Foxy lady

Recty

Recty

New member
Errrr, I guess it's the other way around, a lady fox.

fox007.jpg


You NEVER see foxes where I am, I've seen like 2 in my entire life.

I really wished I had a good zoom lens, this is a major crop. I have a couple other pictures but they are just too blurry once I crop anymore, I really really need a good zoom for stuff like this.

Here's an example of one that makes me wish I could zoom optically instead of digitally.

fox009.jpg


Such a cute little baby fox but I just couldnt get close enough to get a nice clear shot.

It also would have helped if I had my tripod with me, but I didnt :(
 
I was expecting a foxface. Nice find, I have only seen a wild fox once here in Florida. Now that I think about it, I have spotted the elusive ultra-rare florida panther (each cat needs about 70sq miles of woods to itself) more often than foxes. I guess it's time for one of the 70-200's! Maybe a 100-400 or a super prime (300, 400, 500, ect). You like to shoot eagles a lot.
 
Nice. We used to have a den near my parents house in salt lake. Every spring we'd get out the binoculars and watch the pups come out and play while mom watched over them. I didn't have a camera then, and the area's been developed over now. :mad:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15096204#post15096204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
sweet Grant, where were you at?
Click to expand...
Here in Anchorage, driving down the road and looked over and saw a fox, it was surprising :)

And yes, TTS, I think my next lens will be a 100-400... I was really wanting a zoom.

I might just get a prime but I might go with the 100-400.
 
I know you're a Canon guy, but I just picked up the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5 VR lens, and I love it. I live on Long Island, and have found myself looking up at overhead planes coming into JFK and LaGuardia often. It's amazing how much detail you can see on the bottom of a plane when you're zoomed in at 300mm!
 
Yep, sounds great. I'll probably be going for the 100-400 Canon with IS, time to start saving a little cash up, they arent cheap!
 
Read up Grant. That lens is a bit slow at F4.5-5.6 and from what I remember a tad soft (when I was investigating) and a bit of a pain with the push/pull zoom. I opted for the fixed F4 300mm and a 1.4X tele. I have the 70-200 also but really find that if I have the 24-105 and the 300mm with the option of the 1.4 I rarely miss that middle ground. Plus I get the sharpness of the fixed lens. If you're reaching for a zoom odds are you're gonna want as much zoom as you have anyway. Are you really gonna miss the 200-299mm or 301-399mm range?
 
We have a fox at our local greenway where we run. They are only out and about in the late evening when pictures just won't develop properly. Nice capture. The good thing is now you know where they are at for later pictures.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15101604#post15101604 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
Read up Grant. That lens is a bit slow at F4.5-5.6 and from what I remember a tad soft (when I was investigating) and a bit of a pain with the push/pull zoom. I opted for the fixed F4 300mm and a 1.4X tele. I have the 70-200 also but really find that if I have the 24-105 and the 300mm with the option of the 1.4 I rarely miss that middle ground. Plus I get the sharpness of the fixed lens. If you're reaching for a zoom odds are you're gonna want as much zoom as you have anyway. Are you really gonna miss the 200-299mm or 301-399mm range?
Click to expand...
I've actually been reading up on it a lot over about the last 3 months. Whenever we talked at ACM, I had just started looking into it and I've been still researching ever since then.

Everyone who uses the lens says the push/pull thing isnt a problem once they get used to it.

As far as softness goes, I've heard it isnt real sharp at 400mm but from 370 and down it does real well. I've seen lots and lots of sample photos taken with it.

It could be the difference between photographers I guess. I know you use the 300mm and love it. I've contemplated getting it, but I'd be irritated that I'm stuck at one focal length and cant zoom in and out. Maybe my "style" (if I have one ;) ) works better with zooming and yours is more set for static lengths? Who knows, but I dont think I'd like being stuck at 300mm.

With that said, I've been looking at the 300mm prime a lot too :P I still dont know what I'm getting for sure.

As far as the 400mm being slow, that might be an issue but most of my shots I'd be using it for are outside and in sunlight, so I'd probably be over f/5.6 anyway.

I'm thinking about renting a 100-400 from Glazers and seeing if I like it before actually purchasing one.
 
Sounds like you've been doing your research Grant. Good job. I was going to suggest renting your two top choices and trying them out but then I see you already had that idea. Great minds... :)
 
As long as you are informed. Yes, styles matter. As I said though for me using 300mm and greater is almost always for wildlife with an occasional distant landscape shot. Seems like I can never get close enough to the critters...even with the 1.4 many times. I just can't imagine that you'll want the other focal ranges, but for you, you might. Honestly I cannot think of even one time I wish my lens was less than 300 (sorry, once. In Canada when the Polar Bear came right under the bus. Then I just switched to my 70-200). More mms yes, F2.8, yes, but slower F stop or 100-300mm.......never :).

That said, you'll be happy with either I'm sure :)
 
The times that are making me think I'd want the 100-400 instead of a fixed 300mm is when I'm taking eagle pictures. Quite a few of the shots I took I was using my 24-70 and I was almost fully backed out to 24mm. Most of the shots were with the 100mm macro I've got, but say 20% of them were close enough the 100mm would have been way too much zoom.

Wildlife up here is just way too tame I guess ;)
 
And also, I dont have a 70-200 right now ;) If I did, I might be more enthused about just getting a 300mm prime.
 
ahhh, thought you had nabbed that one already :). Then your choice makes a lot more sense to me now. So one day you'll have the 100-400 and the 300 F4 :).
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15110569#post15110569 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
ahhh, thought you had nabbed that one already :). Then your choice makes a lot more sense to me now. So one day you'll have the 100-400 and the 300 F4 :).
Click to expand...
Heh, well I've got the 24-70 already, so if I get the 100-400 then I'm just missing the 70-100 range and lets face it, that's the red headed stepchild of the focal lengths. I'm not worried about those 30mm.

I cant see myself ever buying a prime 300mm when I've got the 100-400 unless the 300mm just give AMAZINGLY better pictures. I've looked at lots of photos taken with the 100-400 and it looks like it takes nice ones to me. Granted, I'm not a pro but I'm getting picky and I really like the output I've seen from the 100-400.

Basically, the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS is $1600.

The 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 with IS is $1400.

The 300mm f/4 with IS is $1200.

So if I want the 70-200 and the 300mm prime, like you have, then I'm into it $2800.

If I buy the 100-400mm which probably wont be quite as clear as the 300mm prime lens and doesnt let in as much light as the 70-200mm f/2.8 BUT costs only $1400 and covers pretty much everything both those other lenses can do, I'm only into it $1400, which is half of what the other setup would cost me.

I'm not rich either ;) I do this as a hobby, not to make money at all, so this hobby is all self funded, there arent photographs out there I'm selling and making money to pay for expensive gear. With that said, I think all things considered, the 100-400mm is the best bet for me.

If I really didnt like it for some reason, later on I can sell the 100-400mm and get the prime but I cant see that happening ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ralph82396
Best way to treat this algae
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
David MC Lee
David MC Lee
NancyT3
ID fish disease and how to tx (next time)
Replies
5
Views
1K
leebca
L
ClownBubbaJoe
Skimmer, TALL skimmer vs short under cabinet type ?
Replies
13
Views
1K
BeanAnimal
B
Emanuel92
What lighting for S. haddoni and E. quadricolor?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Jeremy Blaze
Any good HOB skimmer/mechanical filters?
Replies
9
Views
2K
coxreefer
C
Back
Top