3 images from 70-300L on 70D

I recently picked up the 70-300L on a trade and was intending to use it solely on my 6D.  However, the more I read about it, the more I read people reporting that even when used on a crop sensor camera, there's resolution to spare.  So I thought I'd pack my 70D and 70-300L and head off to Busch Gardens for a testing session.  After dialing in the AFMA in situ, I started snapping pics.  Here are a few that I liked.

Believe it or not, the shot of the Grey Crowned Crane was my favorite from the day.  I think many people would immediately trash this picture because of the shadows from the palm fronds, but for me, it's what makes the image.  It tells a story.

These have been cropped and downsized to 1920 on the long end.  I did find that the reviewers were right.  There is resolution to spare in the 70-300L and I'm ecstatic that I picked it up!

Thanks for looking!

Jonathan Brady wrote:

I recently picked up the 70-300L on a trade and was intending to use it solely on my 6D. However, the more I read about it, the more I read people reporting that even when used on a crop sensor camera, there's resolution to spare. So I thought I'd pack my 70D and 70-300L and head off to Busch Gardens for a testing session. After dialing in the AFMA in situ, I started snapping pics. Here are a few that I liked.

Believe it or not, the shot of the Grey Crowned Crane was my favorite from the day. I think many people would immediately trash this picture because of the shadows from the palm fronds, but for me, it's what makes the image. It tells a story.

These have been cropped and downsized to 1920 on the long end. I did find that the reviewers were right. There is resolution to spare in the 70-300L and I'm ecstatic that I picked it up!

Thanks for looking!

True. I have shot pictures with this lens and even on extreme cropping the pictures were so sharp that I was blown away. I did not quite expect that sharpness, clarity for a crop after the picture was taken. So even though its 300mm practically you can get away with taking pictures and have a much longer reach. So don't hesitate to take pictures of distant objects even if they feel far far away. After you crop them you shall still come out with useful, sharp images.

Yeah, it's a lovely lens, never disappoints me. There's something about the IQ with it that makes things look vivid and alive to me compared to the 400/5.6, which may be outright sharper in the lab but lacks that... je ne sais quoi.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

I recently picked up the 70-300L on a trade and was intending to use it solely on my 6D. However, the more I read about it, the more I read people reporting that even when used on a crop sensor camera, there's resolution to spare. So I thought I'd pack my 70D and 70-300L and head off to Busch Gardens for a testing session. After dialing in the AFMA in situ, I started snapping pics. Here are a few that I liked.

Believe it or not, the shot of the Grey Crowned Crane was my favorite from the day. I think many people would immediately trash this picture because of the shadows from the palm fronds, but for me, it's what makes the image. It tells a story.

These have been cropped and downsized to 1920 on the long end. I did find that the reviewers were right. There is resolution to spare in the 70-300L and I'm ecstatic that I picked it up!

Thanks for looking!

I guess I'm the only one who is not a fan of the shadows on the face.  Whether I trashed that shot or not would depend on what other shots I had.  If I had no other decent shot, I'd keep it, but I'd rather not have the shadows over the face.  I'm not sure i get the story it tells.

I get your point about the lens, though.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

RogerZoul wrote:

Believe it or not, the shot of the Grey Crowned Crane was my favorite from the day. I think many people would immediately trash this picture because of the shadows from the palm fronds, but for me, it's what makes the image. It tells a story.

I guess I'm the only one who is not a fan of the shadows on the face. Whether I trashed that shot or not would depend on what other shots I had. If I had no other decent shot, I'd keep it, but I'd rather not have the shadows over the face. I'm not sure i get the story it tells.

Foliage provides any number of benefits to animals. Pick any of them, and there's your narrative. The benefit is up to the viewer, as is the story. Having the animal out in the open with a blown out background (ie, no context) is merely a photo of an animal. More "documentation" than story.

That said, I'm heavily entrenched in documenting life when it comes to photography and I'm striving more towards story telling. So perhaps I'm reaching?

I can envision a shot very similar to this one in which the bird is in its environment and also in shadow, but with the face not. Sort of a pee-a-boo type shot. It would tell a very similar "story."  You don't need the animal totally out in the open with a blown out background.  I think you are only reaching when you can't envision the alternative shot being totally different than what you have shown here.