My feeling with the 400mm was not to get a lot tighter shot, as much as not to have to approach so close. This would not have spooked the bird and given me some time to get more choice of shots.
I did crop out most of the perch, but felt that the perch gave some sense of takeoff - without it, it just looks like a flying hawk. Certainly this was more a shot of opportunity than planning. I have never seen any hawks on any of my walks to date, so did not expect it. I did what little planning I could on the spot, given the circumstances. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, April 14, 2005, 10:28:21 AM, you wrote: SB> Hi Bruce ... SB> Pretty decent shot considering the limitations you had, or thought you had. SB> I like the idea of showing the hawk with more of the surroundings - puts SB> the bird firmly in its environment. Maybe the 400 would have been better, SB> but I'm not sure. The post in the LL of the pic should be disappeared, SB> IMO. Concentrate on the hawk, not the perch. SB> Shel >> Thanks for the comment. Certainly this is a case where I had the >> wrong lens on. While the K 200/2.5 is a great lens, it was too short >> and it's speed of focus (manually turning) is relatively slow. I was >> slowly creeping up hoping the bird wouldn't get alarmed and take off. >> That is exactly what happened - he took off much sooner than I would >> have liked, so I was only able to get the one shot off. Using my >> 400mm I would probably have gotten one or two perched and a few more >> in flight. Even manually focsing, the Tokina 400 is much quicker to >> focus with (shorter throw and lighter damping), not to mention that it >> is an AF lens - so that option would have been open, too. >> >> But, you can only shoot with what you have...
