I was looking down on this Rough-legged Hawk from an elevated road when it decided to take off.
1/3200, f/6.3, ISO 500, 500 f/4, 1.4 tc
This shot illustrates both the blessing and the curse of using an attached teleconverter. If I hadn’t been using the tc for this image I’d have had two choices: 1), crop so that the hawk was much smaller in the frame which would have reduced the impact of the image or 2), crop so the bird was still this large in the frame which would have significantly reduced image quality and increased noise. So I’m glad I had the tc on for this shot.
However, after take-off this roughie unexpectedly flew past me very close and I clipped or cut off many body parts in most of those images. If I hadn’t been using the tc I’d likely have been able to get some pretty spectacular flight shots with this nice background and good light.
You just never know…
Ron
I’m in agreement with Elephant’s Child! All of us enjoy these photos tremendously!!! Thank you so much!!!
My hawk id skills are improving due to your posts! Thanks!
“Does Mia take these opportunities to make a pitch for a zoom lens?”
Dave, Each of us realizes the “blessings and curses” of our individual lenses. Sometimes she gets the shots that I miss (as she did when this hawk flew toward us) because I clip body parts but other times I get a more detailed image than she does because of my longer reach. That said, Mia often states that if she knew she’d be moving to Utah she would most likely have purchased Nikon’s 500 f/4. It’s more difficult to get close to most birds out here than it was where she previously lived.
The blessing part (the image you posted) is a big sell for the tc. Does Mia take these opportunities to make a pitch for a zoom lens? Or does the longer reach balance out arguments for the versatility of the zoom?
I can’t tell you how much you brighten my days with these shots. Thank you. Lots.