New From The Zoo

[Sam Smith]

Rented a 70-200 F2.8L IS USM to see if I would really like it. I do!!!!!
All C&C is always welcome.
#1

#2

#3

[Bobobird]

Fine lens that is and "good enough" for zoo shots. But if you looking to take shots in the wild, 200 is way too short.

Btw, nice shots.

[Markvetnz]

Fine lens that is and "good enough" for zoo shots. But if you looking to take shots in the wild, 200 is way too short.

Btw, nice shots.

You are dead right. In the wild even a 400 is too short. Especially for birds.
BTW IMO No 2 is best.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Sam,

As quick shots to show us the lens, fair enough, but (being a hard taskmaster - it is for your own good), I am not sure you have made as good a job as possible with these in PP, have you?

1. and 3. would respond to some levels and/or dodging and burning
2. is under exposed and I think there is a better crop/composition to be had

btw, how did you find the weight?

Intended to be helpful,

[Sam Smith]

Thanks for the comments. I agree the lens is way to short for the wild. I rented the lens to see about the weight. By the end of the day I was feeling like I was carrying a load bricks. It is heavy and would take some getting used too.
The biggest problem I had was getting shots through the glass that was not very clean. #2 was shot though bars that were about 1/2 inch round stock 2-3 inches apart with vegetation in front of it. #3 was shot though glass with water spots.
Dave- You can hit me with anything and everything. I have very thick skin.

[ScoutR]

Dave- You can hit me with anything and everything. I have very thick skin.

Be careful what you ask for. Just kidding, Dave IS a hard task master but if you have a thick skin and Dave has time to comment further I think these would be great shots to go to school on. All three are beautiful, but there are little things in all three that might be worked on and I for one would find it ever so helpful to hear specifics on how they could be improved.

I quite like the second one and not to be contentious or anything, but the tiger looks well exposed to me, so I'm wondering if it matters if the shadows are quite dark. This is one of those cases that if it were my shot, I think I would like the dark surroundings, but I would clone the bright spots on the rocks. So I'm thinking this might be one of those cases where photographically it's not correct but artistic licence would have me keeping the darkness.
Like I said I'm not trying to be difficult but I struggle with this kind of thing all the time when something is not quite right from a photographic viewpoint but seems to work for me from a strictly visual point of view.

Wendy

[Markvetnz]

I think No2 would have benefitted from a little fill flash. Otherwise I like it.

[Sam Smith]

Wendy and Mark, Thanks for the comments. I do have thick skin and Dave comment as you please. That is how I learn.
I do like the dark back ground on #2 as it is all that is really there. It was under a over hang. The water fall behind kind of goes though a slit in the roof. The tiger was 70-80 feet behind the bars so fill flash at high speed sync would not have made it there. Below is a re-adjustment to some of the comments. I have removed the leaves that were on the rocks behind the tiger and a little crop as Dave suggested.