| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
1
|
2
| |
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
| |
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
| |
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
| |
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
| » Stats |
Members: 50,189
Threads: 82,437
Posts: 853,857
Top Poster: glsammy (15,069) | | Welcome to our newest member, VickyFysh | |  | 
24-01-2010, 09:21 PM
|  | Officer of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: South Coast, UK, nr Dorchester
Posts: 717
| | | I think its 100-400 for me I was out on the riverbank late afternoon today and spotted a splashing up ahead.
Using a Sony A100 with Minolta 70-210 Beercan I crept up the bank and managed to snap these, admittedly not great, few shots of an otter:
I know they're not technically the greatest ever shots, but the point is the otter was coming up in different places each time, and only literally for a few seconds. Even from 210 I had to widen the field of view for when the otter surfaced, so I could get back on him.
I'm sure with a 400 prime lens I wouldn't have got the shots.
Anyone got any thoughts? | 
25-01-2010, 10:19 AM
|  | Knight Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Leigh, Lancashire
Posts: 5,908
| | | Re: I think its 100-400 for me Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel_b I was out on the riverbank late afternoon today and spotted a splashing up ahead.
Using a Sony A100 with Minolta 70-210 Beercan I crept up the bank and managed to snap these, admittedly not great, few shots of an otter:
I know they're not technically the greatest ever shots, but the point is the otter was coming up in different places each time, and only literally for a few seconds. Even from 210 I had to widen the field of view for when the otter surfaced, so I could get back on him.
I'm sure with a 400 prime lens I wouldn't have got the shots.
Anyone got any thoughts? | Yes .... three of them in quick succession - fantastic ... lucky you ... and wish it would happen to me!! (But it never will stuck indoors - mental note I must get out soon or go completely haywire ........... )
And to be serious yes an 100-400 would work for lots of things - its can be used hand-held with good results - tho as ever - best on a tripod - or braced securely on a beanbag, rock, tree roots etc. and yes you could zoom in and out if you have quick reactions. I don't know the Sony camera you mention but I assume it would take the 100-400. I know folks who are reliant on this lens and always use a 1.40 extender with it and if a bit of cash hadn't come my way then I would still be relying on this set up.
You're right in thinking the 4,5, or 600 prime would get the shots - but primes are not forgiving if you do get close - no zoom and part of a larger mammal may be missing from the shot - also they are not easy to get on a moving target ........ read up plenty and compare both cameras and lenses before jumping would be my advice!
Pauline |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | | | 25 members and 330 guests | | Andyfrog321, Bruce Williams, celticgirl, featherandhay, GTH, GuyF, Ilex, Insomniak, Johnny81, johnwray205, King Edward, mikef, mikerae, nightshade, Omi, paulinemiller10, Pete Collins, pressld2, rmc, shenk1, solus, TARPS, tigertom, Tringa, Xurek | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | moth Today 10:45 AM 3 Replies, 65 Views | | | | | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | | Spammers! 01-06-2012 01:53 PM 8 Replies, 201 Views | | | | | |