If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

pomkiwi

pomkiwi

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I often use my 100-400 for insect photography and out of interest tried my 180-600 the other day. The light wasn't great but the result looks OK. The relatively long MFD compared with 100-400 means that I will probably stick with the former much of the time.
DSC_8936-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
To me, it appears a very nice image, especially considering the lens used.

EDIT: (considering the lens used) I do not want to suggest the lens is a poor lens, but that it is not intended to be macro. I too enjoy this lens, splendid.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Calson said:
It appears that there is subject motion blur from your relatively slow shutter speed. The greater the image magnification the easier it is to spot motion blur.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The blur that is there (minimal though it is on the original file rather than a jpeg further compromised by web viewing) is on the areas that are slightly outside the focus plane rather than due to motion - the tips of the attennae are not blurred and they are subject to more movement. I'm not sure that in most circumstances it detracts from the image.
I remain happy with the image given that it was taken with a lens I took mainly to capture our local kestrels in flight used at the opposite extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.