San Diego Wild Animal Park
First time ever really trying to shoot animals!
Perched on a rock:
Hidden in the trees:
Catching up on social poop:
Lazy under a tree:
And a giant moth with an eye:
Did it with a 24-120 vr nikkor. To be frank, these shots reminded me of why I put this lens down in the first place for the 17-55. But when it all comes down to it, the 24-120 is better than the 17-55 at 120mm... but any lens recommendations for this situation would be appreciated. I'm leaning to the 105 macro vr, for having stellar quality, fairly long reach, and also able to get macroness.
Any other comments and critiques welcome!
Perched on a rock:
Hidden in the trees:
Catching up on social poop:
Lazy under a tree:
And a giant moth with an eye:
Did it with a 24-120 vr nikkor. To be frank, these shots reminded me of why I put this lens down in the first place for the 17-55. But when it all comes down to it, the 24-120 is better than the 17-55 at 120mm... but any lens recommendations for this situation would be appreciated. I'm leaning to the 105 macro vr, for having stellar quality, fairly long reach, and also able to get macroness.
Any other comments and critiques welcome!
0
Comments
Cute shot! Now that so many zoos are (thankfully for the animals) leaning towards more natural appearing habitats, it's usually beneficial to have a 200 or 300 mm lens to get any decent head shots.
Gallery of mine...caution, it's under CONSTANT construction! | Photo Journal
In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary. ~Aaron Rose
Thanks, glad you like!
I was looking at picking up an 80-200 (at the moment, I could probably part with $500 or so, but not enough for a 70-200) or the newer 70-300 vr. I've perused the various reviews and so forth, and also scoured the different images on pbase produced by the various lenses. Consensus seems to be that the 80-200 is excellent, but no vr sucks with handholding, while the 70-300 is good but you need the vr because it's that much slower anyway. Does that seem about right?
I see the sticky at the top there about the lenses, but that seems to be the big glass that's getting talked about there...
PBase Gallery
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
Thanks, glad you like!
PBase Gallery
I'm not so concerned with focus as I am with the image being good. The 24-120 produces images which remind me of point-and-shoot quality, and take a bit of massaging to get them to look decent. These shots were the best out of 360 or so, and my keeper rate was much lower than it is with a prime or with the 17-55.
The more I read, the more I think the 1992 version of the 80-200 is what I'm looking for...
PBase Gallery
If you are concerned with images being good, focus IS critical. Ever since I went with a lens with VR, my keeper rate has improved. This is in response to your question about VR helping because the lens is slow in regards to the 70-300mm VR. VR doesn't help fast focus, it just makes sure it stays in focus when the button is pressed. I have been very happy with my 18-200mm VR and I shoot animals, sports, landscapes etc with it and my images have been much sharper.
is it focus, or is it lens wobble? I was typically shooting these at 1/1000 of a second at iso 200, the lowest the d70 can go. If the 70-300 looks as good as an 80-200 f/2.8, then that's really all the reason I need.
Unfortunately, I've learned recently that this is all a theoretical discussion anyway-- until stuff shapes up at work, ain't no lenses gonna get bought.
PBase Gallery