-
Lifetime Member
-
Hi Rachel -- This is a lovely image , great details and the whites have been handled nicely . Very handsome subject !
I have seen you and Sanjeev getting amazing results with the new 100-400mm especially the images come out nice and sharp , so there is question for you , do you find the new 100-400mm more handy than the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II ? i was planning to switch from my 70-200mm to the new 100-400mm or should i drop the idea ?
Sorry for asking this question here but i thought both the users along with other members might throw some light on it
TFS !
-
Lifetime Member
Hi Haseeb - I'm glad you like this one. As to your question, no problem with you posting it here. I have and carry both the 70-200 II and 100-400 II on most trips. I tend to use them differently. Obviously, the 70-200 is better in low light situations. The 70-200 has also become my favorite landscape lens (despite having the 16-35 II) when shooting vast spaces like distant mountains, the Grand Canyon, etc. I know some people use the 70-200 with the 2x TC but, because I have always had a 100-400, I have never done so. I'm not sure how the results compare between the 70-200 II with 2x III and the 100-400 II.
I hope this helps,
Rachel
-
Story Sequences Moderator and Wildlife Moderator
Hello Rachel,
Lovely Gemsbok, what great condition he is in:)
Well exposed and techs spot on. I love this species and so pleased you had the opportunity to capture some images of this beautiful male.
Nice PP work, well framed and the colours are great, subject pops well against the BG. I just wish for some red dunes behind him, but it's just me missing my beloved Kalahari... I cannot see a Gemsbok without thinking of the magic place:)
Thank you so much for sharing, I enjoyed viewing this just as much as I enjoyed your other images from this trip. Looking forward to more...
Warmest regards,
-
Post a Thank You. - 1 Thanks