galenapass wrote:
I assume the snake eventually was free?
From our deck, we noticed a good-sized garter snake on the grass next to our pond. I asked my wife what was covering its head, and she thought it was a leaf. I said that I did not think so, and grabbed my bino's and could then see it was a large snail shell.
Our pond system has hundreds, if not thousands, of large snails that spend most of their time under the water. I don't know if this type of snail needs to breathe air. Not sure either how long a garter snake can stay under water, but it seemed like a long time. Anyway, when I went down with my camera, I could see the snout of the snake was inside the snail's shell and the snail's head could not be seen.
Now the hard part was not being able to tell if the snail had the snake's snout trapped, or if the snake had the snail's head in its mouth or just the snail's front "foot".
The snake was writhing around both in a clockwise direction and then in a counter-clockwise direction. At other times it would just shake its head about or remain perfectly motionless.
I believe a garter snake has a few upper teeth and may have the ability to inject poison into the snail. The two did not come apart even when I lifted up the snake with a stick.
After I took all the shots I wanted, the snake departed into the water and along the shoreline with the snail still in its mouth.
Imagemaster wrote:
Great shots. Proves my point that lens can be as sharp as the Oly 300 f4, besides being a more versatile lens.
Now if only Oly ever brings out a 100-400 just as sharp, AND TAKES THEIR TWO TC'S.
Thanks,
I have found that the PL100-400 is sharpest at 350mm f/7.1 on my E-M1 III, whereas it was sharpest at 364mm on my E-M1 II. That said, the E-M1 III at 350mm is sharper than the E-M1 II at 364mm.
It has taken me some time to get this lens dialed in in the E-M1 III..... more so than on any other body I have used it on.
I am looking forward to the upcoming 100-400 to see how it compares. But, I’ll pass on the TC’s. I have now had three tries at both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s on my (and my wife’s) 40-150 Pro and found them to be really soft at all focal lengths. My PL 100-400 remains much sharper when compared to the 40-150 with the TC’s,
gary0319 wrote:
But, I’ll pass on the TC’s. I have now had three tries at both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s on my (and my wife’s) 40-150 Pro and found them to be really soft at all focal lengths. My PL 100-400 remains much sharper when compared to the 40-150 with the TC’s,
Strange, they work great on the 300 f4, and certainly give me better reach than a 100-400.
gary0319 wrote:
Nice shots, the MC20 looks to be a tad sharper than the 1.4, which was my experience as well.
Is this really true? If so I need to get a copy of the MC20 ASAP. However, in all my years of photography with Nikon, Canon, Tamron, Olympus, Sigma, etc...equipment. Never did a 2xTC look sharper than a 1.4xTC on any lens.
