Mike mentioned on Jen's Holland sunset thread that he wished he'd been able to shoot the sunset after we quit shooting at South Haven... Here's a little of what I got at South Haven before we quit for the day...

Great pictures Gary. That lake looks very cold and angry.

One of these times when Gary and I go out I'm going to get my film in and processed first so I can post before him. But I'm not holding my breath.

And Gary neglected to mention that he served as a very fine windbreak for me while we were shooting that day. I can't thank him enough for that service. As I understand it's my turn next time....

Nice capture Gary!

Since I've switched over to Canon I'm still trying to decide whether I'm going to buy a slow prime telephoto or a faster zoom...I'm after quality, but do you think a 400mm/5.6 lens would cut it for wave action such as this?

PS - Thanks for your email regarding my lens too. I will look into a couple things you mentioned.

You getting your film processed before I do Hersh, now there's a laugh unless you drive back into Kalamazoo, wait on it to get done and then drive back to Indiana using your get outa speeding tickets badge faster than I can cover the 7 miles from Kal Color to home... Up to the challenge???

Jen, I'd buy the fastest lens you can afford - primes work better with teleconverters than a faster zoom - and you should use a teleconverter specifically intended for/matched to the lens in question. What I posted was shot with a Nikkor 300 mm f/4 AF-S lens coupled to one of my F5's via a Nikkor TC-14E AF-S teleconverter, which gave me an effective focal length of 420 mm and a max apeature of f/5.6. The TC-14E and TC-20E AF-S teleconverters that I have DO NOT work on non AF-S lenses, so be careful that you don't get into a lens/teleconverter incompatability issue with whatever you buy. Pushing Provia 100F slide film 1 stop to iso 200 I was still shooting between 1/640th and 1/800th sec most of the time with aperatures in the range of f/6.3 - 7.1. Yes, that would be fast enough having a 400 mm f/5.6 lens to directly answer your question. One alternative might be Tamron's 200-400 mm f/5.6 zoom, It's a constant aperature f/5.6 lens across the entire focal range. Prices aren't too stiff, ~$450-500, the lens is decently sharp and it's a push-pull zoom with a good lens hood. I have one although I don't use it all that much any more. It is convenient when you're out in a gale and can't change lenses because of blowing sand but need a different focal length. I have gotten some very good stuff with this lens in the past. It also couples nicely to Tamron's autofocus 1.4X and 2X teleconverters if that's an issue. You can stack those to get you out to 1140 mm if you need something really long although the max aperature is something like f/16

Gary, that's kind of the route I was thinking. That Tamron lens you mentioned has been one I've seriously thought about. Tokina makes a 400mm/5.6 prime in their AT-X line for around the same price but trying to find one used has been nil. I think I'm going to sacrifice a little focal length and go with a retired Canon 200mm/2.8L prime with their 1.4x TC. I should be able to get both for about $600. Digital, no TC the 200mm is equivalent to 320mm, with the TC it's 448mm. If I decide to shoot film, the TC will give me 280mm. I'm to the point with my photography that I would rather have quality over convenience (zoom) and I also want a fast lens without spending big $$.

Jen, 200 mm f/2.8 is a good focal length/aperature combination and it would work well with a teleconverter. If the budget will allow it, maybe Santa can get you a 2X teleconverter as well... It does get to the point that quality wins out over convenience.

The link below will take you to an animated 8 frame GIF sequence of one of the waves breaking at South Haven this past Monday afternoon.

http://www.coastalbeacons.com/Dec_gale_SH1/SH_Dec_gale_anim1.gif

More will be coming from that photo shoot over the weekend and will end up on a new webpage. I'll post the link after everything has been uploaded.

Hope you enjoy this!

Gary

Thanks for that great sequence, Gary...

...Why is the color of the sky changing from frame to frame? Is the exposure automatically changing from frame to frame?

There are clouds passing overhead, out of sight that are affecting light levels. The camera is was in Shutter priority "S" and maintained an exposure time of either 1/640 or 1/800th sec to allow me to cope with the gale force winds. The exposure was adjusted by the camera accordingly, within the range of f/5.6 - f/8 but for the most part at either f/6.3 or f/7.1 (these are 1/3 stop increments if they don't seem familiar to some). Hence the change in the light levels. Hope that helps, John...

The light reflecting of the wave as it grew may have had an effect on the exposure settings.

Great shots Gary. Don't have any lights like that around here that I know of.

Bert, I generally set the exposure for the entire series on my scanner from the image with the largest billowing cloud. That would tend to make some of the others a tad darker. I'll try scanning the same group of slides with the exposure set based on the first of the sequence. A very interesting question to pursue... thanks for provoking the thought!

Jen, if you want to try that Tamron 200-400 f/5.6, let me know one of these weekends when you're going to be over at the lake and we can just arrange to meet there. You'd have to use the lens on one of my Nikon bodies, but you're welcome to shoot a short roll of print film or whatever through the Tamron if you'd like to see how well it peforms for you.

Gary

Gee, thanks Gary! That sounds awesome. This weekend is out because I'm photographing a military Christmas party tomorrow in Ypsilanti and I'm leaving this afternoon. I have nothing planned between now and Christmas otherwise. Name your spot and date! I can go anywhere from Manistee to St. Joe.

Awesome captures, Gary. I notice some fellow Cannon shooters here in the thread. Recently I purchased my two dream lenses, the 24-70L and 70-200L zooms. Can anyone give me some real world advice on how well the 1.4 and 2.0 Canon teleconverters work with the 70-200L f2.8?

Thanks!

Hey Ned!

I just ordered the 1.4x. Haven't tried it out yet. You will lose only 1 F-stop instead of 2 with the 2X, and the 1.4x is sharper and you don't habve hardly any noticeable difference with the 1.4X in image quality. The 2.0x you will lose sharpness and the lens will hunt in low light. Read this for more information:

Canon 70-200L with teleconverter

Thanks for the link, Jen. I frequent that site a lot, and I guess I missed this review. I appreciate the information, and I will take a look!