Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 08, 2009, 07:05:16 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/ewes.jpg)
ISO 200, 400mm, F5.6, 1/1500th (400 DO F4)
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 08, 2009, 07:08:11 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/ewe.jpg)
ISO 100, F4, 1/1000th (Canon 40D & 400mm F4 DO)
And they say this lens isn't that sharp Huntnphool... :P
Post by: runniNgunnin on January 08, 2009, 07:10:48 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 10, 2009, 10:38:02 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/ewe2.jpg)
Canon 40D, 400mm F4 DO shot at ISO 100, f4, 1/1000th
Post by: walt on January 10, 2009, 11:37:06 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2009, 01:46:11 PM
Post by: jeepasaurusrex on January 10, 2009, 01:48:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2009, 01:58:44 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2009, 02:23:15 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 10, 2009, 04:01:13 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/mommy_and_baby.jpg)
Canon 40D, 400mm F4 DO +1.4x shot at ISO 400, f8, 1/1000th
Post by: robb92 on January 10, 2009, 04:59:04 PM
Post by: walt on January 10, 2009, 05:16:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 10, 2009, 06:23:43 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on January 10, 2009, 06:24:56 PM
Canon 40D, 400mm f4 DO, ISO 100, f4, 1/750th
Post by: popeshawnpaul on March 12, 2009, 07:55:08 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/ewe_baby.jpg)
Canon 40D, 400 F4 DO, @ ISO 100, F4, 1/750th
Post by: bowsandhose on March 17, 2009, 02:53:55 PM
Post by: whacker1 on March 17, 2009, 03:15:17 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on March 17, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Post by: Big10gauge on March 17, 2009, 03:47:44 PM
Post by: Slider on March 17, 2009, 04:47:55 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 31, 2009, 11:55:49 AM
POPE something is wrong with my camera? I don't know? I have tried EVERYTHING and it just wont take a picture of a Ewe!!!...................... :chuckle:
I got a fEWE too :chuckle:
Post by: Tom Reichner on August 31, 2009, 03:02:42 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 31, 2009, 06:27:36 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on August 31, 2009, 06:50:03 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10250/crown.jpg)
Post by: chukar-ridge-quest on August 31, 2009, 10:59:23 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on August 31, 2009, 11:31:35 PM
Post by: KimberRich on September 01, 2009, 12:44:49 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 01, 2009, 12:54:40 PM
I use my daughter's Hannah Montana point and shoot... ;)
I prefer the (https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10123/image.jpg) model myself :chuckle:
Actually Canon RidgeQuest
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 01, 2009, 01:00:39 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 01, 2009, 07:31:16 PM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on September 01, 2009, 07:35:21 PM
Quote
Call me crazy, but isn't that a chamois
You are very correct. Those animals are not even on the same continent.
Post by: e55komp on September 01, 2009, 07:44:01 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 01, 2009, 08:39:56 PM
dang huntnphool the 100-400 looks dang good, man its a sweet lens (right pope)
:puke:
Post by: huntnphool on September 02, 2009, 12:39:13 AM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 02, 2009, 07:53:48 AM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 02, 2009, 03:16:06 PM
Call me crazy, but isn't that a chamois Austrian Hunter? Isn't a Gemsbok the one with tall thin horns? :dunno:
Its called Gamsbock not like the African Gemsbok, you can goggle it. And yes Chamois is the English name for Gamsbock.
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 02, 2009, 03:18:32 PM
QuoteCall 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 ;)
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 02, 2009, 03:21:01 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahoihamburg/1424608485/in/set-72157600713107039/
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 02, 2009, 03:29:00 PM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on September 02, 2009, 03:48:17 PM
Post by: DesertBighorn on September 03, 2009, 10:48:01 PM
Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow... :chuckle:
Pope, how's this one? ;)
-Doug
Post by: DesertBighorn on September 03, 2009, 10:51:53 PM
-Doug
Post by: DesertBighorn on September 03, 2009, 10:57:35 PM
-Doug
Post by: huntnphool on September 05, 2009, 10:44:05 AM
Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow... :chuckle:
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. :twocents:
Post by: Tom Reichner on September 05, 2009, 10:56:48 AM
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:Someone show me a SHARP photo with good bokeh from that lens and I'll eat crow... :chuckle:
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. :twocents:
Post by: boneaddict on September 05, 2009, 11:03:15 AM
Post by: huntnphool on September 05, 2009, 11:21:18 AM
Quote
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.
Agreed, but lets not get it twisted either, how many on this site can run out and drop $6K-$10K on a lens? :dunno:
Post by: Tom Reichner on September 05, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
Agreed, but lets not get it twisted either, how many on this site can run out and drop $6K-$10K on a lens? :dunno:
Very good point. Also, who can always be packing a big heavy supertelephoto into the bush? If you need to take extra clothes, water, and food in your pack, you can pretty much rule out the ability to also carry a huge heavy lens. So the 100-400 does have it's place. And with IS you don't necessarily need to pack a tripod along, too.
Wow - we've really gotten off topic. I just realized this is a thread about ewes.
Here's an attempt to "restore the thread" - a bunch of ewes from the Oroville herd. There are also 2 young rams mixed in.
Post by: boneaddict on September 05, 2009, 12:19:06 PM
Post by: huntnphool on September 05, 2009, 06:00:41 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 07, 2009, 06:32:59 PM
Actually, if I was a bird in flight type of guy I think it does that excellent because you would have enough light to stop it down and make it sharp and you often get a lot of background separation with a bird in flight or even on water. Sorry, but I don't think you can convince me to have it over the 300mm f4 and a 1.4x when needed.
Also, I don't say this with the intent to recommend or sway other from it. Other people can buy what they like for their budget. Also, if you own the 100-400, don't take it as an insult to your lens. Some guys like Heinz and other guys like Hunts ketchup. To each his own.
Post by: DesertBighorn on September 07, 2009, 08:54:07 PM
The 100-400 has it's place, just not in my bag. It's always a tempting lens because of the versatility. However, I can some the lens up in one sentence: IT DOES EVERYTHING GOOD BUT NOTHING EXCELLENT.
Actually, if I was a bird in flight type of guy I think it does that excellent because you would have enough light to stop it down and make it sharp and you often get a lot of background separation with a bird in flight or even on water. Sorry, but I don't think you can convince me to have it over the 300mm f4 and a 1.4x when needed.
Also, I don't say this with the intent to recommend or sway other from it. Other people can buy what they like for their budget. Also, if you own the 100-400, don't take it as an insult to your lens. Some guys like Heinz and other guys like Hunts ketchup. To each his own.
I had one and sold it when I upgraded to a 300. I kind of miss it for convenience. If I'm not going on a dedicated photo trip, I could throw it in a shoulder bag with a body, flash and couple other lenses and feel like I had things covered.
There was one on CraigsList today for $900!! I emailed the guy, thinking if it was decent I would buy it and sell it for a profit. The thing was gone in less than 45 minutes from posting.
-Doug
Post by: popeshawnpaul on September 07, 2009, 10:40:25 PM
Here is one of my 100-400 shots...