Nice shot Ryan, I would have liked to see his feet, but some times I get anal that way. I bet the dark green is just like an football player puting black under his eyes to cut down glare.
Posted by Geoff Shapiro on April 22, 2006 at 6:41 PM
Good pic, Ryan, with pretty good control over those always hard-to-not-blowout whites. The green lores of the Great Egret is a sign that they are in the height of their breeding season, so it's probably more a signal to other egrets rather than a way to cut down on the glare...
Also, since this is a crop, you might in fact have enough at bottom to show the feet?
No, that's the bottome of the photograph there. I'll get the feet next time.
Posted by Erik Lundh on April 23, 2006 at 12:33 AM
Ryan,
After seeing some of your shots with that 300mm, I may have to invest in one. Pretty amazing at how close you can get with that. The shot is nice and clear and full of detail.
Posted by Geoff Shapiro on April 23, 2006 at 1:16 AM
Erik - speaking from experience with my 300/4, it is not quite enough focal length to get those close in shots of most birds. Sure, some of these larger ones, provided they let you get in close enough to them without spooking them, will net you fullframe shots. But for most birds smaller than these egrets or pelicans a 400-600mm lens is what you want.
The beauty of the 300/2.8 is that it is sharp and you can put a 2x converter on it and still retain sharpness and autofocus capability (you can't do that with a 300/4, at least on a 20D). The speed of the lens means that you can often get shots in worse lighting conditions than with slower lenses. For these capabilities you'll pay almost 2K more for the lens than for the 300/4.
Posted by Geoff Shapiro on April 23, 2006 at 2:12 AM
I was wrong, Erik! You'll pay 2.8K more!!! The Canon lens is $1119 for the 300/4 and $3899 for the 300/2.8.
You use a Nikon and I don't think the Canon lens works on your camera. Nikon has a 300/2.8 but I see on B&H that it costs even more... $4499 with VR. Yikes! The Nikon 300/4 is $1124 but with no VR.
Posted by Mark Hudon on April 23, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Discussion
8 repliesCanon 20D
Canon 300 f/2.8 IS w/2x Extender
1/2500s at f/6.1 -0.67 exposure compensation
ISO 400
Also, since this is a crop, you might in fact have enough at bottom to show the feet?
After seeing some of your shots with that 300mm, I may have to invest in one. Pretty amazing at how close you can get with that. The shot is nice and clear and full of detail.
The beauty of the 300/2.8 is that it is sharp and you can put a 2x converter on it and still retain sharpness and autofocus capability (you can't do that with a 300/4, at least on a 20D). The speed of the lens means that you can often get shots in worse lighting conditions than with slower lenses. For these capabilities you'll pay almost 2K more for the lens than for the 300/4.
You use a Nikon and I don't think the Canon lens works on your camera. Nikon has a 300/2.8 but I see on B&H that it costs even more... $4499 with VR. Yikes! The Nikon 300/4 is $1124 but with no VR.