Yeah the weight factor in photography is a big thing. For a lot of people, myself included, it can make the difference as to whether you actually use the gear or not. Canon also have those 600mm and 800mm f11 lenses and they’re relatively light as well. Excellent reach on an aps-c body too. Probably the biggest draw back on those lenses is you’re fighting a lack of light and heat haze. The 100-400mm is much more versatile and practical for most people.
1 Like
I got a great deal on an older Laowa, the 100mm with 2:1. Incredible detail retention! And the infinity option? In a pinch – well, at least for large species – these macro lenses can even handle some birding!
2 Likes
Do you know if your software may be better for denoising than camera raw?
Here’s a comparison. I assume you mean Adobe Camera Raw?
Original: a crop of the original as opened in Camera Raw no adjustments
Camera Raw: same cropping, the original with Noise Reduction applied (manually)
PureRaw 4: same cropping, using default settings applied to original
As for speed, once opened in Camera Raw, the RAW file noise slider is something you preview and that’s it. Ready for export. The PureRaw has a preview too, but this image took 5 seconds to complete the process (and export to a DNG).
Hope this helps. (Zoom in to 100% for comparison)
2 Likes
I have the 150 too and agree completely about the difference in field use. I was very lucky to find both the 150 and the 250 at our local thrift shop for 30 dollars each. The great thing about clip-ons and also manual lenses? They age very well.
1 Like
You can try one of the Nikon point and shoots… you will get a built in macro mode and excellent zooming range, since you mentioned bird photography! P110 is the latest model, and its pretty good with really good zoom and nice features! Sorry in case someone has already posted this suggestion, I didn’t see it!
1 Like