The Short Eared Owl Hunt

[jfenton]

This afternoon we decided to try and hunt down the short eared owl that has to date eluded us.

Here is my lovely, bundled up wife looking for this creature with her cheap $12 binoculars...I really should buy her a decent pair!

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

We finally spotted him sitting up in a tree...completely and horribly back lit. I used +EV to capture some detail on him here...
View attachment 5025

Here he is hovering over the marsh ice, looking for a meal...again he was extremely back lit.
View attachment 5026

Finally, as the light was getting low, one last shot way offin the distance as he flew towards us...
View attachment 5027

Now that we know where he lives, we're gonna have to catch up with him a bit closer and in better light.

By the way...I would have killed for a 500 or 600 here with no TC!

 

[bobhoge]

Jim,

Those are really good, I have only seen owls in the wild a couple of times ever. I thought they usually hunted only at night, but certainly not this one.
See you in a week and a half.

Bob & Nan

 

[jfenton]

Hi Bob

This guy hunts every afternoon...he's just usually so far out over the frozen marsh that you can only see him with a high powered digiscope.

We got lucky today

 

[greyflash]

Here is my lovely, bundled up wife looking for this creature with her cheap $12 binoculars...I really should buy her a decent pair!

I think a 10 power Sworovski binocular would suit her nicely. A good husband would want to take care of his wife. You know quid pro quo. Oh, I almost forgot, nice images.

 

[mike mac]

Nice stuff

Looks like you had a nice day good job compensating for the bad lighting the last one is really nice

 

[Flew]

Jim....

You did a great job of capturing this fellow (gal??) in less than ideal circumstances. The only advice that I can add here is to get the wife the Sworovski's. She deserves a nice pair just for putting up with the likes of you.

Regards,

Frank

 

[Steve S]

Nice catch Jim!

I've never been lucky enough to capture an owl. So, how much reach *did* you have?

Edit: I have these Tasco Lever Zoom Binocs and they're a steal @$63:
http://www.binoculars.com/products/Tasco_8-20x50_Zoom_Zip_Focus_15074.html

 

[jfenton]

Frank and Steve

A) Frank.....I'm gonna tell your wife pal if you're not nice to me! I don't know what I'll tell her but I'll make something up :lol:

B) Steve.....these were all shot with the 200-400 AFS-VR @ 400mm with a TC14EII. I've got a feeling that the 500 with no TC just has to be sharper than the 200-400 with TC. On top of that, the TC definitely slows down the AF.

I can't believe that I'm even considering this but I might have to end up with the following:
-300 AFS f4 for hiking
-200-400 AFS VR for close range and telephoto car shooting and handheld shots. TC's only when needed
-500 AFS II when I know that what I'm gonna be shooting is going to be a long ways away. TC's when needed.

 

[Flew]

Jim....

I'm sort of in a retrenchment mode at the moment after spending so much last year getting into this hobby, but I am considering something much like your list, with only the 300 2.8 substituted for the 200-400VR.

Don't know whether to get the 300 f4 for hiking and walking around or the 80-400VR. I've seen good shots from both. I think for overall sharpness, the 300 f4 wins, but covering 18-400 (with the kit lens and the 80-400) sure is attractive.

We are sick, huh?? :roll:

Frank

 

[jfenton]

Frank:

I had an 80-400 and I loved it for it's convenience and size...I hated it because I couldn't get anything sharp (really sharp) past 300mm.

In my opinion.....it may have been just me. The shots that Janet and others acquire from this lens are amazing. If I can find one cheap enough in the future, I may give it another shot cause I'm embarrassed with the shots I produced as compared to theirs.

Jim