JohnK007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.44 #10 · The Nikon 500mm F4 Official thread | |
groob wrote:
Since you enjoy disagreement, you'll be happy to know that I disagree with you. Your photos aren't very good. The rabbit is angled away from the viewer, the background is much too distracting, and the foreground is worse. You have multiple stalks coming right through the rabbit's body and face.
Thanks for your critiques. I found your site, and I must say, if you held yourself to the same standards, there'd be a lot fewer images posted there 
That said, I agree with your assessments, though I think you misunderstood my point. We agree, none of the shots I posted would make it to anyone's wall. The point I tried to make is what advantage does a 500mm offer that the 300 PF + 2x TC can't duplicate 95% of the time.
In other words, if we can get passed the fact my rabbit shot is not optimal, can we also agree a 500mm lens would not have made it any better? The environment is the environment; my lens choice didn't "put it there." Honestly, my 300 + 2x TC (600mm) was too close, so a 500 + 1.4 TC (700mm) would have been even worse.
groob wrote:
The perch in your hawk photo is awful. For one, you can tell it was cut by man, and two, it is WAY too prominent. Moreover, you've cut off the hawk's tail, and the background behind the hawk is much too bright and distracting. Finally, the hawk's face is angled away from you, which does not always bother me, but, here, it does. Looks like having 100mm less in this situation would have been very beneficial.
Lol, Lyle, I didn't "put that perch" there ... it's not something I "selected" as an artistic choice ... it represents the reality I was dealt when I chanced upon the hawk 
I also didn't "cut off the hawk's tail," the reach of my 300mm + 2x TC was too great to properly-frame the subject. Same as you cut-off this poor crow's feet
I agree with you, that less reach would have been beneficial in framing the hawk better too ... which is a great selling point of carrying a zoom, like the 200-500, or 180-400. Trouble is, zooms are so much bulkier, and less user-friendly, than the 300 PF + TCs. Still, they do offer unmatched reach flexibility.
So, in the end, I actually agree with you much more than I disagree with you. However, I feel you continue to miss the point of my posting it. What would a 500mm lens have done to make this image significantly different?
groob wrote:
Your last photo is a little better. The bird and background look good, but the perch ruins it. The stems behind the bird are bad and distracting on their own, but the foreground stem and leaf are what tank the image. They're much too prominent and distracting.
I like this photo myself. Again, "the perch" isn't something I selected; it represents the reality of the natural environment in which I found the subject. Would the image make it to a discriminating fancier's wall? Probably not. However, I think part of the fun (for all of us) is "discovering wildlife" in its authentic environment. I often enjoy seeing birds and other animals "immersed in the thick of things," even though it may not make it to a wall..
Again, the point is a 500 mm lens wouldn't get rid of the sticks here, either, so the lack of artistic perfection isn't something that has to do with the lens, but the environment. Using a lens that was twice as big, and twice as heavy, would offer no visual advantage to my image, if taken under the same circumstances.
Anyway, I meant to post this point on the 500 f/5.6 PF thread, so I won't again garble this thread topic. I enjoy the size of the 300 PF so much that I can't see myself ever going back to a larger lens for hiking. Maybe for blind work, but for hiking no.
Cheers.
|
