Anyone have sharp Nikon 200-500 bird in flight photos?

[PondJamesPond]

I am thinking of getting this lens, but there does not seem to be any bird in flight photos that are crisp and sharp to review. That said my standards are pretty high. So do you have any? and can you post them for review, save your birds on the ground or on a branch photos, all I want to see is crystal clear frozen movement and feather parts not just blurred feathers. Thanks

 

[dannylightning]

this guy has some really good photos with that lens,

Nick

 

[ByronBrant]

Couple from the other day

As info. These are tiny files posted from my phone.

 

[PondJamesPond]

View attachment 112962 View attachment 112963 View attachment 112965 Couple from the other day

As info. These are tiny files posted from my phone.

All of those gulls are very soft, and actually marginally blurry when blown up. Is that the best this lens can do? Thanks for the photos however, that is exactly what I ask for.

 

[ByronBrant]

Lol. What a troll.

 

[Derrel]

Lol. What a troll.

Yes, he is acting quite trollish. He just joined yesterday, but is already making quite a name for himself by trolling the boards here. I suspect he will be invited to leave here soon.

 

[baturn]

Thank god! I thought it was just me.

 

[480sparky]

Googling his way to alleged wisdom?

 

[PondJamesPond]

Lol. What a troll.

Yes, he is acting quite trollish. He just joined yesterday, but is already making quite a name for himself by trolling the boards here. I suspect he will be invited to leave here soon.

This is a sharp bird, those gulls are soft and quite amateur. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Ein_Eisvogel_im_Schwebflug.jpg

 

[480sparky]

Sigh. Time to use the Ignore feature of the forum.

 

[PondJamesPond]

Sigh. Time to use the Ignore feature of the forum.

Yea ignore the very sharp kingfisher photo that can not be shot with the 200-500, be my guest.

 

[dannylightning]

i think the gulls look better than the king fisher actually, too much processing on the king fisher.

 

[480sparky]

Sigh. Time to use the Ignore feature of the forum.

Yea ignore the very sharp kingfisher photo that can not be shot with the 200-500, be my guest.

No, I'll just ignore you . Bye bye.

 

[Designer]

Yea ignore the very sharp kingfisher photo that can not be shot with the 200-500, be my guest.

Well, what lens, aperture, ISO and shutter speed?

 

[AKUK]

There is literally no definition in the shot of the kingfisher. It looks like it was taken with an iPhone from 30ft away, blown up in post and over-sharpened to compensate. The seagulls are significantly sharper by comparison.