Show your Bird Portraits
- Thread starter 1982chris911
- Start date
This is one that has just been chosen for the cover of an upcoming book on zoos. It is a bateleur eagle at San Antonio Zoo (Texas, USA). Canon 5D2. Unsure of lens, but info says it was at 300mm so I think it was a Sigma EX 100-300 f4 (which was a nice lens until the autofocus died and no one had parts to fix it).
Upvote
0
Fantastic shot. I agree the motion blur makes the image, especially since the heads and necks are still sharp. I love it.Pheasant fight
I was out and about last week - North East England (Weardale, mainly) - and happened to mention to my mate that one image I've never really been able to manage is a good one of Pheasants scrapping.
Not ten minutes later - this happened:
A bit of a bugger that I lost a wing-tip - these lads were pretty close - but I'm very happy with how this worked up. The slow (1/320) speed makes for plenty of movement blur, which adds to the sense of action.
Canon 1D X, 500mm f/4 Mk II + Mk II 1.4x TC, handheld. Full Exif in the image.
Upvote
0
The 200-500 is one of the lenses I wish Canon made. I have several friends who shoot with that lens. If you like birds and don't have $10,000.00 to spend on a lens, that's the best one to go with.Alan it's third time you are asking about my equipment and in generally I was avoiding direct answer. OK, here it is:
All photos posted on this forum from me (from close ups of plants, insects e.t.c. to BIF) are taken with D7200 + 200-500 VR. Now you for sure understand why I hesitate to answer your questions.
And yeah, it's nice to live in Hawaii but I'm planing vacation in Europe for this summer - much more birds and wildlife
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Maybe your Tamron 150-600mm is just as good, if not better. I have read many reviews of the lens, and the consensus is that it is no better than the Tamron first generation - here is one early review that recommends the Tami over the Nikon https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
Lenstip reviewed the Nikkor 200-500mm and the 500mm f/5.6 PF, and you can see how much lower the resolution of the zoom is at 500mm https://www.lenstip.com/544.4-Lens_...200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html https://www.lenstip.com/540.4-Lens_..._500_mm_f_5.6E_PF_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html
The Canon 100-400mm II is a much better lens, being very sharp at 400mm and 600g (1.3lb) lighter. Also, the Nikon is usually described as having a slow AF, eg https://www.lenstip.com/544.10-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_200–500_mm_f_5.6E_ED_VR_Autofocus.html whereas the 100-400mm II is very snappy, and pretty good with a 1.4xTC.
Upvote
0
I'm planing to spend ~3,600 for the the new 500mm PF. First have to rent one and make some side by side comparison... Zoom many times is handy thing to have but I need some better performance above 20m to the object and somewhat better AF speed (oh, and not that heavy!)... The zoom stays anyway!
Concerning the Alan's comment: I had hard time choosing the lens. Took the steeper way (because I don't believe everything reviews are saying and the fact that there is a difference from copy to copy for this price tag) - rented two Tamrons and two Nikons
. The Nikons were better in AF tracking department and somewhat better in the distances up to ~12 meters (and definitely better for close-ups). Didn't find obvious differences between the copies (on 25" rather good monitor). My fear was that ordering just one copy I may get lemon but fortunately it didn't happen, I didn't see any difference (not scientific test - as with the rented lenses just walked and shoot for few hours, but first thing to check was for decentering and if I need some significant AF tune...). And yes, I think Canon's 100-400 could be better lens (for higher price) but I never had an opportunity to shoot it. And yeah - I have seen many great photos taken with that lens (and this for sure is the best criteria for me)!
Upvote
0
And some shots from yesterday. The first one is just to give some opportunities for size comparing (I thing the mesh of the net is same as I have seen it in Europe). Not much fun on that place... Next photos are from different place, just common birds but much more fun for me! The first photo of the Night heron is at ISO 400, second at ISO 1600 to gain some speed. WELL, AFTER PUSHING "FULL IMAGE" THE FIRST PHOTO BECOME LAST
! The first photo of the Night heron is at ISO 400, second at ISO 1600 to gain some speed. WELL, AFTER PUSHING "FULL IMAGE" THE FIRST PHOTO BECOME LAST
Upvote
0
The reviews are consistent with your findings that the Nikon 200-500mm is optimised for closer distances and the Tamron is better for longer distances. I wonder if this was just by chance or was it deliberate because review sites do their Imatests close up?I'm planing to spend ~3,600 for the the new 500mm PF. First have to rent one and make some side by side comparison... Zoom many times is handy thing to have but I need some better performance above 20m to the object and somewhat better AF speed (oh, and not that heavy!)... The zoom stays anyway!
Concerning the Alan's comment: I had hard time choosing the lens. Took the steeper way (because I don't believe everything reviews are saying and the fact that there is a difference from copy to copy for this price tag) - rented two Tamrons and two Nikons
Upvote
0
I don't know the answer of your question. What I know is that going beyond some distances you have great chance to get in trouble with some other factors that can destroy the images taken even with ~16-18K lens (and I have seen this several times). On other hand I really need a lens that can deliver better in the range of 25-35 meters, good AF speed and focus tracking and lighter than what I currently have. This will work well at good conditions (not very often at the place where I'm living right now...) and somewhat better even in not that good conditions. In generally, faster AF and better distribution of the resolution across the field (you not always have a chance to frame properly during the shooting), as well better performance at the distances mentioned above are critical for me.
Upvote
0
Great shots Don! My favorite is the second one! And nice bird that I have never seen in real.
Now, when you took your photos could you wrap it and send it in my direction (for sure it would be the first record of the species here)
?
Upvote
0
Trying to get some shots of a Red Admiral, who would land on a leaf and always turn exactly the wrong direction, then see another butterfly and decide to take off and chase it. After what felt like the 100th time of this song and dance, I noticed a small eye watching me from about two feet away. A Pacific Sloped Flycatcher had built a nest so well camouflaged by the leaves I didn't even see it so decided to get a shot of it. This is 20MP of the original 50MP image as I was using the 100 2.8L macro lens. After that I gave up on the Red Admiral as it kept landing within 10' of the nest every time. Even worse, it is right by the trail but unless people really stop and look, they will remain undetected.
5DSR : 100 f/2.8L IS 1/50 : f/6.3 : ISO 400
5DSR : 100 f/2.8L IS 1/50 : f/6.3 : ISO 400
Upvote
0
Freedom singer!!!And some shots from yesterday. The first one is just to give some opportunities for size comparing (I thing the mesh of the net is same as I have seen it in Europe). Not much fun on that place... Next photos are from different place, just common birds but much more fun for me
View attachment 183796
Upvote
0
As Louis Pasteur said, "Luck favours the person with a camera in their hand".
Upvote
0