Post your best bird shots!

[Brendan7]

<span style="font-weight: normal;"]




[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.37.26/IMG_5F00_3551-headshot.JPG[/img]

[ddt0725]

Anyways Denise if you don't mind my saying so your picture looks *very* cropped. Do you have an uncropped version?

Why would I mind!It is very cropped to get the effect I was going for. I was going for humor here more than photographic skill. Laugh Brendan, it does a body good! [:P]
An uncropped similar photo that I did clone out a few branches is posted under the latest thread of "What did you shoot?" May 24th - 30th.

[ddt0725]

Gimp (free software, can't get photoshop yet b/c I have a 17-55 and 70-200 on order):

Wait a minute, this is what you just posted in a thread earlier today...

"I personally don't like the 17-55 very much due to quality issues. I'm sorry but I shouldn't pay $1000 for a lens that is made of plastic and has dust issues. "

So you went and ordered one??? With that and a few threads you have going on seeking advice on what lens to get ...you have me thoroughly confused! Did I miss something? [*-)]

Denise

[neuroanatomist]

Gimp (free software, can't get photoshop yet b/c I have a 17-55 and 70-200 on order):

Wait a minute, this is what you just posted in a thread earlier today...

"I personally don't like the 17-55 very much due to quality issues. I'm sorry but I shouldn't pay $1000 for a lens that is made of plastic and has dust issues. "

So you went and ordered one??? With that and a few threads you have going on seeking advice on what lens to get ...you have me thoroughly confused! Did I miss something? [img]/emoticons/emotion-42.gif[/img]

Denise

+1. Hey Brendan, what's the deal here? [*-)]


Ps. Which 70-200mm did you decide on?

[Brendan7]

Yes, I know. No, Denise, you didn't miss anything and the "[*-)]s" are welldeserved.


I think that maybe if so many other people are recommending it (Neuro -- you also own the 24-105 and seeing that you still use the 17-55 more) I decided I can't hurt anything by giving it a try. Maybe I've been wrong all along.


I chose the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM.

[neuroanatomist]

Enjoy your new lenses, Brendan!


RE the 17-55mm 'dust issue', it seems clear that some people have experienced that. It might be a bad copy/bad luck issue. Mine is completely clean inside despite a lot of use outdoors and inside (and with pets, a toddler, and little time or inclination for cleaning, it's used in some pretty dusty environments). I do keep a B+W MRC UV filter on the lens (all my lenses, in fact) - that might be something for you to consider. Even weather-sealed L-lenses (except the superteles) require a filter to complete the 'sealing'.


Actually, Denise and I bothhave theEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS - we both bought it after we bought the 17-55mm. Speaking for myself, I do find the 24-105mm focal range very useful, along with the weather-sealing. It's just that I often find the 17-55mm range and f/2.8 more useful. If you're only going to have one general purpose zoom, for a crop body the 17-55mm is a better choice, IMO. There's probably an element of seasonal timing there, too - late fall and winter are pretty dark in the northeast (and in the upper midwest and PA as well), meaning a lot of time indoors and wide apertures even outdoors. In my case, I'm also planning on a FF body in the foreseeable future - and my lenses shorter than 85mm were both EF-S mounts (although on FF, I might not be happy with the barrel distortion of the 24-105mm - that one will probably get sold in favor of a 24-70mm f/2.8L IS when/if Canon gets around to releasing one of those).


The EF70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L IS II is truly a great lens - good choice there, too!


--John

[Joel Eade]

Portrait of a Northern Cardinal from my backyard setup. I put some food on the ground and placed the rock just behind it....easily coaxed this fella to perch just where I wanted him. (Shot with 1D MKIII, 300mm 2.8 + 2.0 TC)[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.28/Cardinal.jpg[/img]

[Sheiky]

Yes, I know. No, Denise, you didn't miss anything and the "[img]/emoticons/emotion-42.gif[/img]s" are welldeserved.

Hmm I think I'm seeing what you are doing here...misleading all the competition around here and sneaky buying the best lens yourself and own us all!!![:P]



<div>

Portrait of a Northern Cardinal from my backyard setup. I put some food on the ground and placed the rock just behind it....easily coaxed this fella to perch just where I wanted him. (Shot with 1D MKIII, 300mm 2.8 + 2.0 TC)

Wow, good shot! That's truly a beautiful colored bird, haven't seen anything like that flying around the house ever. Cool!


Jan


Ps: The 5D2 really sucks, heavily overpraised, overpriced and oversized: images are really soft, you can see the big pixels and honestly keep your mind and don't buy it! You will regret it!![6][]
</div>

[Joel Eade]

Blue Jay portrait with dogwood flower. 1D MKIII + 300mm 2.8 + 1.4TC. Taken using a tripod and a camo hide close to my backyard feeder.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.28/343V8799.jpg[/img]

[Pieter]

Hi Joel,


I sincerly love the bird, it is amazingly sharp, but the background could be better imo. Can you perhaps make some photographs of your setup? Your backyard-bird pictures are all amazing...