Ewes

[rosscrazyelk]

Call me crazy, but isn't that a chamois

You are very correct. Those animals are not even on the same continent.

[e55komp]

dang huntnphool the 100-400 looks dang good, man its a sweet lens (right pope)

[popeshawnpaul]

dang huntnphool the 100-400 looks dang good, man its a sweet lens (right pope)

 

[huntnphool]

  Saw that response coming a mile away You could take pics of the new world record Cali with that lens and Pope wouldn't look at them.

[popeshawnpaul]

Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow...   

[Austrian Hunter]

Call me crazy, but isn't that a chamois Austrian Hunter?  Isn't a Gemsbok the one with tall thin horns?   

Its called Gamsbock not like the African Gemsbok,  you can goggle it.  And yes Chamois is the English name for Gamsbock.   

[Austrian Hunter]

Call me crazy, but isn't that a chamois

You are very correct. Those animals are not even on the same continent.

rosscrazy, two different continents and two different animals, one small horns from Austria call Gamsbock and one long thin horn from Africa called Gemsbok 

[Austrian Hunter]

Ok, lets try this again click on the link below. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahoihamburg/1424608485/in/set-72157600713107039/

[popeshawnpaul]

I'll stand corrected on the Gamsbok.  Crazy stuff.  You were right Austrian Hunter.   

[Austrian Hunter]

Thanks, Pope 

[DesertBighorn]

Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow...   

Pope, how's this one?   

-Doug

[DesertBighorn]

Ewe got to be kidding me!!     Ewes, NV versions. 

-Doug

[DesertBighorn]

How about some NV "stone" sheep?   

-Doug

[huntnphool]

Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow...   

You have to remember Pope, not many of the members on this site are going out to capture a image for the cover of Ourdoor Life either. That lens is plenty sharp for 99% of the people wanting a lens that will handle a wide range of situations without the need to pack separate lenses and adaptors, or not looking to make a living from the images they get. At around $1k pre owned, it is a good lens for the average hunter/outdoor enthusiast. Most find images like this plenty sharp and good bokeh for their hunting trips.

[Tom Reichner]

Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow...   

You have to remember Pope, not many of the members on this site are going out to capture a image for the cover of Ourdoor Life either. That lens is plenty sharp for 99% of the people wanting a lens that will handle a wide range of situations without the need to pack separate lenses and adaptors, or not looking to make a living from the images they get. At around $1k pre owned, it is a good lens for the average hunter/outdoor enthusiast. Most find images like this plenty sharp and good bokeh for their hunting trips.

I have to agree with . . . well, both of you.  I am generally less than thrilled with the sharpness from the 100-400, but there have been many images I've taken with it that I've been pleased with.  But Pope's right in that many times the images it provides lack the kind of tack sharpness that we'd like to have on a consistent basis.  Below are a couple of the exceptions, where the 100-400 performed in a very satisfactory manner: