Uzay wrote:
If someone cannot afford 600 f4 qnd decide to buy a 300 f2.8 and 2x TC, would it be an option or ridicolous advanture?
Somewhat ridiculous.
It depends on how bad the TC turns out to be on that lens compared to the 200-600G, which is almost 4x cheaper, while only 20% heavier (but much lighter than the 600GM). The zooms IQ is similar to a 600GM with TC1.4 attached: slightly better in the center, significantly worse towards the edges. This is when comparing per pixel, the subject is obviously much smaller than the 840mm of the prime with TC1.4. The prime with the TC2.0 is significantly worse in the center.
So, unless the 300GM is *much* better than the 600GM in terms of TCs, it seems rather daft to buy such an expensive lens, when the main intended usage is to have the TC2.0 attached.
It depends on how bad the TC turns out to be on that lens compared to the 200-600G, which is almost 4x cheaper, while only 20% heavier (but much lighter than the 600GM). The zooms IQ is similar to a 600GM with TC1.4 attached: slightly better in the center, significantly worse towards the edges. This is when comparing per pixel, the subject is obviously much smaller than the 840mm of the prime with TC1.4. The prime with the TC2.0 is significantly worse in the center.
So, unless the 300GM is *much* better than the 600GM in terms of TCs, it seems rather daft to buy such an expensive lens, when the main intended usage is to have the TC2.0 attached....Show more →
Mark Galer's 300mm f/2.8 video shows (very limited number of images) that the 300 + 2x tele is sharper and seemed to have better bokeh. He indicated though that AF speed takes a hit but did not really speak to whether it was comparable. He was not really doing an exhaustive head-to-head comparison of those two lenses and instead was comparing many (too many to be useful?) lenses. He is usually a bit more focused [bad pun] in his reviews.
TGPhotography wrote:
Seems like shots that are sharp in flickr don't look very sharp when posted downsized here
I noticed that some soft images here were delivered as HEIF, even though the poster had originally uploaded a JPEG. No idea which server was to blame for re-encoding them. As a workaround I disabled HEIF in my browser (Firefox) which fixed a lot of the softness in this forum. Drawback is that some other websites don't like HEIF being disabled...
Went to Conowingo this afternoon, very little activities, whatever they did, it was 400-500 yards away, just ridiculous. We need 2000mm lens and 100 MP cameras for Conowingo these days. Most of these shots were heavily cropped, maybe 90% of the frame was thrown away..
What do you guys think the thingy in the fish's mouth was in the first picture? Could it be the swim bladder because the eagle crabbed the fish so hard?
TGPhotography wrote:
Found some older, unprocessed shots while trying to decide what to include in my 2024 birds & wildlife calendar. None of these made the cut.
^ Thanks for the tips on upload from everyone. I may experiment. I post full resolution on flickr, but link the version at 1600 pixels on the long end to display here.
Douglas L wrote:
Went to Conowingo this afternoon, very little activities, whatever they did, it was 400-500 yards away, just ridiculous. We need 2000mm lens and 100 MP cameras for Conowingo these days. Most of these shots were heavily cropped, maybe 90% of the frame was thrown away..
What do you guys think the thingy in the fish's mouth was in the first picture? Could it be the swim bladder because the eagle crabbed the fish so hard?
Dang, 400-500 yards? I've noticed a lot of video from youtube is from really far out. Easier to keep the subject in the frame and easier to stabilize the footage in post without clipping wings.
Definitely a swim bladder on that first shot. Could be from getting squeezed by the eagle. More likely is it got pulled into a deep intake upstream from the dam and shot out at the surface downstream of the dam. Sudden, uncontrolled change in depth and it will blow out the swim bladder. Then the eagle just picks up the helpless fish on the surface since it can't dive back down.
berimbolo wrote:
I've never been to Conowingo, but given the distances, it may be better for video? 600GM + 2x TC + 1.2 crop in video?
I no longer have a 2X TC. I had not used it for wildlife when I had it, too hard to find the target in the finder. I used it to shoot the moon a few times.
To give you an idea how far the eagle were from where I stood, these are some of the uncropped images, some were already taken in APS-D mode.
