The wolf shot for me, very natural looking ..... followed by the chimp (though what is going on in the sky ? Are those lines some form of haloing) ?

The lion shots look over-processed to me, either over sharpened, over contrasted .. or both !

Nice series Steve - I like the weevil shot, for the detail in the mouth area, and Alien best (it really is - I still haven't worked out what is what) !

Nice series Mike - I love the last shot, that's the winner for me.

Wow - a big thank you to all for the great response to this set ! Rather than thank you all one by one let me just address some of the very welcome C&C !

I'm glad some people like #4 - I just used a little fill flash (flash dialed back as far as it would go) to light up the foreground branch,

I really appreciate all the comments re. #2 - I had such problems cropping this one and really couldn't decide how to present it. I cut off both 'goalpost' trees, I cut off the left one, I left both in, I cut away the woods to the left of the bamboo tree on the left (yes, there's more) - then after all that ended up 'PP blind' ! I'll have another go and crop out the bamboo tree on the left !

Glad someone liked the butterfly (I've never seen this type before) - those wings to me are unreal, it's almost as if someone has painted gold leaf on them.

Andrew - actually the top of the mountains are there .... unfortunately they are hidden under the border. I had a problem with BorderX with the framing clipping them off. Usually you can insist the frame doesn't crop the photo but this time it was unresponsive and refused to heed my pleas !

A nice easy to use site is www.tinypic.com - simply follow the instructions they give, and then you don't even need to hit the 'image' tag on here, just copy and paste the URL after uploading there, which comes complete with IMG tags. I think Photobucket does the same and no doubt there are many other free image hosting sites.

This small mountain, around 270 kms (ca. 170 miles) from Shanghai, and part of the Tianmu mountain range in the province of Zhejiang, is home to numerous villas (now converted into hotels) from around 100 years ago - when British & American expatriates living in Shanghai bought the mountain (for $50 !) and turned it into a cool Summer retreat to escape the heat of a Shanghai Summer.

I thought a run down here for a couple of days to check out the bird population might be fun ! Unfortunately the clouds were rolling over and through the trees that cover the mountain on the first day - though partially cleared on the second day. These are the first shots I've processed and I'll run a commentary on some themes later - hope you enjoy these, I did !

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Flowers-Trees/Moganshan/1244526105_D3XyP-L.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Flowers-Trees/Moganshan/1244495995_SXBAn-L.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Flowers-Trees/Moganshan/1244488775_2qptg-L.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Flowers-Trees/Moganshan/1244471933_s8Wtb-L.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Flowers-Trees/Moganshan-Magnolia/1244463294_KikUy-L.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Shanghai-China/Flowers-Trees/Moganshan-Magnolia/1244459437_S47RT-L.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://frogfish.smugmug.com/Insect-Macros-1/Moths/Moganshan-Butterfly/1244449568_5hkMH-L.jpg[/IMG]

[quote:3496ace15f="Algernon"]

You seem to be having some difficulty comprehending this ... I am looking for an apology for the lie you perpetrated. ! You seem to under the misapprehension that not only is it OK to assert someone said something - when just reading through the thread it's absolutely clear to all that they didn't - but it's also OK to then take the piss out of them for the lie you just invented ! Now, this time, don't weasel away with your nose in the air trying to play some sort of morality card - rather rich considering you are fabricating statements and claiming they are made by another poster. Man up !

You are obviously NOT a birder (which I am) and yet you want to offer me advice ? On what should I base that ? The zoo and farm birds you've posted ? Or do you think 1,900 posts somehow makes you qualified to comment on areas of photography you are not a proponent of ? I'm still waiting for your wildlife / bird shots (real ones) with the 55-300 & the x1.7.

Check my threads - kingfishers & many others with a Tamron BB 500 (you do know that IS full manual of course ?). How would you suggest using MF for BIF shots (such as my recent ones) ? I don't know a single birder who uses MF for BIF , maybe there are some but 99% won't even attempt it.

And it is exactly because of my birding passion, and progression from the 80-320 / 70-300 / 55-300 / x1.4 / x1.7 and now to the DA*300, that I said that TCs don't play nicely on the 55-300. Not for BIF, not for birds in bushes or trees with a lot of foliage and low contrast, not for skittish birds such as tits. TCs on the 55-300 mean f8 at best and slow AF if you can achieve focus at all .... do you need me to explain why that doesn't work with the subjects I've just mentioned ? Maybe great for your chicken, geese and swans, I accept that.

The 250-600 etc.? Really ?! The finest proponent i know of with this lense is Marc Langille (I'm sure there are others), Google him. Check his threads. I assure you that he doesn't use that fantastic lense the way you seem to imagine people use it.

Here you go again - you're very inventive I'll give you that.

The 80-320 (another lense I used to own) is not an excellent lense, you must have very low standards if you think that lense 'excellent' - a quick look at the user reports on PF should clarify this for you. Decent, not excellent.

I still love my 55-300 ... but not for use with TCs ! I'll just refer you to my previous post, as regurgitating the same facts seems to have no effect on you - you swan past ignoring anything that is contrary to your argument that you find you can't disprove.

I can't make out if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you are on a wind up. Read my previous posts and you should (though now I'm far from certain you will) understand.

*shakes head in disbelief* well I'm afraid that's just a truly desperate comment isn't it.

Really no point in continuing because you clearly don't know your Anas from your Tits where birding is concerned and you are certainly not man enough to apologise for your blatant lie and subsequent propagation of the lie, by using it as the basis for a dig at me ! That's truly perverse.

Algi - I started off in this thread in a very gentlemanly and civilised fashion but I'm now getting $%#&^$% pissed off with you totally ignoring what has actually been said and inserting your version of it instead !

1. FIND THE EXACT QUOTE WHERE I SAID TCs DON'T WORK WITH ZOOMS !

2. re. the actual OP's Question : I have a 55-300 and both the Tamron x1.4 and Pentax AFA x1.7 and IMHO the IQ is crap (and I'm talking real world not a chicken 10 yards away), the focus is dog slow and it can only be used in excellent light. So put up or shut up - show us your wildlife / bird shots taken with one of those combinations and I will grovel an apology. This is my comment on that - notice again how I didn't say that it doesn't work at all with the 55-300 (page 2) 3. You are taking this way beyond the 'remit' of the thread, initially quoting how a (list price US$2,300) Canon 70-200 works with a TC and now using a $10,000 lense as proof that they do.

4. Your last post contains a blatant lie, stating that I said that Pros don't work with TCs - whereas what I actually said was (on Page 3 above) . I await your retraction & apology on this.

FYI - I have been heavily involved in the organisation of the world-class HSBC golf events, the Champions tennis events and F1 in Shanghai for up to 5 years (depending on how many years the actual event has been staged here), working closely with the shooters & media - I have yet to see even one with a TC (even on a prime) - almost without exception they use 300, 400 & 500 primes on tripods with something like a 70-200 slung over the shoulder. I've no doubt that a few use them here or there but it's certainly not mainstream .... probably for a very good reason.

And you totally ignored this post (page 4) - addressed to you - because it actually addresses the OPs question rather than your crusade, and still went ahead with your spurious comment - attributed to me - on Pros and TCs.

I really hate that you wasted my time having to refute your increasingly snidey and inaccurate remarks. I have no problem debating a point of view and no problem apologising if I am wrong .. but I will not accept someone attributing false statements to me as you, Algi, have done.

Really ? That is very interesting. I hardly ever use the x1.4 since the x1.7 is so good .... I'm just going to have to prove that to myself now (not that I don't believe you, but 'seeing is believing' and all that jazz) !

I find this paragraph enlightening with regard to how you will actually be using the lense. In this type of situation 100mm is too long, even 77 is. try it by rolling around on the floor at home on your 70-300 and you'll see what I mean. Too long.

Personally I think the suggestion above of a 43 Ltd / 1.9 is a very good one and IMO so would be a Sigma 30/1.4. Both of these are extremely sharp lenses (you can easily soften a shot in PP but it's much more difficult, if not impossible, in some cases, to do vice versa) and that means you can easily crop away what you don't need. The 30/1.4 may be a touch soft in the corners at certain FLs but that's not an issue at all when you are using it for portraits.

These lenses are so good they give you (& her) the space you need but means you'll still be able to capture whatever you intended to, with room to spare. IMO this is a big difference over the 18-55 (again see if you like the FL .. from distance !) and if so you'll see that a crop from the 43 Ltd or 30/1.4 will beat the pants off the 18-55.

To say nothing of the advantage 1.9 or 1.4 will give you over a 2.8