my best series to date (i think at least)

[blonde]

so today was my improvment day for the previous series i posted of this RTH. i am quite happy with the results :)

btw, who here wants to tell me that the 100-400 is not sharp?

http://blonde.smugmug.com/photos/113410254-L.jpg

http://blonde.smugmug.com/photos/113410171-L.jpg

http://blonde.smugmug.com/photos/113409668-L.jpg

http://blonde.smugmug.com/photos/113409509-L.jpg

http://blonde.smugmug.com/photos/113409835-L.jpg


and last one which just made me laugh:

"this is what i think of you following me around all day":

http://blonde.smugmug.com/photos/113410902-L.jpg

[bryno74]

I agree thats a nice series. Are these straight out of the camera files?

[blonde]

no, i shoot in raw so they did went through the usual process of raw conversion.

[bryno74]

delete

[winkie]

excellent series... love the title of the last one!

[racketman]

Very sharp and I like the framing in #3 particularly.

[clivingston]

Excellent series of shots again , well done.

[catsith]

lovely shots, and the last one sure is funny

[pknight]

How close to the hawk were you able to get? I was able to shoot dozens of Red-tailed Hawks this past weekend, but at a wildlife reserve, not Boston Common. I was never able to get closer than about 50 yards (in a car, even) before the hawks would fly to the next tree. I assume that urban birds are just more used to people, noise, etc, which allows you to get much closer.

In any case, great shots.

[canonloader]

Most excellent shots Snir. Hes a beauty.

btw, who here wants to tell me that the 100-400 is not sharp?
Well, I admit some copies are. But of this lens in particular, you can't say the all are sharp, which is sad. I have to conclude that you were lucky in getting a good one.

[busbyea]

Super series of the Red-tail Hawk...Beautiful !
That 100-400mm sure "IS" Sharp...With good light it's very GOOD ! I enjoy mine..

[canonloader]

I sold mine, after paying to have it made good and within an hour, I was at B&H to purchase a new 400L Prime and the 2x II. Due here on Thursday. :)

[Billginthekeys]

great shots snir. wonderful detail. sure did get close to him.

[blonde]

How close to the hawk were you able to get? I was able to shoot dozens of Red-tailed Hawks this past weekend, but at a wildlife reserve, not Boston Common. I was never able to get closer than about 50 yards (in a car, even) before the hawks would fly to the next tree. I assume that urban birds are just more used to people, noise, etc, which allows you to get much closer.

In any case, great shots.

because he lives near people, hhe is very used to them and he let you get real close. just to gove you an idea, i have a portrait shot of his head that was taken with the 24-70..

[Tareq]

It is not sharp lens, go and buy a prime:D;)

[blonde]

It is not sharp lens, go and buy a prime:D;)

why?? if i had a prime i wouldn't be able to take half the shots you see here because they were actually zoomed out.

[guitarman3]

Snir, I think these are excellent shots of a beautiful bird. But being able to get so close is kinda cheating isn't it??:lol: :lol: :lol: You're a lucky guy but I guess we make our own luck! I really enjoy your shots.

[blonde]

cheating?? how so? :) it took me 3 weeks of going there every single day for 3-4 hours just to find him and learn is behavior.

[Tareq]

cheating?? how so? :) it took me 3 weeks of going there every single day for 3-4 hours just to find him and learn is behavior.

good shot, when you will have a prime then you will learb to be far from the birds to shoot;)

[blonde]

good shot, when you will have a prime then you will learb to be far from the birds to shoot;)

that makes no sense to me at all :confused: why carry a big heavy prime that limits my mobility when i have the option to learn the animal and mover in closer? besides, you don't always have the room to move back...

can you give me an example from one of your shots? i am dying to see the difference between a 400mm in prime and 400mm in zoom as far as distance ;)

[canonloader]

why carry a big heavy prime that limits my mobility
The prime is .8 pound lighter. And focuses faster.

[blonde]

The prime is .8 pound lighter.


if you know Tareq, he is talking about 500 f4IS prime, 600mm, 400 2.8 etc...

if he was talking about the 400 f5.6 prime, than again, what is the difference in the distance between the 100-400 :) Tareq is just a bit obssessed with expensive L lenses i would say.

[canonloader]

what is the difference in the distance between the 100-400
Can I get back to you on Thursday with the answer. ;)

[blonde]

sure, i will be right here :)

[canonloader]

Better bring Tareq also, he can be the judge. :mrgreen:

[Tareq]

if you know Tareq, he is talking about 500 f4IS prime, 600mm, 400 2.8 etc...

if he was talking about the 400 f5.6 prime, than again, what is the difference in the distance between the 100-400 :) Tareq is just a bit obssessed with expensive L lenses i would say.

yes i am talking about 400 f5.6

[Tareq]

400 f2.8 is more for sports.
500 f4L IS is a razor prime which you can't beat with 100-400L
600 is too long which is not necesary.

i think 300 f2.8L with TC better than 100-400L as well.

[symbolphoto]

I'd much rather have the zoom than the prime. You are assuming that you will have the distance to always need the prime. In reality it would be nice to have both. But then you'd have an obsession with L glass to have both. Oh wait, Tareq, you already do.

[scraps]

Wow! I don't want to enter the lens debate, but I think those are absolutly fantastic shots. I really like #3. Well done.

[canonloader]

Don't get me wrong. My 100-400L was in need of repair when I bought it. After Canon sent it back, it was a top-flite lens. I have nothing against it at all. But I used it 95% of the time extended all the way out, even for birds just a few yards away. I even used it for Macro, shooting Dragonflies. So that too close line just doesn't apply where I'm concerned. I also use a tripod now, or a beanbag on the car door, so IS is just not needed.

But, like I said, I'll let you know for sure which one I think is better, after Thurday when mine gets here, at which time there will be no more flatulence about it, since I will have owned both by then. ;)

[blonde]

good shot, when you will have a prime then you will learb to be far from the birds to shoot;)

yes i am talking about 400 f5.6

400 f2.8 is more for sports.
500 f4L IS is a razor prime which you can't beat with 100-400L
600 is too long which is not necesary.

i think 300 f2.8L with TC better than 100-400L as well.

Tareq,

i am going to be honest here but please don't take this the wrong way, you comments make no sense at all. first you say that when i will have the 400 prime (which i have had before), i will learn to shoot from afar which makes no sense because i already have 400mm. like i said, you don't always have the option of moving back and this is true in all cases. would you shoot kids portraits with a 500 prime??? besides, i am a firm believer in getting as close as possible and be intimate with your subject as long as it is possible (it was in this case but it probably won't be when shooting wolves and bears ;) )

also, yes my 100-400 zoom can beat the 500 prime in at least 2 things: flexaibility and versatlity. i don't know about you but i am not about to walk around the city with a 500 prime on my shoulder...

and again, i disagree with your comment about the 300 +1.4 tc is better than the 100-400 because i already mentioned that i shot a alot of shots at 100mm which the 300 can't do.

i think you need to take a step back and think about the practicality of the lenses that you use and not just how cool they would be to own. i think i already mentioned to you that having a huge collection of L lenses is nice to brag about but if you don't know when and how to use them, they are uselsss. the 100-400 is a brilliant lens that does in fact offer quite a bit of advanatges even over the almighty big primes.

don't get me wrong, i do plan to buy a big prime at some point but i can promise you that i will also have my nice 100-400 along it because it is still a very effecitve weapon for wildlife shooting.

[blonde]

Don't get me wrong. My 100-400L was in need of repair when I bought it. After Canon sent it back, it was a top-flite lens. I have nothing against it at all. But I used it 95% of the time extended all the way out, even for birds just a few yards away. I even used it for Macro, shooting Dragonflies. So that too close line just doesn't apply where I'm concerned. I also use a tripod now, or a beanbag on the car door, so IS is just not needed.

But, like I said, I'll let you know for sure which one I think is better, after Thurday when mine gets here, at which time there will be no more flatulence about it, since I will have owned both by then. ;)

i had the 400 prime and i did use it quite a bit. in the end, i sold it because it just wasn't as versatile. you said you used your 100-400 to shoot dragonflies and macro, well, this is something that the 400 prime just can't do due to the very large minimum focusing distance. i still think that the 400 prime is the best lens out there for flying birds but the 100-400 is just so much more versatile that the loss of AF speed and a bit more weight was worth it TO ME.

[kr88]

Great set Snir. These are fantastic captures. Very nice exposures and the focuse looks good. You've captured one heck of a good looking Raptor here. Outstanding!!!!

[symbolphoto]

I've owned both lenses the prime and zoom also. It's not like it's a hard club to be in. The weight factor on the prime is nice, but if you have a decent bicept and tricept carrying around the 100-400 isn't all that hard. Sharpness, well there may be a slight discrepency here, however i could overcome that with photoshop. Free. :)

[blonde]

thanks Keith :) i am doing my best to make you proud :)

Brenden- thanks for the laugh :)

[canonloader]

you said you used your 100-400 to shoot dragonflies and macro, well, this is something that the 400 prime just can't do due to the very large minimum focusing distance.
Tubes. A set of Kenkos will halve the distance. I'll let you know on that too.

i still think that the 400 prime is the best lens out there for flying birds
My prime reason for buying it. I got the bug, can you tell? :D

[Tareq]

hehe, got you
i know that 100-400L is great lens, i could get 400 f5.6 which is cheaper than 100-400L and prime, but instead i got 100-400L and it is most used zoom lens for long shoots, i just was talking about sharpness as all in this forum said that prime is sharper even that zooms is very sharp.
thats why i was looking to get as many primes as i can for sharpness, many zooms are not so sharp enough, but i found that all primes are sharp, am i wrong?
i am not talking about weight or versatility

[blonde]

Tubes. A set of Kenkos will halve the distance. I'll let you know on that too.




My prime reason for buying it. I got the bug, can you tell? :D

i tried that too, i HATE using tubes. my VF was too dark for my liking and even with the tubes, i would still much rather use the 100-400. as for your bug, its not as bad as it seems :)

[johnstoy]

Tareq,
Your puns and sarcasm are sometimes not that obvious and take time to digest... You should do a comedy stint, at a night club...You really are a funny guy, but not always in a subtle way...

Blonde, That shoulder and up shot of the Hawk is just a portrait to have...Stunning feather detail and color contrasts...and the bird's eye is a killer to die for...

This thread and the previous one on this bird is getting rave reviews, I hope you have noticed.

[Stephen Stephen]

Well done Snir. I wish that I had even one of these in my collection.

[ngannet]

This thread has gotten a bit silly and trivial. When you post shots that great, that's all that needs to be said! And the shots are beautiful, sharp, great bokeh. No debate on that. Having said that, I have the prime and I love it. I tried the 100-400 and the weight was a bit much for me, but the zooming factor is excellent. Very rarely do I need to back up for the bird to be in focus. Normally they are too far! I can see how a zoom would be advantageous and I plan to get one (a cheaper second party or something) for when I go out on a pelagic trip. This way I can zoom in for seabirds and zoom out for a big animal like a dolphin or whale (like I'll ever see one anyway). It all comes down to personal preference. I've seen 100-400 shots that are better than 400 prime shots, it all depends on subject, light, shutter speed, skill, etc.

[canonloader]

I have the prime and I love it. I tried the 100-400 and the weight was a bit much for me
And no regrets?

[ngannet]

And no regrets?

No, honestly I don't have any regrets. One, the weight. When I'm out birding I'm carrying a camera, spotting scope and binoculars, sometimes more. That gets to be a bit much. Two, I just didn't seem to get great results with the lens. Then again, I didn't have it for longer than a week. Even in low light, my 400 prime performs well. There's always exposure comp. and monopod or tripod or flash. If the light is too bad, you'll get camera shake with the IS of the 100-400 anyway so a 'pod or support will be needed anyway. Plus, the price was nice! I've already spent a fortune on scope, two tripods, a monopod, camera, binoculars, etc. Good luck with yours, looking forward to the results.

[johnstoy]

And no regrets?

You might have something there...There is more and more positive feedback on behalf of the 100-400mm...unlike prior to when I purchased a copy of the 400mm 5.6L earlier in the month...I'm keeping mine 400mm...

Now on the more serious side...your hawk will become famous cause of these postings...Just like the Osprey's in Manhattan...

[Gary Fairhead]

On the series....excellent images here with the 3rd and 4th shots being my favourite for the details and BG.

One the debate....its a personal choice......both are good lenses....

[StarDog]

Those are great - love #3 - Bob

[blonde]

thanks guys. not sure why the debate even started but lets just let it go. we each have our own prefernce and we each should use what works for us.

[dazzlebea]

I'll leave the lens debate to you boys (love my 400 f/5.6!) but I want to say that these pics are top notch! Don't you think the RTH looks like a chicken, great timing.

Now go back and get some in-flight pics ;)

[busbyea]

Tareq,

i am going to be honest here but please don't take this the wrong way, you comments make no sense at all. first you say that when i will have the 400 prime (which i have had before), i will learn to shoot from afar which makes no sense because i already have 400mm. like i said, you don't always have the option of moving back and this is true in all cases. would you shoot kids portraits with a 500 prime??? besides, i am a firm believer in getting as close as possible and be intimate with your subject as long as it is possible (it was in this case but it probably won't be when shooting wolves and bears ;) )

also, yes my 100-400 zoom can beat the 500 prime in at least 2 things: flexaibility and versatlity. i don't know about you but i am not about to walk around the city with a 500 prime on my shoulder...

and again, i disagree with your comment about the 300 +1.4 tc is better than the 100-400 because i already mentioned that i shot a alot of shots at 100mm which the 300 can't do.

i think you need to take a step back and think about the practicality of the lenses that you use and not just how cool they would be to own. i think i already mentioned to you that having a huge collection of L lenses is nice to brag about but if you don't know when and how to use them, they are uselsss. the 100-400 is a brilliant lens that does in fact offer quite a bit of advanatges even over the almighty big primes.

don't get me wrong, i do plan to buy a big prime at some point but i can promise you that i will also have my nice 100-400 along it because it is still a very effecitve weapon for wildlife shooting.

I can vouch for this exact statement....I own both the 100-400 & the 500 f 4.0...

Sharpness; Reach = 500mm f4.0 + 1.4X
Versatility, portability = 100-400

Try trudging through the woods after Long-Eared & Northern Saw-Whet Owl with the 500...I've done it...but it can be a pain..:rolleyes:

[Blue Deuce]

Nice series of a wonderful specimen.

Lens debate: I have used extensively or own the 500 f4, 400 prime and 100-400. In the right hands they produce beautiful renditions. In the wrong hands well..................don't blame the glass.

[blonde]

thanks guys :)

[jorj7]

Great shots Snir, looks like your diligence paid off.

[Reyno]

Excellent captures with great details. Killer shots in all Snir.

Lens debate: All I can say is, I've used all three lenses extensively in the field. All are very capable of producing sharp images.

[dancinec]

Excellent series of shots, I believe in that lens.

[mrclark321]

These are great Snir.....I just sent you a PM

Dan

[blonde]

replied Dan, now stop wasting time and go buy it!!! :)

[johnstoy]

Say Blonde,

FYI: The Weather Channel just featured Boston Common... a large aerial Photograph of the entire park was shown while the narrators discussed the weather in your area.

It looks real inviting for birding...

Peace out,

John

[Sindri Skulason]

These shots say all that needs to be said. It's a good lens with a brilliant photographer behind it who knows how to use it. Super sharp shots with excellent details. Outstanding work. :-)

[blonde]

thanks Sindri, not sure i agree about the "brilliant photographer" part but i appreciate the kind words :)