight, and cost(even tho a pretty penny). Any 600mm lens is just super heavy. Thoughts? 500mm hand-holdable for short periods? Or at least a good mono-pod/head combo?

Geez, we're getting waay off topic...

Soundy · 07-21-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

On a bright sunny summer day. Once you get into shade, or a cloudy day in winter, you're gonna miss the f2.8. Those hummingbird nest shots I took would have been impossible with the f5.6.

No, you misunderstand... you were saying one of the drawbacks of the 2.8 for an airshow is that the weight makes it difficult to hold steady and track planes... I was merely pointing out that even at 5.6 and ISO 100, I was getting 1/1600 or better; with 2.8 giving you two extra stops, or shutters in the 1/6400 range, steadiness shouldn't be a big concern (especially when you ALSO have IS).

peazs · 07-24-2009, 12:25 AM

thanks for the explanation guys