Great shots of these little guys. They are hard to shoot. I have them near my house and they fly away almost every time I get close enough to get a decent shot without having to crop.
The shot was taken with the 2X teleconverter and cropped approx 50%. This particular kestrel is very well known to me, I have been photographing him for a number of years and he has become accustomed to be photographing him so he lets me get closer to him than most kestrels do.
sparadise wrote: galenapass wrotebillsnature wroteI'm seeing a lot of stellar images shot with the 300mm GM and the 2XTC. For those that have experience with the 300mm with 2XTC and the 200-600 at 600mm is it worth the upgrade? I am trying to decide between adding a 300mm GM to my Sony system to replace the 200-600 or adding an 800mm PF to my Nikon system as an augment to my 600mm PF.
I hate the idea of being limited to 600mm (300 with 2X), but I am not using the 200-600 and using the 600mm PF instead.To my eye, I don't see a lot of difference between my copy of the 200-600 and the 300mm + 2x. I bought the 300mm more for its ability to be at f2.8 in lower light situations. Personally, if I were you I'd get the 800 PF and maybe add a 200-600 later, unless you foresee situations in lower light (then pick up the 300/2.8).For me it's all about the weight. I never take my 2-6 out anymore and am in the process of selling it. I never use a monopod or tripod . I realize it's only 1 1/2 pounds heavier but if you lug it around all day while hiking it can get annoying.
Yeah, with birding season coming up again and my ongoing back issue I'm strongly considering splurging on a 300+2xTC to replace my 2-6 and make my life easier, not just in terms of weight but also transportation length -- the 2-6 even with hood reversed is a long lens and doesn't fit in most of my bags when mounted. How do you find the AF of the 300/TC compared to the 2-6 in terms of acquisition, accuracy and speed?