Michael Nagel
Well-known member
There are only few occasions to get this close to owls, this was at the Zoo, but it was impressive to see the owls fly outside.
Best regards,
Michael
Best regards,
Michael
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
My World: Owl portraits
- Thread starter Michael Nagel
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Amazingly handsome terror for mother mouse!
What lens are you using. The bokeh is excellent.
Asher
What lens are you using. The bokeh is excellent.
Asher
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Thanks Asher.
Handsome, yes:
And the facial expressions can be amazing as well:
I used a Tamron 70-200/2,8 for the shots.
Best regards,
Michael
Handsome, yes:
And the facial expressions can be amazing as well:
I used a Tamron 70-200/2,8 for the shots.
Best regards,
Michael
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Michael,
Now that's a huge surprise. Is it mage stabilized, by any chance? I'd have thought a great macro, for sure. This clearly shows that one doesn't have to break the bank to get great pictures. So what led you to this lens?
Asher
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Hi Asher,
The lens is not stabilized, but the camera (K-5) has a sensor shift stabilization which works quite well. The Tamron 70-200/2,8 can in fact be used as a macro to some extend as the minimal focusing distance makes approx. 1:3 possible on the long end.
Currently there are no new 70-200/2,8 lenses available from Pentax, so the only solution is currently third-party. The Tamron is the least expensive one and was the best lens in this range in terms of image quality available new for a while. It is also the smallest and lightest lens in this focal range (well, light is relative here). This might have changed in terms of image quality with the last Sigma lens competing. The old Pentax FA* 80-200/2,8, however, is still better than any new equivalent lens for P/K.
The images 1, 3, 4 and 5 are crops.
Best regards,
Michael
The lens is not stabilized, but the camera (K-5) has a sensor shift stabilization which works quite well. The Tamron 70-200/2,8 can in fact be used as a macro to some extend as the minimal focusing distance makes approx. 1:3 possible on the long end.
Currently there are no new 70-200/2,8 lenses available from Pentax, so the only solution is currently third-party. The Tamron is the least expensive one and was the best lens in this range in terms of image quality available new for a while. It is also the smallest and lightest lens in this focal range (well, light is relative here). This might have changed in terms of image quality with the last Sigma lens competing. The old Pentax FA* 80-200/2,8, however, is still better than any new equivalent lens for P/K.
The images 1, 3, 4 and 5 are crops.
Best regards,
Michael
Anthony Reilly
New member
Hi Michael,
These are really nice pictures. And as u can see pictures can tell a thousand words. But in your photo 'caress' it might look like the owl doesn't mind being touched. In fact the owl does not like it, as from my experience as a falconer owls don't like being touched on their back as they can't see! It seems as if the handler is touching the bird harder than is needed.
Do you know what kind of owls these are? Yours are really good photographs! Here's a link to some of my birds.
Anthony
Michael Nagel
Well-known member
Don - Thanks!
Anthony,
Thanks - I believe we have a Long-eared Owl and a Barn Owl here.
Concerning the caress - I did not have the impression when taking the photo (there are more of this moment, but this offers the best view) that the caress was totally unwelcome. It appears to me that both know each other quite well. The touch was intended as caress, so I would say that the title fits.
Here is one more:
Best regards,
Michael
Anthony,
Thanks - I believe we have a Long-eared Owl and a Barn Owl here.
Concerning the caress - I did not have the impression when taking the photo (there are more of this moment, but this offers the best view) that the caress was totally unwelcome. It appears to me that both know each other quite well. The touch was intended as caress, so I would say that the title fits.
Here is one more:
Best regards,
Michael