I need a longer lens
Apr 8, 2017 20:09:03 #
Took this (I hate to say 'shot this') today. The Red-Bellied Woodpecker was about forty-five feet up the tree in my front yard. I heavily cropped this in Elements 15 , and it seems to print well at 4x6", but shooting at the end of my lens (300mm), everything seems to get soft anyway. Also had to edit a twig out (from a closer tree) of the original that went diagonally from the middle left crossing the bird at the tail. So happy I have Elements 15!!
Hand Held
VR Off
Manual Focus
Manual Mode
Nikon D5500 w/55-300
f/14
1/1000 sec
ISO 3200
300mm
I put an inset of the original shot in the bottom left to show how much cropping from the original.
---------
As a side note; Why do they call this a Red-Bellied Woodpecker? Only red I see is on the head.....
Hand Held
VR Off
Manual Focus
Manual Mode
Nikon D5500 w/55-300
f/14
1/1000 sec
ISO 3200
300mm
I put an inset of the original shot in the bottom left to show how much cropping from the original.
---------
As a side note; Why do they call this a Red-Bellied Woodpecker? Only red I see is on the head.....
Apr 8, 2017 21:01:32 #
Spider223 wrote:
Took this (I hate to say 'shot this') today. The ... (show quote)
Nice capture.
The belly has a red blush on it.
Apr 9, 2017 10:24:07 #
Spider223 wrote:
Took this (I hate to say 'shot this') today. The ... (show quote)
The 200-500 may proof to be a good contender!
Apr 10, 2017 00:25:02 #
Apr 10, 2017 01:03:16 #
I used to think the 55-300 had pretty good image quality. So much so that I recently bought a replacement to take on an extended trip to get the lighter weight compared to my alternatives. I even got a 1.4 telextender for it. Used recently with D5300.
I uploaded my pictures today and got to see them in larger view. I was very disappointed. They are all soft. The ones with the telextender much more so.
It is back to lugging the 200-500, or at least the 28-300, in the future. I'll be selling the recently acquired 55-300 and Kenko telextender.
I uploaded my pictures today and got to see them in larger view. I was very disappointed. They are all soft. The ones with the telextender much more so.
It is back to lugging the 200-500, or at least the 28-300, in the future. I'll be selling the recently acquired 55-300 and Kenko telextender.
Apr 10, 2017 07:20:15 #
sailorsmom wrote:
Good shot, Spider!
Welcome back Sue.
Apr 10, 2017 21:07:39 #
Apr 11, 2017 08:39:15 #
Swamp-Cork wrote:
Great download!
Cataracts?
No feather detail and blown out whites and reds.
Apr 11, 2017 08:50:34 #
MtnMan wrote:
Cataracts?
No feather detail and blown out whites and reds.
No feather detail and blown out whites and reds.
Exactly! I keep using this lens because I own it, but I am really confused how quite a few of the reviews on it say it is a sharp lens. I just don't see it.... there has to be a sweet spot somewhere in this lens that the magazines find and test at, but I am not finding it...
Looking at 'Madman's' photos of the same type of bird, shows a huge difference. His being shot at about 35' and mine being shot at 80'-100', but so much better detail on his.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-453472-1.html
Apr 11, 2017 20:48:06 #
Apr 12, 2017 01:01:46 #
Spider223 wrote:
Exactly! I keep using this lens because I own it,... (show quote)
Yes, they are nice indeed. I see he says at 30 ft...which is indeed a huge difference. I can only get that detail at that distance with my 200-500 handheld. Maybe twice that distance with a tripod. But never with the 55-300.
I didn't see that he listed equipment.
Apr 12, 2017 02:14:16 #
Apr 12, 2017 03:08:23 #
Very good actually for such a large crop! I agree with the 200-500 lens.
Apr 12, 2017 08:04:10 #
MtnMan wrote:
Yes, they are nice indeed. I see he says at 30 ft...which is indeed a huge difference. I can only get that detail at that distance with my 200-500 handheld. Maybe twice that distance with a tripod. But never with the 55-300.
I didn't see that he listed equipment.
I didn't see that he listed equipment.
I just checked his photo, 600mm lens at f/16. I'm way overshooting my lens. I guess it's not like a rifle
.... Still very soft though, and no fine definition. It works for 4x6" prints, but cropping and enlarging is pushing it.Wife isn't too excited to see me looking at longer lenses, her thought is, "just walk closer"........
Apr 12, 2017 12:01:48 #
Spider223 wrote:
I just checked his photo, 600mm lens at f/16. I'm way overshooting my lens. I guess it's not like a rifle .... Still very soft though, and no fine definition. It works for 4x6" prints, but cropping and enlarging is pushing it.
Wife isn't too excited to see me looking at longer lenses, her thought is, "just walk closer"........
.... Still very soft though, and no fine definition. It works for 4x6" prints, but cropping and enlarging is pushing it.Wife isn't too excited to see me looking at longer lenses, her thought is, "just walk closer"........
Surprised he used f16. Minimum f-stop of the lens is enough for a bird...allowing for higher shutter speed and lower ISO.
My wife is very understanding on new camera equipment. If there is any hesitation I mention other boy-toys: boats, snowmobiles, motorcycles, etc.. She marvels at how inexpensive my hobby is!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.