New lens try-out

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).

I picked up a 500 PF last week and yesterday was the first chance I had to try it out. For it's first outing, I thought I'd try a subject I was recently familiar with: Ospreys:
Osprey001_small.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Osprey-9-small.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Osprey-small-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Osprey-small-4.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


...and there were beavers, too:

Beaver001_small.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


All in all, I was very happy with the way it performed: The AF was significantly faster, and the lens is definitely sharper, especially for more distant objects.
 
I picked up a 500 PF last week and yesterday was the first chance I had to try it out. For it's first outing, I thought I'd try a subject I was recently familiar with: Ospreys:
View attachment 61179
View attachment 61181
View attachment 61182
View attachment 61183

...and there were beavers, too:

View attachment 61184

All in all, I was very happy with the way it performed: The AF was significantly faster, and the lens is definitely sharper, especially for more distant objects.
Nice series!
 
Thanks, folks. I should add that the lens really handles beautifully, although it's almost comically small for what it produces :D

To get all critique-y for a moment: do you think the beaver shot works? I know the rule is to get down to eye level but I couldn't because I was on top of a dyke and there was no way down to the water. However, I really like the texture of the water, which is what makes it for me.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, folks. I should add that the lens really handles beautifully, although it's almost comically small for what it produces :D

To get all critique-y for a moment: do you think the beaver shot works? I know the rule is to get down to eye level but I couldn't because I was on top of a dyke and there was no way down to the water. However, I really like the texture of the water, which is what makes it for me.
With so many images in one thread I thought perhaps you posted it in the critique forum by mistake. But since you asked specifically about the beaver IMO the water surface makes it work pretty well. Conventional wisdom says get as low as possible but the POV here isn't bad due to the nice water.

Enjoy the lens. It's one of my all time favorites.
 
With so many images in one thread I thought perhaps you posted it in the critique forum by mistake. But since you asked specifically about the beaver IMO the water surface makes it work pretty well. Conventional wisdom says get as low as possible but the POV here isn't bad due to the nice water.

Enjoy the lens. It's one of my all time favorites.
Thanks for the comment.
 
I picked up a 500 PF last week and yesterday was the first chance I had to try it out. For it's first outing, I thought I'd try a subject I was recently familiar with: Ospreys:
Congrats on the new lens! Of all the camera equipment I have bought over the years (a 300mm f/2.8, the 500mm f/4, the Z9, etc), the 500mm PF brought me the most joy. Love the osprey shots, hope you get to photograph them fishing.
 
With so many images in one thread I thought perhaps you posted it in the critique forum by mistake. But since you asked specifically about the beaver IMO the water surface makes it work pretty well. Conventional wisdom says get as low as possible but the POV here isn't bad due to the nice water.

Enjoy the lens. It's one of my all time favorites.
It's probably me not understanding how this place works: usually, at the other forum I post at, that shall remain nameless **cough closing down cough cough** you post a bunch of shots and people usually weigh in on which ones they like and which ones don't work and why. I guess this place works a little differently :unsure:
 
It's probably me not understanding how this place works: usually, at the other forum I post at, that shall remain nameless **cough closing down cough cough** you post a bunch of shots and people usually weigh in on which ones they like and which ones don't work and why. I guess this place works a little differently :unsure:
Well actually there's not really a protocol here. Matter of fact very few people post in the critique forum. But it seems like usually when they do it's one or two shots. Or two to compare something like that. For me personally I rarely have the attention span/energy to critique multiple images at one sitting. At least not with what I consider to be meaningful or useful comments. Maybe the Roman thumbs up/down but that would be about it. :rolleyes:
 
Well actually there's not really a protocol here. Matter of fact very few people post in the critique forum. But it seems like usually when they do it's one or two shots. Or two to compare something like that. For me personally I rarely have the attention span/energy to critique multiple images at one sitting. At least not with what I consider to be meaningful or useful comments. Maybe the Roman thumbs up/down but that would be about it. :rolleyes:
That's fair :LOL:
 
It's all good. The guidelines given are appropriately loose.

 
Back
Top