Monday in Nature, March 26, 2018

Basic Guidelines: In the strictest sense, nature photography should not include "hand of man elements". Please refrain from images with buildings or human made structures like roads, fences, walls. Pets are not permitted. Captive subjects in zoos, arboretums, or aquariums are permitted, but must be declared, and must focus on the subject, not the captivity. Images with obvious human made elements will likely be deleted from the thread, with an explanation to the photographer. Guidelines are based on PSA rules governing Nature photography which also cover the Nature Forum. Keep your image at/under 1000 pixels on the long axis for in-line viewing. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site at Flicker, Photobucket, your own site, etc Are you new to this thread? We post one image per week.

 

Mono Lake "tufa towers," a limestone formed by the combination of calcium from underground springs and carbonates from the lake.

 

Osprey with catch

 

Sea Otter

Cedar Waxwing in Austin, Texas

Abput the closest I've gotten to a deer this year (bummer).

 

[ATTACH=full]1238538[/ATTACH]

I wonder what kind of lens was used to capture this image. I see signs of a mirror (catadioptric) telephoto lens.

Black Point Drive, Merritt Island

Snake Puts Up A Futile Fight For Its Life

 

Snake Battles, Hopelessly, For Its Life by David Stephens, on Flickr

I wonder what kind of lens was used to capture this image. I see signs of a mirror (catadioptric) telephoto lens.

I was using the Sigma 150-600 on the 5d MK IV. I'm not sure but I have seen mentioned that the OS on this lens can give you odd effects. I just happened to like the effect in this photo and I even did a version for myself with brush strokes added in Photoshop. I can't figure where the blue on the neck and chin came from.though unless she was eating candy and drooling.

I was using the Sigma 150-600 on the 5d MK IV. I'm not sure but I have seen mentioned that the OS on this lens can give you odd effects. I just happened to like the effect in this photo and I even did a version for myself with brush strokes added in Photoshop. I can't figure where the blue on the neck and chin came from.though unless she was eating candy and drooling.

Thanks for the reply. Well, I was totally off the mark, and I am surprised that a very modern lens (and camera) would produce such effect. I assume this is not the version that is heavily PhotoShopped.

I've had the lens for just a few weeks and the results with it are inconsistent. Sometimes photos are very sharp and sometimes you get a result like you see here. Someone in a forum suggested turning the OS off and just make sure you use a fast shutter speed at the longer focal lengths. The photo posted here is unaltered. If you look at my post in the 3-22 Thursday Canon forum with the Ibis, it was taken with the same lens. Canon photo 2018 #12 2018-03-22 Edited March 27, 2018 by JRCrowe

I've had the lens for just a few weeks and the results with it are inconsistent. Sometimes photos are very sharp and sometimes you get a result like you see here. Someone in a forum suggested turning the OS off and just make sure you use a fast shutter speed at the longer focal lengths. The photo posted here is unaltered. If you look at my post in the 3-22 Thursday Canon forum with the Ibis, it was taken with the same lens. Canon photo 2018 #12 2018-03-22

I once bought a refurbished Nikon 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR lens several years ago, and it gave me some weird blurred images. I think the problem was in the vibration reduction mechanism (i.e. IS or OS). On that particular lens, switching off VR was probably not entirely working and didn't completely eliminate the issue. I have had several very bad experience with Nikon USA refurbished lenses and ended up returning all of them.

 

There is definitely some limitations when your maximum aperture is f6.3 at 600mm, but that also makes the lens smaller, lighter, and less expensive. There are always trade offs. BTW, is this the Sigma Contemporary or Sports 150-600mm zoom?

Hope I'm not too late.

Winter aconite (Eranthis Hienalis) - first spring flower around here.

I once bought a refurbished Nikon 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR lens several years ago, and it gave me some weird blurred images. I think the problem was in the vibration reduction mechanism (i.e. IS or OS). On that particular lens, switching off VR was probably not entirely working and didn't completely eliminate the issue. I have had several very bad experience with Nikon USA refurbished lenses and ended up returning all of them.

 

There is definitely some limitations when your maximum aperture is f6.3 at 600mm, but that also makes the lens smaller, lighter, and less expensive. There are always trade offs. BTW, is this the Sigma Contemporary or Sports 150-600mm zoom?

 

The lens is the Contemporary version. I bought it used from Adorama. I am trying to decide if its defective, my technique, or common to all of the Sigma Contemporary lenses. I can use ISO 800 with the 5D Mk IV with not much degradation of the image. This was shot at ISO 200 @600mm f6.3 1/400. I used those settings to see how effective the OS would be in that situation. The Ibis photo was shot earlier in the day ISO 800 @600mm f8.0 1/1250. Both were taken handheld from a car.

Pileated woodpecker by Tom Yin, on Flickr