Had a field day yesterday with this one as the sky decided to turn blue for the day.

A few conclusions I have come more about my own inexperience in the field rather than the lens itself are the following:

I realised after coming home and processing the images that I might be shooting at subjects that are far from the normal reach of my lens. This I found out when this morning I managed to snap a pigeon sitting on a fence, handheld and through a dirty double glazing glass at about 50 ft distance. it didn't come too bad although it lacked a bit of sharpness but at least I felt clearly it was due to my limitations.

Yesterday I was starting to get very frustrated and only now it dawned on me suddenly that the distance might be the issue, when I started comparing the subject view from the viewfinder and remembered that yesterday when I was trying to focus they were so tiny in the viewfinder that a tiny tremour from the hands was putting the red focus dot completely out of the subject overall. When I focused on the pigeon this morning I instantly noticed that the red focus dot although minimally moving but it remained within the body of the subject.

This brought me to conclude a few things, one of them that first of all may be the lens is too short for what I am trying to capture.

Would some of you more experienced ones help me out giving a brief account how do you judge the distance of a subject whether its well achieavable, is there something that you mentally keep as a general rule when looking through the viewfinder and think "nope, this is too short for my 300mm". Or no matter what the distance, if you spot something you want to snap if its too far you take out the tripod and go for it.

I definitely enjoy snapping wildlife in the woods, got the taste of it yesterday and was exactly how I perceived, so would love to dedicate more and get the best out of it. These woods link are practically in my backyard and I go running there and with the spring arriving I would love to get some decent shots. And surprise surprise, the guy whose website that is belongs to the same Hillingdon running club , what a coincidence. I have often run with him and had no idea that he was into photography, well, a canon man still , but it would be great to accompany him for his shoots. He is going to get a huge surprise when I see him again within the next few days in the running club when I approach him and tell him that I am into photography too ha .

So, options for me. Get my act together and improve with what I have? Because its just my technique and lack of ability that needs to improve? Is my 300mm too short for some of the images I am trying to capture? I definitely got as close as possible of these creatures and a little more I would be making them go away. In fact that's how I learnt how closest to get and the limits with trial and error and then I started taking the shots.

Or I should upgrade, options being a sigma 150-500 mm as I read some great comments and seen some pics recently here in the forum.

Or on the other hand get a TC and use it with the 55-300 mm and improve more my technique and then further on get the lovely DA*300 and then I can still use it with the TC (I admit this last option sounds tempting though, after seeing the images shot with them), but I would rather hear from you and get some advice and suggestions. You have all been great and I wouldn't have learnt what I have today if it wasn't for all your support and kind help.

Thank you in advance for all your help and suggestions.

Amin

Stefan

I fully agree with you. Boring probably is the right word . I decided to venture out today more for the sunrise shots than any landscapes ones. I am the first one to admit they are boring and it really takes a keen and great eye to frame a landscape image to come up looking really interesting.

I was more interested in trying the different aspects of snapping as its so hard to get a good open sky here in this climate specially at this time of the year so had to just go for it from the spot where I was. My hands and fingers were freezing cold within a few minutes and I had to climb a small hill in order to manage to get the sunrise snaps. .

Thank you very much for the links, I am definitely going to give it a good read. At this stage of my learning curve I am ready to absorb anything that I can scoop .

Thanks again

Amin

And here it is taken with a different lens, but also the sun a fraction higher in the sky

And some help with a visual aspect of the image please:

I have read briefly about the rule of thirds but obviously applying it in practical terms specially for a newbie like me takes a bit more than just reading it. So I am not sure if one of the shots below comes close to it, but my question is: Which of the images becomes more visually appealing? In my inexperience I still can't decide so I am looking for clues if you all could help me please, and briefly explain also if you dont mind.

many thanks

And the sunrise

Just as the title says, here it is. Decided to dare the cold and attempt to catch the sunrise this morning, at last with a window of good weather here.

More to follow, just uploading on the server.
Comments, suggestions and all recommendations greatly welcome.




taken with the 50mm f1.4, but also a few minutes later when the sun was higher on the horizon

Oops, I take back what I just said . In my attempt to just concentrate on the vibrant colours of a bird I was just concentrating on the fact that they only have minimalist colours and I have plenty of them in my backgarden .

I suppose I better start to appreciate it then. In my ignorance when it comes to birds I really thought they must be so abundant around and yet I dont see many being photographed, so made the wrong assumption.

Thanks for your comments impotent spider, that boosted my spirits up, I will have to look further into how to explore further the field. I definitely like it more than macro, its just the weather that doesn't help at all.

Not sure if this one came up better though, as mentioned before I lack that skilful analytical observant eye that only you the more experienced around here possess . So help me out with some clues please. Overall I find these two images the same with the exception that this second one has the beak better captured, so the balance of the scale tips more towards this one, in my opinion. But would be interesting to hear your views please

Thanks

Amin

Not exactly the most interesting of subjects to photograph but with the kind of grey weather we have been having lately I hardly get the chance to go out with the lens and attempt a few shots.

Had a couple of hours opening window with the sun shining so decided to give it a go. Was more interested in seeing how I could handle it and try to correct my mistakes with your usual great and kind suggestions and advice.

So here it goes, had to be on a tripod. So far all my handheld shots have come pretty bad, but could have been due to a cumulative range of mistakes, including wrong settings and non steady hands.

All comments and advice are greatly welcome and sought after

I can certainly see everything, and the 1.2 magnification is really helpful. But if you can its always best to try it first before buying one. I went personally to SRS and checked the difference it made and then went for it