|
|
Gust@vo Sch3v3rin
{K:153867} 5/31/2005
|
Impresionante captura mi amigo.
Felicitaciones!
|
|
|
|
|
Tiffany Hix
{K:5012} 5/31/2005
|
Wonderful capture! He does seem to look old. Nice clarity!
|
|
|
|
|
Fadel J
{K:13747} 5/31/2005
|
Great details in this one David, beautifuly captured!
|
|
|
|
|
Hanggan Situmorang
{K:37830} 5/31/2005
|
Wow, great details even with the backlight! Wonderful capture, David. Congratulations.
|
|
|
|
|
Alison Webb
{K:2803} 5/31/2005
|
Wonderful capture David, well done.
I tried to capture birds once but all i got was a sore neck.
Cheers Al.
|
|
|
|
|
Lynne Stacey
{K:529} 5/31/2005
|
Very nice detail and color!
|
|
|
|
|
Larissa Nazarova
{K:12112} 5/31/2005
|
Wow! nice catch.
Congrats! Larissa
|
|
|
|
|
Cheryl Ogle
{K:24494} 6/2/2005
|
He does have that "not so young" look to him. I bet he's had an interesting life though. :) Great detail shot David. I didn't put this shot with your name as it's not your typical post. I really like it - you should do more...
|
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
{K:23763} 6/2/2005
|
thanks a lot Cheryl. I used to do wildlife (mostly dolphins and swans) a lot. I make a little with it selling them through agencies, but when I came here I wanted to see if I could do something else. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Klifton K.
{K:3386} 6/3/2005
|
Great shot! Nice "kid" lens you have there! :)
|
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
{K:23763} 6/3/2005
|
thanks Klifton. That lens is a "leftover" from my wildlife days. It is the best lens I ever had. The quality is amazing and even though it is a 300 the AF is lightning fast. Unfortunately I hardly use it any more.
|
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
{K:23763} 6/3/2005
|
thanks Alison :) yes the sour back can be a problem. Lens and camera are 4.5 kg (10 pound) :(
|
|
|
|
|
Klifton K.
{K:3386} 6/3/2005
|
Yeah, I would think for our typical type of photography (kids and people, etc.), the F/4 might even be a bit more usefull. Smaller, less expensive, and most importantly, a closer focus. But, 300 is still a bit long for kids. I'm considering switching to a 12-24, 28-200, 85 setup. The 28-200 being on most of the time. The 85mm for portraits and weddings, etc. And the 12-24 for my love of landscapes. :) But who knows, I change my mind on lenses more than underwear (which I change regularly, be assured).
The 28-200 is definitely at the top of my list though, for the mere fact that even though it may not be as fast or as good as some of the other possibilities. If it's not on the camera, it doens't do you any good. The 28-200 would cover 95% of what I wish to do. The 12-24 would cover 2% and the 85 f/1.4 the other 3%. :) Plus, it'll keep the bag light (which I desire). And necessitate a smaller tripod (which I use). :)
Plus, the 28-200 is cheapish, and if I break it with it being on the camera most of the time, or scratch it, or drop it, or whatever... It'll be a lot cheaper to replace than a 17-55 or 70-200. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly Gamble
{K:620} 6/3/2005
|
Wow! So Free! Nice job,David!
Kelly~
|
|
|
|
|
Ann Van Breemen
{K:13508} 6/3/2005
|
Great shot, David. Good colour and detail. Show us more of your wildlife pics, please. Cheers, Ann.
|
|
|
|
|
David Hofmann
{K:23763} 6/4/2005
|
28-200 is a phantastic range but I'm a big fan of fast lenses and I consider f/2.8 already the upper limit. I have the 18-70/3.5-4.5 but almost never use it unless I need the low end for landscapes. If there was a 28-200/2.0 that would be my all time favorite. But I guess it would be so expensive that it will be never made.
|
|
