Skutterbug Loc: Central Florida

I try these shots from long distances and get the same results...even worse with teleconverter... :( :( :( So many $10,000.00 lenses so little money :lol: :lol:

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

I'm president of the club.

Audwulf Loc: Golden State

Hey Wayne, If you focus with the monitor, the Hoodman is a good idea. I had the problem focusing long range manually.(500-600 & 1000mm) I use a viewfinder. I sloved my problem with a Seagull viewfinder magnifier. $25 or so, on Ebay.

Seagull

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

I have been following this thread with great interest and I concur fully with every word that has been said by is it rpavich.

You are suffering what most bird photographers go through. We are usually not well endowed when it comes to the size of our equipment!

Granted it might not be the size and it might be better use of what we have so if you cannot improve the size then it looks like this bird regularly goes to that tree. Have you tried getting closer? Much, much closer.

I am no fan of converters, never have been, but some folks get on with them, my thoughts on them however are that if you use them, then consider using the latest model and the dedicated converter for the camera. Nikon for Nikon.

On a different thread rpavich points out that a minuscule movement of your camera will equate to feet, or even yards at the location you are snapping. If you are not pointing EXACTLY at the bird and you are using spot focussing then you are up a gum tree.

If this wild bird is guaranteed to remain stationary for long enough for you to play with all the goodies on your camera then take advantage and consider using at least a monopod, tripod or even a natural, firm base.

Jerry Green Loc: Huntsville, AL

Which version teleconverter lens are you using? The Nikon TC20E III teleconverter is a very good and much better than the TC20E II. I use TC20E III teleconverter the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm VR II and shoot at least 1/400 sec at f/9 on a tripod, manually focus in live view zoomed in with a hoodman and get good results.

Mickey Oberman Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

I have never found a teleconverter that gave me satisfactory results. I gave up on them long ago.
I understand there are some made for a specific lens that perform well.
I don't know who makes them. I assume the manufacturer of the lens.
If it is your eye and if that same tree or its stand in is still there (The Hawk can take five.) why not see if setting your focus manually to ∞ improves the sharpness.
That is assuming the ∞ is truly ∞ and the lens is not off slightly

I know my eyes are not as trustworthy as they used to be. I find autofocus a boon now.

I also know that one of my lenses, when set at infinity focuses beyond infinity. My K-5 is always right on though.

Indi Loc: L. I., NY, Palm Beach Cty when it's cold.

Pat, is that the EXIF data you got from the download? If so, I agree with what you say about the settings. I'd probably boost the ISO to about 400-600 and open the aperture to about f/16-f/11, and try to bring up the shutter speed. I'm probably off on my settings guess, but I agree that's the way to go.

royalpar1

Perhaps faster shutter speed, or use a TriPod (if you didnt) i never liked the 2X and returned mine as i never got the tack sharp images i wanted

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Considering what you had to work with I think the photos looks rather nice.
At 450' with a 2x teleconvertor I think you did well.

ryeend

I would try using a monopod, up your f stop to 5.6. This is considered getting closer to the sweet spot in your lens when using the teleconverter. At 2.8 it just isn't sharp while using the teleconverter.
Turn off your VR if it is on because it will try to compensate while using the monopod.
Try getting your shutter speed up to at least 1/500 of a second.
Compensate with your ISO and try AV mode.
Hopefully you have enough light.
Good Luck.
Or, a 400mm 2.8 will solve your problem.

rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx

There was no reason to use F22, you'd be better off with 4 or 5.6. The small aperture forced a slow shutter-speed. At that magnification you'd need 1/500 sec to get a good sharp hand held shot. F22 is actually not as sharp as wider open (defraction) and the depth of field is a non issue. Shoot close to wide open (2.8) and your results should be much better.

Paradox Loc: Payson, Arizona

Thanks for a very interesting discussion with lots of possible reasons for the lack of sharpness and the listing possible remedies. Could the time of day and air temperature be a part of the problem? Would early in the morning with colder air with lack of heat waves help?

Mickey Oberman Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

"Could the time of day and air temperature be a part of the problem? Would early in the morning with colder air with lack of heat waves help?"

Yes.

But don't eagles like warm rising air currents for effortless soaring?

snoops

I am just learning but I have the 70-200VRf2.8 lens I have the same issu

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

My understanding is that with Canon the 2x is inferior to the 1.4x in their teleconverters. Maybe the same with Nikon?