New 80-200/2.8, pointing at some animals

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

New 80-200/2.8, pointing at some animals

Postby losfp on Sun May 28, 2006 11:08 pm

Now, I've been tremendously slack at going out and taking some photos that can be posted on here for a bit of feedback - just been mega-busy with work and miscellaneous homelife. However, this weekend it was good to get to a minimeet and mingle with the usual suspects on Saturday. Then today (Sunday), we thought it'd be nice to get out of the house for a while so we went to Featherdale Wildlife Park. It's basically like going to the zoo except it's much closer for me (15 minute drive, if that), you get much better access to the animals, but there aren't as many cool man-eating inmates. They had lots of birds though.

Had a couple of new bits of gear that I wanted to try out. The Nikkor AF-D 80-200/2.8 came courtesy of forum member Shutterbug. Today I also went and bought a monopod just for fun (had a couple of shopping centre vouchers, so I essentially got a Manfrotto 676B for $20). I want to use the 80-200 primarily for sports, and it'll get its chance at the footy soon, but I spent most of the afternoon trying to get decent bird shots. Oh, it also shoots a decent portrait.. Got a couple of workable examples at yesterday's minimeet, and no doubt I'll keep experimenting.

Now back to the birds and animals. The lighting was a bit challenging. Was late afternoon, and had to deal with areas of very bright light, and some deep shadows. Also have to work on my technique when using the telephoto.. The f/2.8 helps to keep the shutter speed fast, but I'm still getting a lot of blurry shots from camera shake. Here's a couple of the better ones, starting with a sleepy Tassie devil...

Image

Image

Image

There's absolutely no comparison between this lens and my previous telephoto monster, the 70-300G. Of course, I paid 8 times more for this new lens, so it better be good! The focus speed is unreal, the build quality is superb, and the images are sharp as a tack (assuming of course that I've handheld correctly, and that I've managed to focus on the right thing).

All images above run through a light unsharp mask, small amount of curves tweaking & resizing in PSCS2.
User avatar
losfp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Quakers Hill, Sydney

Postby birddog114 on Mon May 29, 2006 7:41 am

Des,
If you see it soft or harder to handle (camera shake) under the lowlight then eBay it and off to the 70-200VR :lol:

You're friend of Tassie Devil? :shock: :shock: :lol: It last two hours and I only can handle maximum 5 mins. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The 80-200 (all version) is quite a nice glass, it's tack sharp at any angle, you've to spend time to experiment and master it. It takes time and you'll get it!
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby losfp on Mon May 29, 2006 10:04 am

You're right Birdy - very sharp lens, now I just have to get used to how to shoot with it... and practice, practice, practice :)

Amazingly, I don't think it's as heavy as I was expecting.. it balances really nicely in the left hand. Although I might have different ideas after dragging it around our bushwalk this weekend :D :D
User avatar
losfp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Quakers Hill, Sydney

Postby shutterbug on Mon May 29, 2006 10:28 am

Nice lens :wink:
User avatar
shutterbug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:32 am
Location: A Pub in Sydney / Bankstown

Postby birddog114 on Mon May 29, 2006 10:43 am

shutterbug wrote:Nice lens :wink:


No, not really!!!!! :shock: not nicer than your 70-200VR 8)
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby shutterbug on Mon May 29, 2006 11:20 am

hahahahhaa 8)
User avatar
shutterbug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:32 am
Location: A Pub in Sydney / Bankstown

Postby losfp on Mon May 29, 2006 11:26 am

No, definitely not as nice as the 70-200VR. However, I'd like to thank Vincent for discovering the joys of the 70-200VR, and letting those who are less fortunate have the chance of owning the 80-200 ;)
User avatar
losfp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Quakers Hill, Sydney

Postby birddog114 on Mon May 29, 2006 11:31 am

losfp wrote:No, definitely not as nice as the 70-200VR. However, I'd like to thank Vincent for discovering the joys of the 70-200VR, and letting those who are less fortunate have the chance of owning the 80-200 ;)


You'll do the same thing when time comes. :wink:
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby shutterbug on Mon May 29, 2006 11:39 am

losfp wrote:No, definitely not as nice as the 70-200VR. However, I'd like to thank Vincent for discovering the joys of the 70-200VR, and letting those who are less fortunate have the chance of owning the 80-200 ;)


My pleasure :wink: Hope your other half is happy about your purchase :wink: Just take some great portriat of her :lol:
User avatar
shutterbug
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:32 am
Location: A Pub in Sydney / Bankstown

Postby losfp on Mon May 29, 2006 12:38 pm

shutterbug wrote:My pleasure :wink: Hope your other half is happy about your purchase :wink: Just take some great portriat of her :lol:


Well Vincent, I made the tactically astute move of telling her that I was going to buy the lens on Wednesday night, while I was in Brisbane for work. That way, I couldn't come to any IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL HARM.

That said, it was still pretty frosty on the weekend.. But it will get better. She said "you've only got one more lens to buy, right?", with that dangerous glint in the eye, promising further pain if the answer was the wrong one. I think she was pleasantly surprised when I said "no, actually this is all I need for the honeymoon".

Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 80-200, Nikkor 50/1.8 - Honestly, I think that is all the bases pretty much covered. Anything past that is simply a want, not a need.

Theoretically :)
User avatar
losfp
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Quakers Hill, Sydney


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques