Best Telephoto for Birds?

[petrana_batik]

It's always nicer to have the extra reach. But with size comes weight and appropriate support. The original question was...

 

"I had the Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED; however, I am intrigued by the new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR."

 

While not the tool ultimate for Bird-photography, the VR version does provide substantial benefits over the older version. You don't need to have a monstrous tool (although it does help)...

[alison_evans_fragale1]

First, let me say thank you to all of you nice people who took the time out of your busy day to help me amke a decision.

 

Second, I apologize for using the word, "best" and then asking about consumer products. I should have made it clear that I am an amateur, (as if my crummy pics do not already convey that!) and that the lens I am considering is one I deemed suitable for my amateur ability and, also, within my price range.

 

Additionally, I thoroughly enjoyed all of your wonderful bird pics. Alas, I can only aspire to capture such beauty with such brilliance!

 

That being said, I really do appreciate your knowledgable input, and it helped me to make a decision: I purchased the 70-300mm VR.

 

I am now looking at 1.4 or 1.7x teleconverters. Is the lens I purchased too slow?

 

Thank you, all, again, from the bottom of my heart.

 

Now, I just hope the NJ Senate finds the wild Quaker Parrots of Edgewater as wonderful as I do. I hope the great pics I will be taking will add to their existing charm, and the State will de-list them from the list of "potentially dangerous" species. They don't belong there, and we can't do anything to help them get treated more humanely until they do! Wish me luck! (For more info, visit my site at: www.edgewaterparrots.com--and if the story inspires you, please sign my petition!)

 

All the best--

Alison<div></div>

[alison_evans_fragale1]

One more cute pic I wanted to share.

Alison<div></div>

[mark_chappell]

<I>They don't belong there, and we can't do anything to help them get treated more

humanely until they do! </i><P>

 

[start ecological rant] These are monk parakeets <I>(Myiopsitta monachus). </i> I

have to

respectfully disagree: they definitely do not belong in the wild

state in North America. Feral invasive exotics are almost never a good thing, especially

for native speices. We're already awash with exotics like house sparrows, starlings, rats,

goats, wild pigs, feral cats, house mice, and a gazillion insects and plants that are

destructive to native widlife, crops, and sometimes harmful to us. Invasive species are one

of the two or three biggest threats to global biodiversity. [end rant]

[alison_evans_fragale1]

Mark-

I am glad you made the comment you did. It is typical of alot of the people who have heard the notorious rumors about the Monk Parakeets, and it offers me a chance to offer you some information and maybe even change your mind!

 

Incidentally, I was of the same opinion as you, as were my team mates, Dr. Michael Gochfeld and Dr. Joanna Burger, BEFORE our research caused us to change our opinions.

 

Because this is a Nikon forum, and not a bird forum, I won't go into too much detail here, BUT... Suffice to say, over 30 years of research proves that they do not belong on a list of "potentially dangerous" species, alongside Black Bears and Vipers. In a nutshell...

 

Monks are not crop destroyers. In Argentina, agricultural losses attributed to the Monk Parakeet have never been accurately measured. I should note that damage figures are provided by farmers who have financial incentive to lie. Dr. Gochfeld's studies of the Monks in their native land describes them as grass and grass seed eaters.

 

They do not drive away native species; they live among them. Local bird counts detail thriving bird populations of all species, and the Monks have been observed feeding, bathing, and even nesting among native birds.

 

Additionally, they are introduced--not invasive. They are k-strategists. They have lived in the same park in Edgewater for over 30 years and have not moved into any neighboring communities.

 

For the record, they are not feral. Feral is a creature that had been domestic at one time and then became wild. The Monks in Edgewater were all born in the wild, and as such, are wild, not feral.

 

I have tons of info I can offer you to help you discover the truth about the wild Monk Parakeets. If you'd like, send me your e-mail address, and I'll be happy to forward some of the research I just mentioned.

 

Please do not take my offering this info as an attack. I just want the truth to get "out there", and I am always eager to offer information to try and reverse the notorious and undeserved reputation of this persecuted species--just as I would hope you will continue to educate me on the choice of a good lens or how to take a great shot!

 

All the best- Alison

[mark_chappell]

Alison: THis is considerably off topic and likely to be deleted by Shun or one of the other

moderators. But sorry, I can't agree that monk parrots are somehow 'OK'. They are not

native here, they were introduced by human activity, and hence they do not belong in the

wild in North America. By definition, if they are surviving and reproducing in the wild,

they are invasive, and by definition, if they were released from captivity and are now in the

wild state, they are feral -- even if multiple generations have ensued since release or

escape. If they eat grass and seeds, they are competing with native species that eat grass

and seeds.

 

They may be cute and they certainly aren't as noxious as a lot of exotic pests, so one

could argue that other feral exotics should have a higher priority for control. But from

basic ecological principles there is no way they can exist in the wild and not have some

impact on native species. That would require that they exist exclusively on resources that

are completely unused by all other species.