Critique Conowingo Electric Bald Eagles

Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
1,128
Location
Phoenixville, PA / Bethany, DE
Went out today to grab some Bald Eagle shots at Conowingo Dam in MD. I am highly considering trading my Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 for a Sigma 60-600 Sport plus cash on my end. Just a little extra reach would be great. Here are the shots:

_DSC9740-XL.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


_DSC9741-X3.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


_DSC9562-X3.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


_DSC9563-X3.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

_DSC9633-XL.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
20,823
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
Nice shots! Tough not to over exposure the white heads. Why not consider a 500 pf and 1.4 tele instead? Also consider zapping the dust spots in #3, 4 and 5......
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
1,128
Location
Phoenixville, PA / Bethany, DE
Nice shots! Tough not to over exposure the white heads. Why not consider a 500 pf and 1.4 tele instead? Also consider zapping the dust spots in #3, 4 and 5......
Thank you. It really is. I had spot/center-weighted metering on too hoping to prevent that. I have more use for the 60-600 zoom versus a 500 prime. I'm just a hobbyist. Price is also a big consideration, though I do see some 500 f/4's for sale used in the same price range as a new 60-600 Sport. Def should've killed the dust, though that's my fault for quickly processing and getting them online (Had some other things to do).
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
1,440
Location
Winter Haven, florida
Tamron 150-600 is a terrific lens, my go to lens for 2 seasons. A little slow to grab focus, but really not an issue on larger birds like eagles. Not up to my 500mm f4 prime, but at a fraction of the cost and weight. I was on the waiting list for the 500pf, never got to shoot with one.
Question- why f11? Not picking, I would actually like to know. I usually shoot my long glass wide open.
Gary
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
1,128
Location
Phoenixville, PA / Bethany, DE
Thanks all!

Tamron 150-600 is a terrific lens, my go to lens for 2 seasons. A little slow to grab focus, but really not an issue on larger birds like eagles. Not up to my 500mm f4 prime, but at a fraction of the cost and weight. I was on the waiting list for the 500pf, never got to shoot with one.
Question- why f11? Not picking, I would actually like to know. I usually shoot my long glass wide open.
Gary
I do love the images I've seen from the 150-600, but with the new 60-600 having that extra bit of wide is tempting as heck for me as long as IQ is up to par.

It's funny you ask. When I first arrived I was shooting f/5.6. Decided to double-check tested sharpest aperture. Found a review on DPReview that said: "Summary - f5.6 slightly softish, possibly due to the difficulty of getting focus 100% correct; f8 , f11, f14 all pretty sharp, f16 to f22 getting steadily softer, f32 a lot softer."

Due to that, I said eff it, and shot on f/11.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
1,440
Location
Winter Haven, florida
"Summary - f5.6 slightly softish, possibly due to the difficulty of getting focus 100% correct; f8 , f11, f14 all pretty sharp, f16 to f22 getting steadily softer, f32 a lot softer."

Due to that, I said eff it, and shot on f/11.
Makes sense, I figured you had a reason. Did you look at your 5.6 images- are they softer?
I need to stop doing things the same way and expecting different outcomes.
Gary
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
1,128
Location
Phoenixville, PA / Bethany, DE
consider faster shutter speeds and open up the lens some, f/10 is too much as 1/640 is not enough
personally I'd shoot 5.6 & 1/3200
Thanks - I have always shot at f/5.6 with this lens, but in my research listed earlier it seems the 200-500 is sharper at f/11 than f/5.6. That said, I need to compare my photos and verify that's the case personally.

"Summary - f5.6 slightly softish, possibly due to the difficulty of getting focus 100% correct; f8 , f11, f14 all pretty sharp, f16 to f22 getting steadily softer, f32 a lot softer."
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,885
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Thanks - I have always shot at f/5.6 with this lens, but in my research listed earlier it seems the 200-500 is sharper at f/11 than f/5.6. That said, I need to compare my photos and verify that's the case personally.

"Summary - f5.6 slightly softish, possibly due to the difficulty of getting focus 100% correct; f8 , f11, f14 all pretty sharp, f16 to f22 getting steadily softer, f32 a lot softer."
every lens is sharper stopped down
IMO the issue is not DOF but motion blur on both ends

I shot a 200-500 for a year and it was razor sharp at 5.6
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom