Very nice set - I liked #2 and the last one best.

Thanks for posting these. Nothing really stands out on it's own (love the smiling child shot though) but as a series it's interesting and I enjoyed looking through them and reading the narrative.

True Gwyn ... if it's only for the one outing then maybe it's possible to rent one ?

I had exactly this quandary so I tested them side by side. The 60-250 is a little slower to focus than the 300 and is not quite as sharp, wide open it is softer at 250 than at 220/230 which is where you should be and then crop to the equivalent FL - it will be sharper.

Which to buy depends on your intended use. Mine was for birding so I chose the 300 (which works very nicely with a x1.4 or the AFA x1.7) ... but the 60-250 is definitely on my short list to buy in the not too distant future !

Your 70-200 or 60-250 are going to be much better than the 55-300 which is a slow focusing lens and may have trouble finding focus before the animals disappear under the water again. They are also sharper and can easily be cropped to the same equivalent FL and still be at least as sharp.

Magnification : yes you need 1:1 .. and soon you'll want more !

Shake : flash

Lighting : tried quite a few systems (on-camera flash + filter, snoot, softboxes etc.) now I use off camera wireless flash & softbox and sometimes a snoot.

WB - I use AWB

Aperture - f5.6 thru f16 depends on the subject and light conditions. Usually f8 / f11

Long shutter speeds ? Huh ? As fast as possible to combat blur from shake ! However a lot depends on the light.

AF will focus at short distances - that's why it's an AF Macro lens. Sometimes I just use a rocking motion, sometimes AF, sometimes MF and sometimes a focus rail so I can stack photos. Sometimes I use a tripod .. more often I don't.

Macro lens usually make great portrait lenses (though may need softening !) as they produce gorgeous bokehs !

These are 1 cm long caterpillars (macro + raynox 250) :

A lot of digiscoping is done with P&S cameras ... so the Q would probably do very well !

Don is right in saying "flexibility & under varying conditions" as a spotting scope / telescope is far less portable than a 400mm + TC and can't be reduced to a 400mm only for other uses ..... though the IQ is way better digiscoping and there is no way a 400mm can be made to reach 1,000 - 1,700mm plus without unacceptable IQ degradation. So if portability (or using it hand held) is essential then digiscoping isn't the way to go (though of course you can still relative easily transport the set up to your preferred location for birding/sky/stars whatever).

I've just about settled on the Skywatcher Black Diamond 80 ED (as recommended on the Bird Forum) for my digiscoping needs (around £450 or £600 including all the bits and pieces) - and ordering this week means it should be delivered within the next couple of weeks. Price-wise this compares very favourably to a Pentax 1200mm

I agree with Mikew. The first thing you notice is the top of the trees are cut off and then your eyes go to the ripples.

Benjamin Kanarek (Paris), who often appears on the other forum with tips and opinion, does some wonderful work for Vogue & Harper's Bazaar, amongst others. Here's his official website and it's worth checking out his blog too (there's a link on this site) : link