I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I like the black and white.

For me the colour version is too blue and the colour cast just keeps pulling my eye to the cliffs. In the black and white I go right to the guy all on his own on the somewhat desolate and cold looking beach and I feel sorry for him out there with only his bright orange coat to protect him from the cold.

Not sure if thats what you were after, but that's what it looks like to me.

The new version of the B&W has a halo around the guy which spoils it for me, the first one was better.

just my 2p

don't worry, it is.

The DA 50-200 is a fine lens for the price, but the 55-300 is a fine lens all round.

good advice that.

sounds pretty nifty golf, may have to get me one of those

TV is vastly overrated IMO, to quote a once popular kids TV show from my youth:

I read an interesting article in a shooting magazine a couple of years ago.

It suggested that there are no naturals at rifle shooting, and that in fact the best shots merely started early. Now this article stirred something inside me, since I have always considered myself something of a natural shot. I'm no champion, but I simply have an affinity for projectile weapons.

Then I thought a little harder about it and realised that I actually can't remember learning to shoot. I have a hazy memory of the first time I fired an air-rifle, but the best I can do is that I was less than 9.


Is it possible that those newbies with "the eye" have simply been making pictures in their minds all their lives but have only recently discovered the camera as a way to record them and show them off?

and even then, only if the aperture you selected was wider than the maximum at your eventual zoom setting (assuming an A series or later lens)

lets be fair, it's Time-Snaps' converter and therefore his right to ask whatever price he likes.

He'd have a better chance of selling it at a lower price, but it's still up to him.

Close focussing ability on a long zoom is nice for those moments when you're looking for eagles with the long lens and a butterfly lands in a flower in front of you. It's no substitute for a true macro lens.

The 55-300 will actually get you close enough for things like butterflys, and it's sharp enough at 300 to allow some cropping while you save for a proper macro lens.

I wish they would include the Standard Deviation when quoting those numbers