nigel_deacon

A Eurasian goldfinch, almost full frame as composed though the viewfinder. Lovely little birds.

 

I am afraid it's just a Eurasian mapgie Pica pica with gross feather loss to the body. I have seen this before, but it is fortunately uncommon.

<p>Martyn, your hawk is a female <strong>Eurasian sparrowhawk</strong> <em>Accipiter nisus</em> in immature plumage (i.e. a bird hatched in 2015). This is not a speculative identification; I am 100% certain of it. This is THE classic avian predator of garden birds up to the size of a woodpigeon in the UK, and they are particularly fond of collared doves. I see them pretty much daily in my garden.<br>

Best wishes, Nigel (UK)</p>

<p><em>"My 300 f/4 behaves this way with and without TC14EII on my D300 every now and then; it also has a bit of play when mounted."</em><br>

Same here with the exactly the same combinations. I am pretty certain the root cause is the amount of rotational play at the lens mount leading to bad contacts, although I also wonder about the carrying of the camera on a body-mounted strap and the possibility that the heavy lens was deforming the mount and breaking contact. I could always fix it by either switching off the camera body and twisting the lens within its "play" or by removing and re-mounting the lens. Very annoying. I now have a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S VRII and there is almost no play - and no intermittent AF failures in 2 years (but I also carry this rig by a strap attached to the lens tripod mount). I note that my "G" lenses have closer mount tolerances than the earlier lens models with aperture rings?</p>

 

<p>I am curious about this statement: -<br>

<em>"All raw files <strong>must</strong> be converted to a <strong>jpg</strong> or <strong>tiff</strong> file" </em><br>

<strong>Must?</strong> Why? I have huge quantities of RAW/NEF files that have never been converted, but may have been tweaked in Capture NX2 and re-saved in NEF format. I have produced many excellent prints directly from NEF, although for the largest prints or those that require more finishing work I will produce a print version in Photoshop and save as a TIFF before printing.<em><br /></em><br>

Nikon's NEF RAW files can be directly viewed in MS Windows by searching for and installing the Nikon NEF codec pack (<a href="http://nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/">http://nikonimglib.com/nefcodec/</a>).</p>

 

<p>If you want to get the full benefit of the 300mm f/2.8 you should buy an AF-S version. Although mine is the VRII version, I would be happy to live without the VR as it doesn't do a lot of good in my action-oriented photography. The AF-I is optically very good, but the AF is pretty slow - very slow compared to the recent AF-S models. For sports use, the AF-S models are definitely to be preferred. The earlier AF-I models will now be more than 20 years old.<br>

The AF-I has an internal motor, so I don't see why it would not focus with the D40x? Only the AF and the AF-N versions need a motor built into the camera body.</p>

<p>A friend of mine just came back from a "birding trip" and found that his last few shots (on a D7000 rather than a D7100) were in jpeg and with the white balance set to tungsten! He cannot explain how it happened. It's another reason why I prefer the control layout of the D* or D*** series cameras - although I've still managed to shoot a whole day's work in tiff instead of RAW - which was annoying.</p>

<p>Avi: <em>"I know that the AF-I has 9 elements in 7 groups vs the 10 for the later AF-S versions."</em><br /> <br /> Bear in mind that the more recent AF-S Pro telephotos have an extra "meniscus element" added that that is installed just to protect the front optical element - which is "ED" glass (said to be softer than the non-ED elemnts) and is certainly the most expensive/vulnerable element. It is not part of the lens' optical array, but adds +1 to the "element count."<em><br /></em></p>

<p>And re the last sentence of my last post, I am using the TC-20EIII, not the EII - which was very poor.</p>

<p><em>First image posted has EXIF data..</em> <br>

You are quite right - not accustomed to how Flickr presents that information. If you download the image, the EXIF is stripped away.<br>

<em>I doubt that one can diagnose "front-focusing" at that distance - it might just simply be a mis-focus</em><br>

Also correct - which is why I mentioned "operator error." However, the image is clearly front-focused - the question of whether this is an equipment issue or human error is pretty simple to test. The shot was also taken "wide open" which is not advisable, but understandable in circumstances where f/5.6 only gave 1/60sec. Small focusing errors (of both types) can be masked by smaller apertures. I agree with the observation about working distance. My 300 f/2.8 gives much better results with the TC-20EII at ranges of less than 30-40m. With the "bare" lens or with the TC-14EII, I have no such concerns.</p>

 

<p>Avi,<br>

My lens/converter combination is much better after focus tuning, although it is still a little soft unless I stop down to f/8 - at which point it's just fine, and can produce super-crisp results if I get my technique right. It is absolutely worth checking the focus - try taking a few shots of a fixed target with fine detail (with tripod and adequate shutter speed to eliminate any camera shake) using AF normally, then repeat using "live view." If the live view shots are sharper, focus tuning is indicated. Try an online search for "printable camera focus target" and you should find something useful - and free - to get you started.<br>

I should have stated that the two lenses should be sharp wide open <strong>without teleconverters fitted</strong>. The teleconverter - fitted lenses definitely benefit from closing down a stop or so, although among the current converters the TC-14EII is noticeably better than the TC-20EIII.<br>

<br />Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The photograph posted is clearly front-focused, so the main subject is slightly out of focus and the "glow" (which is familiar to those who use soft focus filters, etc.) is to be expected. There is no EXIF information, so this may be "operator error" or an autofocus accuracy issue. My 300 f/2.8 AF-S VRII also initially showed this "glow" when used with the TC-20EIII - which I also identified as front-focusing. The combination required AF tuning, which can be done in-camera with the D300 and the other "higher spec" Nikon bodies. This is not unusual with the long tele + converter combinations. The two lenses that you are discussing should both be sharp wide open.<br>

It's also worth bearing in mind that with longer-range shots the atmosphere can intervene to give a "soft focus" glow also - one of the reasons why you so often hear the opinion that a certain super-telephoto lens is "soft at long distances or when focused at infinity."</p>

<p>Q1: 200mm f/2 is pretty much exactly the same price as the 300mm f/2.8 on average in the UK (can be found for a very little more or less), but if you are patient you may find a better deal (I got my 300mm f/2.8 for more than £600 less than the 200 f/2.8).<br>

Q2 - relative to what? Find "WEX photographic" or Jessops with UK included in the search to find competitive official Nikon UK product prices. Grey imports from other sources are cheaper - and good luck with any warranty or repair issues if you go that way ;-) </p>

 

<p>I would like to add an important correction. The responses above include phrases like: -<br>

"<em>you'd want the newer teleconverters such as the TC-14E II</em>" and, "<em>in that case, any teleconverter will work</em>." <br>

This is incorrect, and could lead someone into making an expensive mistake. The Nikon TC-14E/EII, and "E" versions of the TC-17 and TC-20 ONLY WORK WITH AF-S LENSES. You would need to use an independent such as the Kenko teleconverter. <br>

My 105mm AF-S VR produces fairly decent results with the TC-14EII, but the lens is noticeably sharper without it - so I never use this combination (I've never tried my TC-20EIII on it). The Nikon converters are optimized for use on longer telephoto lenses. </p>