Dieter Schaefer

Can you see the menu when you press the MENU button?

Z9, 800PF She had enough of him dancing on her back for a minute or so and not doing what he was supposed to:

Their third year on this nest - getting things ready

Z9, 800PF

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names. Great Horned Owlet. Learned about this nest yesterday; it's located on a golf course and hence one can only photograph it from one location at the perimeter. Quite high up in a pine tree it poses some challenges to actually get the owlet in focus.

This is the additional weekly image thread for the Nature Forum. While images posted to this thread should still be nature in theme, it may contain a small amount of human-made objects and therefore less restricted than the Monday in Nature threads. Please see this discussion for more details: Alternative weekly thread in Nature forum Each participant please post no more than just one image per weekly thread. Many members will appreciate any information you are willing or able to provide regarding location, shooting process, exposure settings, equipment, and information on the subject(s), including scientific and/or common names.

Z9, 800PF with 1.4xTC This nest will hopefully be occupied again quite soon

And I wonder which lens the 70-180mm f/3.5D might be? Mine was a f/4.5-5.6 🤔 According to this site: https://www.photonstophotos.net//GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBench.htm#Data/WO2020-119907_Example01P.txt,figureOpacity=0.25,AxisO,OffAxis the focal length at 1:1 is actually about 66mm.

FWIW, here are some working distances (that I personally often find more important than the MFD): https://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/macro-information/macro-lens-working-distance.html

Often it's an either/or proposition. I either pack the wildlife equipment with just one general type lens. Or I have the travel setup which might include a 100-400 lens that can do duty for birds/wildlife as well. Only when traveling by car can I afford the luxury of packing more. Which is why a lot of trips from Southern California to Canada or Yellowstone were by car.

That lens has massive distortion and high vignetting. And a quite inconsistent performance across the field of view and across the focal lengths. The Tamron 20-40 is a stop faster and performs best at the short end. Your and my needs differ substantially - I hardly ever shoot events and my usage is more for travel - a mixture of landscape, architecture, street.

I know. And I always wanted a mid-range walkaround zoom that started at 24 (or 16mm for DX (instead of 17 or 18). I just gave up when anything that wasn't a 24-70/2.8 (which for me was always too short at the long end, in addition to being too heavy and too expensive) turned out to be not that great optically. I didn't want to go with any 28-xx(x) (even though Nikon's 28-105 did work quite well on some cameras) because I thought 28 was too long. But then I realized that the combo of two lenses (Tamron 15-30/2.8 - granted a large and heavy behemoth but optically excellent, and the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4) suited me better than any one-zoom solution I had come across. I have since let go of the 15-30 and often now carry just a 20mm in its place. And a 15mm manual focus prime if I need to cover the even wider option. The 35-150 to me eliminates the need of carrying a 70-200. I am glad I am not in a position were I need the "classic" 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 setup. I always felt the the break at 70mm was quite artificial and not particularly practical. I'd rather see a 20-50(60)/2-2.8 and a 70-180/2-2.8. The Tamron 20-40/2.8 to me is a step in the right direction; I actually purchased it instead of a 20/21mm prime. I wanted the G1 28-75/2.8 in Sony mount when it was released - but luckily I hesitated. I still see no reason to go for the G2 version now as I don't like the limited range. I'd be surprised if Nikon keeps the 28-75 in the program - no one is going to get it now that the G2 is available. There might be contractual obligations in play though that forces Nikon's hand.

You can have a Tamron 35-150/2.-2.8 right now. $2k and 2.6lbs. The Sony version is $200 cheaper. I have the F-mount 35-150/2.8-4 and am quite happy with it - despite the rather long short end that I thought would be an issue. I can always carry a A7RIII with the Tamron 20-40/2.8 to make up for that shortcoming - often that's short enough not to have to bother with an additional wide-angle zoom that starts at 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. I wonder when Tamron will release that lens in Z-mount.