sorry but evidence suggests otherwise as I have quoted above!

Before the worldwide flood the seas were only small the water came from a canopy above the earth which watered the earth with a dew as there was no rain before the flood. The water also came from inside the earth. Scientists say that there is 3 times the amount of water in under ground oceans as there is in the oceans around the earth so there is plenty of room for where the water would go but the oceans we see today are the flood waters. If you piled all the ocean waters over all the earth covering land as well the water would be 2 miles deep covering even the highest mountain hence sea shells found embedded in the rock up there as well as other fossilized animals. You can gradually introduce a fresh water fish to salt water and this is what I believe happened. The water was fresh before but became salty from all the mineral deposits around the globe. {And there was and still is a lot}The fish and all living in the sea adapted to the salt water. It is proven that the reefs with all the life in them are only 4 and a half thousand years old and this makes sense when the flood happened around 1600 years after creation if you take a 6000 year old earth.

The earth was very different before the flood. There was hardly any of the water we call sea today. The flood happened after around 1600 years after creation so the animals God created were all in still in the area so to speak as there was hardly any great areas of water we have now. Noah did not collect animals, Gods power led them in two by two into the ark. There is tons of evidence of a world wide flood such as shells embedded in rock on the top of mountains, animals buried by sudden burial of water and mud and sediment which shows up today in fossilized things. The layers which evolutionists call the geologic column was done by the flood. Once the flood waters subsided all the sediment layers fell into place burying everything and you find that these fossilized animals trees etc are often laying through many layers which blows the theory of the layers building up over millions of years.

Interesting but he's wrong, the flood covered the whole earth not just a few thousand square km!

Im just curious, as you say you have a degree in photography and 50 years of experience why you would settle for an amateurs lens? Surely after all these years I would have thought you would own a nice 500 or 600 f/4 ! ;)

Its a good shot but its not pin sharp. Although it looks relatively sharp small size, blown up on my laptop screen it becomes clear it is not sharp. its a great shot mind you and these critters are hard to capture in flight so good on you. :thumbup:

Well let us know how you get on with it..

Um It is available as people have it and have been commenting on it.

I can't see the Tamron being any sharper than your 100-400. For what Ive seen with images taken with the 150-600 they say they are relatively sharp but they are not pin sharp that is the difference and at 600 it is softer. I couldn't stand a lens like this and if I were you Id save for a prime 500 or 600 second hand. The results are amazing. I have a prime nikon 500 f/4 and it is bitingly pin sharp. Anything less than pin sharp and I delete it. Most of the time what you have is never quite long enough anyway so why bother with a zoom especially for those with two bodies and can have a 70-200 or similar on that. Also I reckon that 150-600 is just plain ugly especially when extended.

[quote=atjones]Hi.
I'm Alan Jones and I'm new to this forum.
I just received a Nikon 28-300 and I need a UV filter.
Researching I've narrowed it down to basically Hoya Vs.B&W.
Is the B&W worth the difference in price?
Looking forward to your input.
Thanks
alan[/quoteIf you can afford it go for the B+W but theres nothing wrong with hoya. By the way you're better off getting NC filters for your lenses. They are just clear glass to protect your lens. UV filters don't really do anything with digital cameras.

You mean faster shutter speed!

Thats a shit phone now.. sorry couldn't resist.. You could try putting it in dry rice for a few days in the hot water cupboard.

Sorry but they are all soft to me. Your focusing is the most important thing on a long lens. If you can't get pin sharp images of a still object then it might just be a soft lens.

Go for strobe. continuous gets very hot. Strobe is more versatile while continuous is ok for video.

Just get some lens cleaning fluid and if that doesnt work use an angle grinder that will definitely get the smears off..