Thanks, Yc! Of course I remember. I was actually about to buy one from the forum here to go with my 500, but I learned that it won’t work with the TC 1.4 III that I got.
lara_ckl wrote:
Welcome Hussain.
Remember the days of the 300/4 AFS? This lens is even more fun.
hijazist wrote:
Thanks, Yc! Of course I remember. I was actually about to buy one from the forum here to go with my 500, but I learned that it won’t work with the TC 1.4 III that I got.
Wait! Didn't you start the 300/4 AFS thread? What happened to your lens?
lara_ckl wrote:
Wait! Didn't you start the 300/4 AFS thread? What happened to your lens?
I think so haha. I sold it long time ago for a 2.8.
We had a break from the rain but the light was quite bad. This is heavily cropped. It's going to get really bad tonight and a lot of flooding is expected.
Joined the club .. on a trial basis (15 days return period at the store I bought the lens from). Quick trip to a local lake at mid-day. Not the best, but hey, it's my first day with it.
Some kite photos from yesterday and today. One has a baby bird and a couple others with some insects. For some odd reason I seem to really struggle with getting super sharp photos of these guys. Im not sure if it is the white and black against the blue sky or what. Maybe I will try with the D850 tomorrow and see how that goes. Taken with a Nikon D500 and a 500mmpf lens. CC welcomed and appreciated. Thanks!!!
Eastern Kingbird was interested in what I was doing and landed near me (about 30 feet) and decided he needed to be in may photo gallery. So... he decided to pose for me in the morning sunlight.
Just curious but what do you think F4 would have done differently in picture one? Seems like you are a good distance away from the deer. I really don't think F4 would have blown out the background or foreground significantly more. I can't say I haven't been tempted at a 600mm f4 or a 400mm 2.8
eorlando wrote:
Just curious but what do you think F4 would have done differently in picture one? Seems like you are a good distance away from the deer. I really don't think F4 would have blown out the background or foreground significantly more. I can't say I haven't been tempted at a 600mm f4 or a 400mm 2.8
Don't get me wrong. It is a wonderful lens .. lightweight, quite inconspicuous, sharp and decent contrast, etc. The deer were quite far away and the light was low, even though my D750 (yes, not the right body for wildlife) did a good job. The decently blurred background ... is a result of my processing in PS, using layer mask, gaussian blur and gradient tool. The original background is a bit too harshly rendered for my taste. In fact, for most photos I took with this lens, I applied the same processing to soften the back and foreground.
That is one of the reasons. The other is a very silly reason ... I just love handling the superteles, taking my time out in the field, etc. For more normal people, the PF seems to be an excellent choice.
eorlando wrote:
Just curious but what do you think F4 would have done differently in picture one? Seems like you are a good distance away from the deer. I really don't think F4 would have blown out the background or foreground significantly more. I can't say I haven't been tempted at a 600mm f4 or a 400mm 2.8
My thoughts match yours... Short of adding a 1.4x converter to increase the focal length, there is nothing that a 500mm f/4 could do better with these images. The focal length, time of day, and amount of atmosphere between subject and camera is having the largest impact on these images.
I have an f/4 super tele and a 500PF, both have their place, but I also can recognize when it's time to pass on a photo opportunity.
