(Click on the thumbnail for the bigger, better version)
Okay, that title was a cheap shot and I should be ashamed. I am. Sort of.
We see a fair number of these woodpeckers from time to time. Normally, it is the Husband who spots birds. Almost invariably, I will be fixated on something else and he alerts me. The variety of birds is one of the reasons that I find myself thinking about a 300mm or even 400mm lens. This photograph, (taken with the 200mm f/4L) is cropped quite a bit to provide a closer look.
I love that red topknot. According to our “Encyclopedia of North American Birds” this is an Acorn Woodpecker and that red top is called a “crown”. Not surprisingly, the Acorn Woodpecker prefers woods where oak trees are prevalent. While it isn’t apparent in the photograph, there are plenty of oaks nearby. This fellow appears to be scanning for another part of his diet: unlucky insects.
We see a fair number of these woodpeckers from time to time. Normally, it is the Husband who spots birds. Almost invariably, I will be fixated on something else and he alerts me. The variety of birds is one of the reasons that I find myself thinking about a 300mm or even 400mm lens. This photograph, (taken with the 200mm f/4L) is cropped quite a bit to provide a closer look.
I love that red topknot. According to our “Encyclopedia of North American Birds” this is an Acorn Woodpecker and that red top is called a “crown”. Not surprisingly, the Acorn Woodpecker prefers woods where oak trees are prevalent. While it isn’t apparent in the photograph, there are plenty of oaks nearby. This fellow appears to be scanning for another part of his diet: unlucky insects.
A stabilized 70-300 is a nice thing, it's not too heavy, and it won't cost you an arm and a leg. Anything bigger gets really too heavy for normal use. Sure, a 400/2.8 would be wonderful, but although I could make fantastic street images with it, I can't imagine myself hauling it around, even if I could afford it :)
ReplyDeleteAndreas - You are right about the weight on the fixed aperature 300mm lens. And, I'm sure I would wilt under the weight of a 400mm. On the other hand I really don't like my old 70-300mm lens with f/4-5.6. In fact, I haven't had that lens on a camera in a couple of years now. However, it sounds as though you have had a good one that served you well. What did you have?
ReplyDeleteI do find that the 1.4 teleconverter on the f/4L is still not heavy enough to be impossible for me. I suppose anything beyond that may remain nothing more than a fantasy.
Anita, as a natural red-head, may I inject it's never a cheap shot to call us good looking! ~grin~
ReplyDeleteEarl - Whew! Now the title has a new authenticity. There is a genuine, good-looking readhead connected to the post. Thanks Earl for jumping in. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWell, the title sure got me over here in a hurry. :-) When I arrived, I wasn't even disappointed. LOL! Lovely red-head ... I'm talking about the bird, Earl!!! :-)
ReplyDeletePaul - It happens that I needed a smile when I checked my messages and this filled the bill perfectly. Thanks!
ReplyDelete