ShunCheung

That is a Galapagos hawk in Santiago Island (in Ecuador). I initially saw the hawk on a tree, and I posted an image to Monday in Nature: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/551850-monday-in-nature-15-april-2024 It turns out that the hawk is banded on both legs, which would make it a questionable/inappropriate image for Monday in Nature. They use strong metal bands on hawks or they could have removed them with their beak. Initially I thought it was a tiny tracking device (which they occasionally use on birds) until I looked at that image enlarged.

It turns out that this Galapagos hawk is banded on both legs, but that is obscured by the tree. Later on the hawk flew down to feed on a dead fish on the beach, and I captured some video where the bands are very much visible.

Long-tailed Sylph

Note: Consider keeping uploads no larger than 1600 pixels on the long side when it matters, and sticking with 1000 pixels when the image feels no pain at that resolution. On data size/compression, try to keep things under 1mb, shooting for 600kb when you can stop there. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site (at Flickr, Photobucket, your own site, etc.). New to this thread? The general guidelines for these Wednesday threads are right here: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/398109-guidelines-for-nikon-forum-wednesday-image-threads. For now, we're sticking with 1, 2, or 3 images per week as you see fit.

I did not turn off VR.

800mm PF @ 1/5000 sec. I was using 1/2000 sec initially but noticed a bit of motion blur, and I increased the shutter speed to 1/4000 and 1/5000. ISO was up to 1000 with plenty of sunlight.

Canon's 28-70mm/f2 is a 3-pound lens. I wonder how much any 24-70mm/f2 will weight. I would much rather not carry that kind of weight for a mid zoom, because I tend to hold such lenses for a long time. Actually I use the 24-70/2.8 and 24-120/4 in low-light conditions. A lot of times I also need the depth of field so that I don't use the 24-70/2.8 wide open; instead I tend to stop down to f5.6 or so. It is the 70-200/2.8 and 400/4.5 that I use wide open to isolate the subjects.

Unless Nikon deeply discount their old G1 version of the 28-75/2.8, and they have already been doing that to some degree, who in the right mind would buy the G1 optics instead of G2, when both are priced similarly?

Nikon introduced the 24-70/2.8 S in early 2019, just months after they announced the Z System. I waited until November 2019 and there was a $300 discount on it. My local store had it in stock and also paid my sales tax. However, that is a lens I only use occasionally for indoor events. Concerning the 28-75/2.8, Nikon USA pretty much had to discount it immediately, after merely a month or two in early 2022. (Some early purchasers were really annoyed, of course.) I think they had a hard time selling it as Tamron already had the G2 available for Sony E. Now that Nikon allow Tamron to bring G2 to the Z mount, I think Nikon's own 28-75/2.8 is going to be discontinued or at least deeply discounted. Missing 24mm for this type of zoom is very annoying to me, though, regardless of G1 or G2.

I have no idea what you did, but I replaced yours with just the link to YouTube. Hope this is what you want.

Both Tamron's 28-75/2.8 and 70-180/2.8 have second generations (but not the 17-28/2.8), and those 2nd-gen version were available when Nikon introduced theirs using Tamron G1 optics. One would assume there must be some improvements in G2. In particular, the G2 70-180/2.8 has optical VR (VC in Tamron terminology). It is a bit strange that Nikon is still selling old optics. Perhaps Nikon will discontinue the 28-75/2.8 Nikkor soon.

I have never heard of that term either. Apparently it is mainly used in the UK.

Note: Consider keeping uploads no larger than 1600 pixels on the long side when it matters, and sticking with 1000 pixels when the image feels no pain at that resolution. On data size/compression, try to keep things under 1mb, shooting for 600kb when you can stop there. Note that this includes photos hosted off-site (at Flickr, Photobucket, your own site, etc.). New to this thread? The general guidelines for these Wednesday threads are right here: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/398109-guidelines-for-nikon-forum-wednesday-image-threads. For now, we're sticking with 1, 2, or 3 images per week as you see fit.

Western Grebes

Your image looks familiar. 😀

Ilkka, I have both the Z 100-400 and 400mm/4.5. Those two lenses serve somewhat different purposes and I travel with both so that I have some tele backup, in case one lens fails, e.g. if I drop it. For example, for my youth orchestra coverage, I would use the 100-400 on one camera to focus the video on a concerto soloist, and I use the 400mm/f4.5 for still images. Sometimes I use the 24-200 for that purpose as its wide zoom range often gives me the exact crop. But I prefer to have f5.6 from the 100-400 than f6.3 from the 24-200. For wide shots, I need the depth of field so that f5.6, f8 is not really an issue, and somewhat lower optical quality is a non-issue for video.

Recall that Nikon's Nikkor 28-75mm/f2.8 in the Z mount is essentially version 1 (G1) of the Tamron lens, at least the optics seems identical, but when Nikon introduced that lens two years ago, Tamron already had a G2 version for Sony E, with improved optics. Now Tamron is making the G2 available in the Nikon Z mount, but this one carries Tamron's brand name, not Nikkor as in the previous Z version. The new Tamron lens is $999 in the US. But the Sony version is $899 and currently with $100 off so that it is essentially $1000 for Nikon and $800 for Sony for the time being. Perhaps there will be discounts down the road. https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/lenses/a063/

Here in northern California, the spring flowers are blooming a little later than usual, and it is still a bit cold outside. Finally the hummingbird/flower season is starting.

Sometimes I use the 24-200 for classical music video, as my 70-200mm/f2.8 S is tied up for capturing still images, but I also use the 100-400 S or the F-mount 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR for video. Those lenses can give me a good crop to focus on a concerto soloist. The thing is that the 28-400 has no tripod collar. It will be difficult to use it on its long end on a tripod. It is also a slow lens. After my experience with the F-mount 28-300 AF-S VR, I am quite certain that this 28-400 is not for me.

This new lens is a 14.2x zoom, that is a pretty serious super zoom so that it'll definitely have to extend quite a bit from 28mm to 400mm. It is very slow at f8 from 200mm and up. It uses 77mm front filters and the $1300 price tag is within expectations. About 15 years ago, there were a lot of praises on the then F-mount 28-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, also using 77mm filters. Unfortunately, I ended up buying one. It was ok on my then 12MP D700, but later on I used it on a DX, 16MP D7000 and it simply isn't sharp on the 300mm end. Hopefully these Z-mount super zoom are better. I am reasonably happy with my 24-200mm Z but it is pretty slow at f6.3 past 85mm or so. f8 is quite limiting. I am a firm believer that we are better off splitting such zoom range into, for example, a 24-120 and 100-400. That would give me the important 24mm and a lot less optical compromises. It is just hard to go from pretty wide to super tele in one lens, both optically and mechanically.

The 400mm/f2.8 TC in the Z mount is available new at B&H for $13996.95. It is also available as an open box item, but at no savings, i.e. also $13996.95. Nikon USA has it in stock for $13999.95.