«

In article <>, Paul Flackett
<> writes
>In message <>, David Littlewood
><> writes
>>In article <>, Paul Flackett
>><> writes
>>>>
>>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between
>>>getting a shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked
>>>about a macro lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful
>>>whether a big lens such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus
>>>close enough to capture the detail he is after. And if you want to
>>>stand a chance of capturing flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky
>>>to even get one in the viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a
>>>fairly predictable flight path, dragonflies definitely do not.
>>>
>>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>>>the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>>>35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>>
>>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>
>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>
>>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one
>>>at its best.....
>>>
>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...r-close-up.jpg
>>>
>>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>>
>Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July
>for the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
>Cheshire).
>
Thanks.

>Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post
>on the Focalpoint forums?
>
No, I'm not familiar with it. I have posted quite a lot in the rec.photo
newsgroups over the last few years though.

David
--
David Littlewood

"Paul Flackett" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <>, David Littlewood
> <> writes
>>In article <>, Paul Flackett
>><> writes
>>>>
>>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between getting a
>>>shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked about a macro
>>>lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful whether a big lens
>>>such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus close enough to capture
>>>the detail he is after. And if you want to stand a chance of capturing
>>>flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky to even get one in the
>>>viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly predictable flight path,
>>>dragonflies definitely do not.
>>>
>>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely the
>>>best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in 35mm
>>>terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>>
>>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>
>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>
>>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>>>its best.....
>>>
>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...r-close-up.jpg
>>>
>>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>>
> Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July for
> the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
> Cheshire).
>
> Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post on
> the Focalpoint forums?
>
> --
> Paul Flackett
>

Some nice pics there. Ambient light too. What ISO exposure did you use for
the in flight?

I have the Canon 100mm macro. I often wonder why they don't have IS on
macros.

A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.

In message <430cbdda$0$4789$>, Lester Wareham
<> writes
>
>"Paul Flackett" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> In message <>, David Littlewood
>> <> writes
>>>In article <>, Paul Flackett
>>><> writes
>>>>>
>>>>I can see how such a big lens might make the difference between getting a
>>>>shot or not, but the original poster specifically asked about a macro
>>>>lens ie. he wants to capture detail. It is doubtful whether a big lens
>>>>such as a 400 (I have a 400 IS myself) will focus close enough to capture
>>>>the detail he is after. And if you want to stand a chance of capturing
>>>>flight shots, you'd need to be real lucky to even get one in the
>>>>viewfinder with a big lens. Birds have a fairly predictable flight path,
>>>>dragonflies definitely do not.
>>>>
>>>>I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely the
>>>>best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in 35mm
>>>>terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>>>>
>>>>I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>>>>These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
>>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
>>>>www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>>
>>>>....and you'll need to maximise your browser window to see this one at
>>>>its best.....
>>>>
>>>>http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...r-close-up.jpg
>>>>
>>>Excellent pictures, Paul! What month was this, which county?
>>>
>> Thankyou David. June for the Golden Ringed, (Scottish Highlands), July for
>> the Azures and Emperor (Cheshire), and August for the Darter (also
>> Cheshire).
>>
>> Your name seems familiar David (probably just the surname). Do you post on
>> the Focalpoint forums?
>>
>> --
>> Paul Flackett
>>
>
>Some nice pics there. Ambient light too. What ISO exposure did you use for
>the in flight?
>
>I have the Canon 100mm macro. I often wonder why they don't have IS on
>macros.
>
>A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.
>
The Emperor in flight was taken using ISO 200 which gave me 1/800 at f4.
Having just looked back at the RAW's I've surprised myself that the
close-up of the Darter was taken at ISO 100 and hand-held at 1/100. I
think I was rather lucky with this shot though and have done most others
since at ISO 400. I only ever go after dragonflies on sunny days - in
fact most only come out then anyway.
--
Paul Flackett

Paul Flackett wrote:
>
> In message <>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
> <> writes
> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >
> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
> >>
> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
> >>
> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
> >>

Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.

Colin D.

In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>
>
>Paul Flackett wrote:
>>
>> In message <>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>> <> writes
>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>> >>
>> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
>> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>> >>
>
>Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
>manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.
>
>Colin D.

Colin, the urls Paul posted worked fine in my newsreader. Perhaps you
should look for a better one? You make a good point though, I guess the
way you show would be more universally useful.

David
--
David Littlewood

Colin D wrote:
> Paul Flackett wrote:
>>
>> In message <>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>> <> writes
>>> Paul Flackett wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is
>>>> definitely
>>>> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent
>>>> in
>>>> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird
>>>> photographer). These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
>>>> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
>>>> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>>>>
>
> Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if
> you include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will
> automatically make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above
> means one has to manually copy the link into a browser to view the
> page.
>
>

Sounds like a case of lazy-browser syndrome. They work fine here on
Win IE.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:35:06 +0100, "Lester Wareham"
<> wrote:

>A 180mm macro might be a good lens for nervous insects. Expensive though.

Yup. More than my D70s body.

In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
<ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>
>
>Paul Flackett wrote:
>>
>> In message <>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
>> <> writes
>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm on a Canon system, and whilst I'm not saying this is definitely
>> >> the best lens for the job, I use a 100mm macro (150mm equivalent in
>> >> 35mm terms). Image stabilisation would be a definite bonus though.
>> >>
>> >> I only bought the lens 2 months ago (mostly I'm a bird photographer).
>> >> These are some of the shots I have taken with it.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
>> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
>> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
>> >>
>
>Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
>manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.

They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.

Incidentally, marvellous photographs.

--
Ian G8ILZ

In article <x4ZM6kz$>, Prometheus
<Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> In article <430D0823.86CD7AC5@killspam.127.0.0.1>, Colin D
> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
> >
> >
> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >>
> >> In message <>, Rita Ä Berkowitz
> >> <> writes
> >> >Paul Flackett wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg
> >> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...els-mating.jpg
> >> >> www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images/Golden-ring.jpg
> >> >>
> >
> >Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
> >include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
> >make it a clickable link, whereas posting it as above means one has to
> >manually copy the link into a browser to view the page.
>
> They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.

Technically, they're not guaranteed to work unless you use the full URL
notation, INCLUDING THE QUOTATIONS:

<http://www.ranow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg>

Since that's what the RFC says, it's good practice to put the quotes
(the < and > signs) in. Most systems are cleverer than that, though.

FWIW, the Mac OS X mail client doesn't recognize the originals as URLs.
Put the http: in and it does (even without the //--and it goes to the
web site!).

--Ron Bruck

Ronald Bruck <> wrote:

><Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes
>> >Paul Flackett wrote:
>> >> >> http://www.rainow.demon.co.uk/images...-in-flight.jpg

>> >Paul if I might make a suggestion, when you post links as above, if you
>> >include 'http://' before the url, your mail client will automatically
>> >make it a clickable link,

>> They work for me, perhaps either your browser or news client is broken.

>Technically, they're not guaranteed to work unless you use the full URL
>notation, INCLUDING THE QUOTATIONS:
>
> <http://www.ranow.demon.co.uk/images/Emperor-in-flight.jpg>

Page Not Found. (spelling!

There are no guarantees ;-]

--
Ken Tough