Comments on: Lunchtime Wildlife http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/ Photos of Phones and Phonographs (occasionally) Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:26:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Paul http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-310 Paul Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:30:05 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-310 I was sat at one end of a park bench, the robin sat on the other end, not a lot of crop required at that distance with a 135mm :-) And that lens isn't so much after I win the lottery, as after I've spent all my money doing up a house which is almost worth less than I paid for it! Yay! Home ownership! I was sat at one end of a park bench, the robin sat on the other end, not a lot of crop required at that distance with a 135mm :-)
And that lens isn’t so much after I win the lottery, as after I’ve spent all my money doing up a house which is almost worth less than I paid for it! Yay! Home ownership!

]]> By: Stu http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-309 Stu Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:16:37 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-309 "The 70-200mm f/2.8 is still on the shopping list." Is that for _after_ you win the lottery? :) “The 70-200mm f/2.8 is still on the shopping list.”

Is that for _after_ you win the lottery? :)

]]> By: Colin Morey http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-302 Colin Morey Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:03:19 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-302 Ah, for some reason i thought you had a longer lens. You must have managed to get quite close to it to get that shot or is it heavily cropped? Ah, for some reason i thought you had a longer lens. You must have managed to get quite close to it to get that shot or is it heavily cropped?

]]> By: Paul http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-301 Paul Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:33:02 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-301 The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Not really the ideal birdwatching lens :-) My only other lens is a 50mm f/1.8 prime, also not ideal for this sort of thing. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is still on the shopping list. The 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Not really the ideal birdwatching lens :-)
My only other lens is a 50mm f/1.8 prime, also not ideal for this sort of thing. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is still on the shopping list.

]]> By: Colin Morey http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-300 Colin Morey Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:02:51 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-300 :P what lens were you using? :P what lens were you using?

]]> By: Paul http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-299 Paul Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:35:16 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-299 I would benefit slightly from a lens that could manage better than F5.6 at that end of the zoom range yes ;-) I would benefit slightly from a lens that could manage better than F5.6 at that end of the zoom range yes ;-)

]]> By: Colin Morey http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-298 Colin Morey Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:43:07 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-298 NIce captures, but I think you would benefit from a slightly narrower depth of field on the robin... I don't have my RSPB book with me, but my first thought was a thrush. NIce captures, but I think you would benefit from a slightly narrower depth of field on the robin…
I don’t have my RSPB book with me, but my first thought was a thrush.

]]> By: Paul http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-297 Paul Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:29:12 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-297 The "bird identifier" on www.rspb.org.uk seems to agree with the Thrush idea. (Note to self, include the word "bird" next time you google image search for pictures of thrushes) Songthrush: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/songthrush_300_tcm9-148968.jpg Juvenile Blackbird: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/blackbird_juv_300_tcm9-139612.jpg is the closest blackbird, but as Duncan says - no orange legs The “bird identifier” on http://www.rspb.org.uk seems to agree with the Thrush idea. (Note to self, include the word “bird” next time you google image search for pictures of thrushes)
Songthrush: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/songthrush_300_tcm9-148968.jpg
Juvenile Blackbird: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/blackbird_juv_300_tcm9-139612.jpg is the closest blackbird, but as Duncan says – no orange legs

]]> By: Duncan http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-296 Duncan Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:03:20 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-296 I'd agree and say it's a thrush. Apparently blackbirds come under the family of thrushes anyway so a thrush covers it either way. My bird book and all images I've found show female blackbirds without orange legs. The front is also a bit light and spots too pronounced. I’d agree and say it’s a thrush. Apparently blackbirds come under the family of thrushes anyway so a thrush covers it either way.
My bird book and all images I’ve found show female blackbirds without orange legs. The front is also a bit light and spots too pronounced.

]]> By: Stu http://www.paulseward.com/blog/20090108/lunchtime-wildlife/comment-page-1/#comment-295 Stu Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:53:26 +0000 http://www.paulseward.com/blog/?p=658#comment-295 I was thinking thrush, too. I was thinking thrush, too.

]]>