My thanks to Mr Stark

Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.

Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators

Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.

Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.

Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.

Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

My thanks to Mr Stark

Postby meicw on Wed May 11, 2005 8:13 pm

In an earlier post in the equipment review section, Graham stated that the Nikkor 70-210 f4/5.6 would eat the 70-300.
As some of you may know, I have been using a Tamron 28-300 Di. While some of the pics were acceptable, I felt that in some of them the sharpness could be better. I had the chance to purchase a 70-210, and I am very pleased with it. It is not the D, so no distance info is relayed to the D70, but it is in immaculate condition.
Here are some pics I took at the Melbourne Zoo. The only work has been some level adjustment, and the pic of the nankeen night heron is a crop.

Regards
Meicw
Image
Image
Image
Image
meicw
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Melbourne (Reservoir), Canon 5D

Postby gstark on Wed May 11, 2005 8:29 pm

Meicw,

It's simply no contest, isn't it ?
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby Glen on Wed May 11, 2005 8:53 pm

I concur. I have that lens and still use it when travelling as it is so light. You would never go back to the 70-300.
User avatar
Glen
Moderator
 
Posts: 11819
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Sydney - Neutral Bay - Nikon


Return to Image Reviews and Critiques