PDA

View Full Version : "Something That Flies" picture thread


Misled
05/27/2016, 04:57 PM
Post them here. Post by Sunday evening please.

BlueCorn
05/27/2016, 05:28 PM
I was, briefly, tempted to post a picture of the television remote.

Apercula
05/27/2016, 05:51 PM
Just saw in an old thread that pics should be new, withdrawing previous offering and will look for a new shot.

Misled
05/27/2016, 06:08 PM
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q68/jllndmb/jllndmb002/DSC_5429_zps4cmsssdi.jpg (http://s133.photobucket.com/user/jllndmb/media/jllndmb002/DSC_5429_zps4cmsssdi.jpg.html)

Apercula
05/28/2016, 07:10 AM
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii150/Ganrin/ef2cea98-216c-45af-96cb-98df05a94d7b_zpsbsibx8y8.jpg (http://s263.photobucket.com/user/Ganrin/media/ef2cea98-216c-45af-96cb-98df05a94d7b_zpsbsibx8y8.jpg.html)

On our roof this morning.

flyguyscott
05/28/2016, 08:43 AM
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160528/aedf13d85f5cad962e36b089c7335319.jpg

JJudge951
05/29/2016, 06:11 AM
Jesse, I was on the same page as you.

<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/27218487981/in/dateposted-public/" title="Fly"><img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7308/27218487981_5d7baecaab_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="Fly"></a>

IPT
05/29/2016, 04:35 PM
Grab shot last night. Was looking for Swallow's and this guy flew by :). It looks over sharpened but it's the way the back-lighting hit him.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/Eagle_zpsomqdb6b3.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/Eagle_zpsomqdb6b3.jpg.html)

Misled
05/29/2016, 06:17 PM
Ok, very nice guys. Love the vulture, but I have to give this to Louis. In flight no less!!! Louis, please pick next week's subject.

IPT
05/30/2016, 11:14 PM
Like the beamer that flies :). Show 'n go :).

Jesse I'm not sure that image I put is worthy of the honor, but thanks. How about "metal".

JJudge951
05/31/2016, 03:36 PM
Grab shot last night. Was looking for Swallow's and this guy flew by :). It looks over sharpened but it's the way the back-lighting hit him.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/Eagle_zpsomqdb6b3.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/Eagle_zpsomqdb6b3.jpg.html)

I have been working on shots like this with a couple of hawks that frequent my yard, but I have to crop them quite a bit to get anywhere near this close, as my max is 250mm.

Was this shot with the 500mm? It is a great shot.

IPT
05/31/2016, 05:44 PM
Was this shot with the 500mm? It is a great shot.

Thanks John. Yeah, it was with the 500mm on crop body (7d MarkII).

Dkuhlmann
06/01/2016, 07:48 AM
I got tied up for the weekend and couldn't get this one in. I must have taken 100 pictures of this swan but this is my favorite one. I didn't do any editing on this and it was taken hand held with my Canon 55-250 with a 2.2x lens on the front, lens does not have IS, I sure wish it did. It's amazing how far out I can get a picture. This one was at about 35-45 yards. I'm loving my new camera but now need to learn how to use Lightroom when I get some time to play around with it and watch some of the videos how to use it.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351478&d=1464788693

351478

IPT
06/01/2016, 02:21 PM
Image stabilization is a huge help for sure. Additionally using a tripod and making sure your shutter speeds are up (generally 1/focal length..ie. 250mm lens you'd want a minimum of 1/250th shutter speed). Then to freeze action an even faster shutter speed can be required.

Dkuhlmann
06/01/2016, 06:16 PM
I'd like to find a zoom lens 250+ that has IS that won't break the bank. My shutter speed was 1/180. Do you have any lens to suggest?

I switched lenses to my Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM and here are a few pictures of some wild honeysuckle flowers. This was also hand held. Big difference with having the IS. I was shocked at the comparison between the two lenses.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351536&d=1464826203

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351537&d=1464826262

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351538&d=1464826274

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351539&d=1464826286

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351540&d=1464826298


351536

351537

351538

351539

351540

IPT
06/02/2016, 02:13 AM
you would have to define "break the bank" :). That's different for everyone. That said, my first "long" lens was the 300mm F4 IS. I loved that lens. Sharp as heck and could take a 1.4 tele converter and get me up to relatively 450mm at F5.6. It also wasn't a monstrosity. I know other on here were very fond of the 100-400 F4.5-5.6. I just wan't big on the push pull zoom nor being forced to be at f5.6 or a minimum F stop of 4.5 unless I choose to be. At the end of the day good tele-photo gear is going to cost you some money.

FWIW looking at the swan image again it almost appears two things are going. It may have back focused some because the water behind the swan looks sharper then the water by the subject. Second, 1/180th probably wasn't enough for the fast motion of the swan. For action like that ideally you're at 1/500th or faster to "freeze" the motion independent of focal length.

Reef Bass
06/02/2016, 06:28 AM
+1 for what Louis said. IMHO, you're giving too much credit to IS. It is much easier to handhold a 85mm than a 250mm in a stable fashion.

Dkuhlmann
06/02/2016, 08:35 AM
What would it hurt to set the shutter speed higher? Is there any negative to leaving it at 1000 if I'm taking pictures of my fish or any wildlife that might be moving. Does it hurt if it's a still shot?

So it seems the moral of the story is to use my tripod when taking pictures at distance for the extra stability. In most of my swan pictures it seemed to be focusing past the swan. Here are a few more. What is the deal with the blurred grass with the two shots on land? Could that have been from using the 2.2x attachment lens? Also did you see anything wrong with the flower pictures or were they fine?

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351571&d=1464877782

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351572&d=1464877794

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351573&d=1464877804

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351574&d=1464877826

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=351575&d=1464877835

351571

351572

351573

351574

351575

IPT
06/02/2016, 03:35 PM
yeah you got some weird stuff going on there. They do look back focused and some of them nothing is sharp. I would take some images with just the lens, no attachments, on a tripod and see what you get.

I had some issues once and I staggered some bottles with numbers on them. Then from a tripod took some images using the timer to make sure there was no camera shake. As you can see my camera was back focusing. You need to remove all the variables and work back from there. There almost appears to be a blurry a vignette in you images and I have no idea what would cause that (besides the lens not being clean except in the center). Sometimes that effect comes from actively zooming while taking the shot as well.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/lines.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/lines.jpg.html)

As for the higher ISO, depending on you camera it shouldn't matter. Most folks dont bat an eye at shooting at ISO 800-1000 or even as much as 3200. Some cameras are better then others but noise reduction software has come a long way. Better to have a sharp image with a little noise than a silky smooth noise free image with a blurry subject because of a slow shutter speed :).

Dkuhlmann
06/02/2016, 05:31 PM
Thanks for the tutorial.

I wasn't talking about my ISO I was talking about my shutter speed setting it at 1/1000. My camera only goes to 1600 ISO but 1/4000 shutter speed

06/02/2016, 05:57 PM
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160602/2a7ca35fc351fab572ed3ac4fb9f7404.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IPT
06/02/2016, 11:36 PM
LOL, sorry about that! Only issue with a high shutter speed is if you're shooting flash. Even then there's "high speed synch", but it has it's draw backs. So in essence, unless you're using flash, or want blur (think silky waterfalls) then no, if you have the light or ISO no drawback to a super fast shutter speed (that I can think of anyway).

IPT
06/02/2016, 11:46 PM
IMHO, you're giving too much credit to IS. It is much easier to handhold a 85mm than a 250mm in a stable fashion.

I agree Ken, but I do weigh IS pretty heavily. Sure, handheld at 85mm is easier to pull off then handheld at 250mm's. No doubt. However, looking at apples to apples (same focal length) with the newest version of IS I can handhold my 500mm at shutter speeds I should never be able to it. It makes a huge difference (for me at least). Look at some of Art Morris stuff (Birds as art). He regularly hand holds 600mm lenses and has lots to say about IS. At the end of the day go for as much shutter speed as you can using your ISO and F stops. After that, I think you can count on IS to add quite a bit of extra latitude. At least that's been my experience. Actually I use IS even when I'm on the tripod (with the super telephotos). The magnification is just so great (esp with the 1.4 tele) the IS helps. I actually sold my 70-200mm F4 non IS lens to upgrade to the IS version a few years ago. No regrets about that decision at all.

Misled
06/03/2016, 05:52 PM
"Metal" picture thread (http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2583043)

Reef Bass
06/04/2016, 06:13 AM
What would it hurt to set the shutter speed higher? Is there any negative to leaving it at 1000 if I'm taking pictures of my fish or any wildlife that might be moving. Does it hurt if it's a still shot?
...

You're basically using Tv (shutter priority) mode then, which is fine. You set the shutterspeed and the camera will determine proper aperture and ISO.

The only "negative", IMHO, is with a fast shutterspeed, you're likely to have to compensate for reduced exposure with a wider aperture or a higher ISO.


I would take some images with just the lens, no attachments, on a tripod and see what you get.
...
There almost appears to be a blurry a vignette in you images and I have no idea what would cause that...


Agreed on both points. I bet the lens attachment is the culprit.


I had some issues once...

Louis, you are a very fortunate man to have only had issues once. :)


I agree Ken, but I do weigh IS pretty heavily. Sure, handheld at 85mm is easier to pull off then handheld at 250mm's. No doubt. However, looking at apples to apples (same focal length) with the newest version of IS I can handhold my 500mm at shutter speeds I should never be able to it. It makes a huge difference (for me at least). Look at some of Art Morris stuff (Birds as art). He regularly hand holds 600mm lenses and has lots to say about IS. At the end of the day go for as much shutter speed as you can using your ISO and F stops. After that, I think you can count on IS to add quite a bit of extra latitude. At least that's been my experience. Actually I use IS even when I'm on the tripod (with the super telephotos). The magnification is just so great (esp with the 1.4 tele) the IS helps. I actually sold my 70-200mm F4 non IS lens to upgrade to the IS version a few years ago. No regrets about that decision at all.

Thank you for the input. I've been in the habit of putting longer lenses on a tripod for quite some time. I did shoot a hundred or so handheld shots in Montana last month with my 70-200 f2.8 II which has IS. I attributed the lack of blur to using a faster shutterspeed (1/250th) and the amazing sharpness of the lens. IS may have helped more than I thought. I can't imagine handholding a 600mm. I drink a lot of coffee. :D

Nice test showing your backfocus issue, BTW.

Dkuhlmann
06/04/2016, 08:14 AM
Ok so the lens that I shot the swan pictures is a Canon EF-S 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS II, the adapter that I put on it was causing the strange blur around the pictures. I need to go find the swan and retake pictures with lens only. I know the magnification of the swan won't be near as good as it was with the 2.2x adapter lens.

Now BIG question, just exactly how much will my distance pictures improve if I get the same lens accept it will be 75-300mm. Is the difference worth buying another lens for only a 50mm gain or should I save my pennies and go for a 400-600 one instead?

Misled
06/04/2016, 08:40 AM
Ok, my turn again. Slow down a bit. Work with what you have. Learn good shooting techniques. There are also other means of support to work with. Use a tree to help stabilize yourself. Rest the lens on something close by. Heck, you can even use a beanbag. Learn better breathing. Instead of getting a longer lens, work on getting closer to the subject. There's more than one way to get a shot. Do what you can with what you have before dropping a few grand on something that in itself will make you want to stop shooting.

IPT
06/04/2016, 03:07 PM
Louis, you are a very fortunate man to have only had issues once. :)

Thank you for the input. I've been in the habit of putting longer lenses on a tripod for quite some time. I did shoot a hundred or so handheld shots in Montana last month with my 70-200 f2.8 II which has IS. I attributed the lack of blur to using a faster shutterspeed (1/250th) and the amazing sharpness of the lens. IS may have helped more than I thought. I can't imagine handholding a 600mm. I drink a lot of coffee. :D

Nice test showing your backfocus issue, BTW.

LOL, I only had issues bad enough once that I went that far :). Sometimes I still get frustrated but I'm too lazy to do it all again and make use of the micro adjustments :eek1:.

Yeah, the IS on the newer lenses (like yours and my 500II) is pretty amazing. I'm sure all those factors you mentioned contributed to the quality of your images.

If I can, I'm on a tripod. Sometimes though (shooting from a boat for example, or a grab shot from the road shooting from a parked car) that's not possible.

When i first got the lens I wanted to see how good the IS was. I was pretty amazed. For the heck of it I just mounted the lens now and stepped outside to take this shot. This is my 500mm on the 6D handheld at 1/45th of a second with no sharpening applied yet. I took three images and the other two are decidedly soft. This one though is quite usable and with some sharpening could probably be used for anything. That's taken at 1/45th of a second hand held with a 500mm lens!

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/sharpness_zpscfnbapmr.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/sharpness_zpscfnbapmr.jpg.html)

IPT
06/04/2016, 03:21 PM
I know the magnification of the swan won't be near as good as it was with the 2.2x adapter lens.

Now BIG question, just exactly how much will my distance pictures improve if I get the same lens accept it will be 75-300mm. Is the difference worth buying another lens for only a 50mm gain or should I save my pennies and go for a 400-600 one instead?

I agree with Jesse. get your technique nailed down...bracing, squeezing the shutter not "pushing" it, holding your breath all the other stuff that will help with sharpness.

I know nothing about that lens or adapter. That said, with Canon, the "L" glass is what you want. spending that money for 50mm of gain is not worth it. You would be way better off spending $1500 and getting the 300F4 and 1.4 Tele converter. If you can use a tripod look for an older lens without IS is you need to save $$. or i think the 70-300 is a decent lens. It you have something for the wider end consider selling the one you have and "upgrading" to the 70-300. Though if it was going to cost you a lot to do that the gain may not be all that great. You're going to need to do some research.

There really is no right or wrong answer. Mostly (if your skills are there in how to make the most of what gear you have) it depends on your budget and what you feel like carrying around.

I bought the 500mm for a lot of reasons. When I go to Denali NP there are zones where you must stay on the road. Some of the critters are way far off. I got sick of cropping everything to death. That said my wife and I are fortunate where we had a few good years and could afford that lens. I have also been doing this for probably 20 years and I live in a state where I can use this lens often. For example this was in my backyard a few weeks ago :).

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/bear_zpsvqnocogt.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/bear_zpsvqnocogt.jpg.html)

Truth is the 300mm with the Tele kept me happy for close to 10 years :). I will say this though. When I first started out I used cheaper 3rd party lenses and adapters. Mostly because it's what I could afford and I could get "more" stuff if I bought cheaper brands. I never did get the sharpness and quality I sought (what I saw the pros getting). I ended up with the pro gear but it took a long time to do it. Once I did the quality was notable. My suggestion, if you're going to invest is to do a lot of research and be clear on your goal. Spend a little more and do it once. it took my three or 4 tripods and heads before I ended up with the Gitzo and RRS ballhead. I would have saved hundreds of $$ if i would have just bought that gear once, upfront, and not had to go through several other junk ones (at $200 a piece or so).

IPT
06/04/2016, 03:26 PM
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160602/2a7ca35fc351fab572ed3ac4fb9f7404.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Nice ride Blackbird, is it yours? What's done to it?

Here's mine...

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/_MG_9606_zpstzlafo6e.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/_MG_9606_zpstzlafo6e.jpg.html)

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/_MG_9405_zps8yyy5hkt.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/_MG_9405_zps8yyy5hkt.jpg.html)

_________________________________________________________________

Photochopped....so tempted to run air :)

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/_MG_9388-slammed_zpssjzb3wc9.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/_MG_9388-slammed_zpssjzb3wc9.jpg.html)

Does it fly? Well the cop thought so when he pulled me over last week :lolspin:.

IPT
06/04/2016, 11:35 PM
This is my 500mm on the 6D handheld at 1/45th of a second with no sharpening applied yet. That's taken at 1/45th of a second hand held with a 500mm lens!

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RC%20forum/sharpness_zpscfnbapmr.jpg (http://s283.photobucket.com/user/IPTalaska/media/RC%20forum/sharpness_zpscfnbapmr.jpg.html)


In case you didn't notice, that is being viewed at 100% zoom in DPP.

Dkuhlmann
06/05/2016, 05:10 AM
Would it be good for me to get a 1.4 Tele converter or even a 2.0 Tele Converter and use it with my 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS II?

I understand what you guy's are saying to get comfortable and stable with what I currently have. I personally like both of my "good" lenses the 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS II and 17-85 1:4-5.6 IS USM which is a pretty decent lens. Neither are "L" models but that will come in the future.

Jesse I agree with you that I can stalk my subject and get closer "in some" circumstances but not always. Using the 2x adapter that I have made a HUGE difference in the distance that I could use it.

I'll explain not breaking the bank.

I've not worked in a year due to having spine surgeries, the first one last June 18th and then March 31st this year. They have fused L4-L5 last June and the recent one was to do an extension of L5-S1 this was all trying to fix my extreme pain I get after walking a short distance like 50 yards max and I can't stand still for 10 mins before the pain gets so bad I can't stand it.

Well I'm still having the pain even after the fusions. I had my SI joints "fused" 5 years ago but the fusion didn't take place and according to my neurosurgeon I didn't need that surgery because my pain was due to the L4-S1 stenosis. But now it seems that I'm having pain coming from the SI joints and something needs to be done, just not sure what that will be but I'm not looking forward to finding out.

I had MRI and CT scans yesterday and will be having epidural of both SI joints next week the meeting with the surgeon June 29th to see what we're going to do.

So that is why my funds are caput, I'm not use to being this broke all I have for income is $1085 SSDI at least I have that. The good thing if you can call it that is my bills only run about $700 a month, so bills are covered and my play money doesn't exist.

I applied for a part-time job two weeks ago that will be awesome if I get it, should know something on it next week. Hoping that it comes to be, for me :D

Dkuhlmann
06/05/2016, 05:29 AM
Louis, where in AK do you live? I was born in Anchorage and my bucket list is to get back there to see the beautiful state and to catch one of them thar barn doors :D

Reef Bass
06/05/2016, 07:24 AM
Louis, impressive sharpness handholding the 500 at 1/45th. Wow.

Dave, sorry to hear about your back issues. They sound very painful and costly. My sympathies and best of luck.

A teleconverter will give you better reach with less loss of visual quality than the lens attachment. With my 1.4x, my 400mm becomes a 560mm. One sacrifices a bit of light, say 1/2 to 1 stop. It goes between the lens and the body instead of at the end of the lens.

AK is beautiful. I had the pleasure of visiting once for a couple weeks when I was much younger and it made a wonderful impression. I would love to catch me a barn door. :D

Apercula
06/05/2016, 09:06 AM
I lived in Sitka, Alaska for 5 years in the early '70's, and we went back for a visit in 2001. If we were using old pictures for the pic of the week threads, I might have used this one from 2001.
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii150/Ganrin/BaldEagle2.jpg (http://s263.photobucket.com/user/Ganrin/media/BaldEagle2.jpg.html)

We got within 10 feet of him before we realized he was above the trail. All I had at that time was a cheap $100 kodak point and shoot.

Dkuhlmann
06/05/2016, 10:17 AM
Louis, impressive sharpness handholding the 500 at 1/45th. Wow.

Dave, sorry to hear about your back issues. They sound very painful and costly. My sympathies and best of luck.

A teleconverter will give you better reach with less loss of visual quality than the lens attachment. With my 1.4x, my 400mm becomes a 560mm. One sacrifices a bit of light, say 1/2 to 1 stop. It goes between the lens and the body instead of at the end of the lens.

AK is beautiful. I had the pleasure of visiting once for a couple weeks when I was much younger and it made a wonderful impression. I would love to catch me a barn door. :D

So is there any reason to get the 1.4 over the 2.0? I like the sound of 500mm :D rather than 350mm :cool:

EDIT:

So I did some searching around and I found a PROMASTER SPECTRUM 7 1.7x Tele-Converter for CANON EOS for under $50 used in great shape. Any thoughts on it?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/promaster-spectrum7-af-1-7x.html

IPT
06/06/2016, 03:12 AM
DK - there is a slight softness associated with the Canon 2x tele converter vs the 1.4 (in fact i did a thread on here awhile ago - YIKES - it was 7 years ago!! http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1596798). Many folks say just cropping an image yields better quality then using a Tele but I have not found that to be the case. The 2x tele is nice, but it eats a LOT of light, and as mentioned is slightly softer. Stick with the 1.4. I would not waste my time (or money) on any tele converters but the Canon ones. The new ones are awesome. A lot fo folks upgraded to it but the old ones were good too. You could probably find a used one on Ebay for a reasonable price.

I live in Anchorage. It's a great place to live. Been up here 14 years now, now. Born and Raised in NY, literally born in NYC :)

As for your back, it makes me sad. I'm a PT and I've worked with spine for the last 10 years. It blows me away how poorly back pain patients are treated (with regards to the procedures often not helping, or dragging on ineffectual interventions when they are not working). Way too many surgeries being done, and way too much weight being given to MRI and other radiographic findings. So many patients just aren't getting better in spite of it all. Sounds like you've been through a lot man. I highly encourage you seek out a PT credentialed in MDT (look for "find provider" at McKenzieMDT.org). The Dip's (Diploma level credentialing) have way more post-graduate training then the certs (I'm Diploma credentialed). Sounds like you are pretty far along the in all this but if you haven't seen someone using this approach I'd highly recommend it. It helped my back tremendously. I've had 27 years of LBP that at one time was going all the way down to my ankle. It was my own back that made me seek the training. Once I got the results I did I took it further and further to the Dip level. Gives me much better outcomes with my patients then I got before embarking on that route.

Good luck, with everything. You got a lot going on.

Dkuhlmann
06/06/2016, 04:24 AM
Isn't the Canon Promaster 1.7 Spectrum-7 autofocus lens Tele-converter made by Canon, or a third party that is making it for Canon? It seems this 1.7 has gotten some really great reviews and since I found two around $50-$60 in great shape used I was thinking of going that route. Or is there a different TC that you're talking about. Thanks for the link I'm going to read it now.

I've got a great PT that I've been going to for a few years now and she's great. I'm not sure if she does what you're talking about or not, I'll have to mention this to her when I see her on Wed.

I'm really hoping that this part time job comes through this week as I more than anything need something to do and make a few bucks doing it. My savings is down to my last $1500 so I'm wanting to not hit it more than I have to. I also want to get a new trolling motor for my Lund Tyee that is $1500 but it will run the boat by GPS which is awesome that I won't have to steer the boat while catching fish. I do a lot of trolling and this will be great for doing the trolling and not having to do anything accept watch for other boats when I'm doing open water trolling for walleye on Lake Erie. I'm hoping to get in another trip there before my next surgery or whatever else is going to happen getting this pain under control.

IPT
06/06/2016, 12:37 PM
Isn't the Canon Promaster 1.7 Spectrum-7 autofocus lens Tele-converter made by Canon, or a third party that is making it for Canon?

I've got a great PT that I've been going to for a few years now and she's great. I'm not sure if she does what you're talking about or not, I'll have to mention this to her when I see her on Wed.



I'm not familiar with it. A quick search reveals it for some Pentax lenses so my guess is it's a third party with a "Canon" mount. I could be wrong though.

Gonna PM you about the PT stuff.

Dkuhlmann
06/06/2016, 05:09 PM
Well I found one on Ebay in excellent condition for $46 shipped to me. I'll do some comparison shots when I get it.