HOME | DD

Raymaker — Flight of the Eagle

Published: 2008-06-17 00:48:41 +0000 UTC; Views: 716; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 14
Redirect to original
Description A Bald Eagle taking flight on the banks of the Hood Canal, Seal Rock, WA. This place was swarming with eagles. With their numbers so strong in the area I live, its odd to think sometimes that these beautiful birds were on the endagered species list.


-----------------------------------------------------
To see more of my work, check out my website: [link]
Related content
Comments: 26

Green-Roots [2011-03-20 13:51:09 +0000 UTC]

Impressive!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to Green-Roots [2011-03-22 01:37:55 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

yozhVmetro [2010-11-21 15:01:10 +0000 UTC]

amazing work, i love it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to yozhVmetro [2010-12-18 18:08:44 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DrewHopper [2009-01-13 13:24:01 +0000 UTC]

Nice shot, what lense was used here? I am after a telephoto

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to DrewHopper [2009-01-13 15:10:43 +0000 UTC]

Hey thanks! This was shot with the Nikkor 80-200 2.8. If you really want to get into wildlife photography (especially Birding) then the minimum focal length you are going to want is 300mm. Since you shoot canon, the best bang for the buck seems to be the 100-400. The 300 f4L is nice too and works well with a 1.4 teleconverter. If you are on a budget (like I am) you could go with the newly released sigma 120-400 (which has OS, sigmas version of canons IS). All of these lenses will give your more than satisfactory results.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DrewHopper In reply to Raymaker [2009-01-13 22:37:23 +0000 UTC]

How much would I be looking at for the Sigma 120-400mm? I'm on a real tight budget. Someone was saying the 100-400 doesn't auto focus with the 1.4 teleconverter or something and suggested I get the 300mm. Do you know where I could pick up a good secondhand Canon telephoto?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to DrewHopper [2009-01-14 07:13:06 +0000 UTC]

The sigma is right around $750USD, which is a pretty decent deal, although any lens review will rate the IQ of the canon 100-400 higher than the sigma. As for using a 1.4 on the 100-400, i think that is pushing it as far as IQ goes, regardless of whether you can autofocus or not. Remember that if you would use the 100-400 with the 1.4, you are dealing with a 896mm equivalent on your canon body. Unless you have flawless technique and a super duper tripod with a heavy duty head, you are going to be struggling to get sharp photos. Also, when you add the 1.4 to the 100-400, your maximum aperture is f8 (at 400mm), which means you are going to have an extremely difficult time stopping the motion of birds, wildlife, or even windy trees. As far as second hand good, I got my 80-200 from ebay, and i was very pleased. This site has great lens reviews: [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DrewHopper In reply to Raymaker [2009-01-14 10:33:25 +0000 UTC]

I would love the Canon 300mm f/4 IS USM but I'm guessing it's AU$2,166.99, way out of my budget. Someone else linked me to this site for lenses and camera gear [link] Seem's good but a little too expensive for me. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM is affordable at AU$1,000.99, or theres a deal on the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L+Hoya 67mm Circular Polarizer+Hoya 67mm Pro-1 Super HMC UV Filter, all for AU$1,114.04.. Does that sound reasonable and would you recommend the 70-200mm? Sorry for all the questions mate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to DrewHopper [2009-01-14 15:05:05 +0000 UTC]

Well, the 70-200 f4 is a great lens. If you have a gap in that focal length range, that lens would certainly fill it, its definitely a lens found in most serious photographers bags (or the 2.8 variations). However, you have to think about what your needs are. If you are becoming more interested in birding, the 70-200 just isn't long enough. The lens can work for larger wildlife at times. I myself have a maximum focal length of 200 right now and am saving for a longer telephoto. The 70-200 may be a better all round lens for you, that you can use for some landscape work, portraits, and a bit of wildlife too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DrewHopper In reply to Raymaker [2009-01-15 01:00:59 +0000 UTC]

I was down at the river this morning and the most beautiful birds were out, I tried at 85mm but that was pointless. I reckon 200mm wouldn't be enough. I am now thinking 400mm or larger. I'm getting into the big dollars anymore than 300mm aye? Pushing my budget a little. Would you reckon 400mm is enough for birds or would I need more?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to DrewHopper [2009-01-16 01:37:42 +0000 UTC]

Yea, i know what you mean about coming up short on focal length. The issue is really how much you can afford. Is 400 enough? Well, many serious birders use 600's, but, do you have $8000 laying around? Probably not. I think you will be happy with 400mm, there are a lot of options out there in a wide price range. Another option is the Tameron 200-500, which has decent optics, however it feels a bit cheap, has a screw-type AF motor, and no IS. Just get your hands on some lenses at your local camera shop and see what suits you best. It would also be worth it to rent a lens from a shop for a bit if you aren't sure.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DrewHopper In reply to Raymaker [2009-01-16 02:41:13 +0000 UTC]

I never knew shops let you rent lenses to test them out. I will have to ask next time I go to my local store. Right now I like the sounds of the Canon 300mm f/4L IS USM, because of the IS and that I can add on the 1.4* teleconveter without losing autofocus. I have been talking to you and some other telephoto shooters and the advice I'm getting is helping a lot. Thanks heaps mate

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

insignificantartist [2008-06-24 12:48:20 +0000 UTC]

Perfect shot!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to insignificantartist [2008-06-25 03:23:41 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

insignificantartist In reply to Raymaker [2008-06-25 16:02:21 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BekkaLynn [2008-06-20 14:12:16 +0000 UTC]

Awesome capture wish I had some Eagles here they have all moved out of the area we had a family a couple years ago now they are gone

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PacIslander2 [2008-06-17 07:16:14 +0000 UTC]

this is pretty dope dude

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to PacIslander2 [2008-06-17 14:18:31 +0000 UTC]

tanks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

jayshree [2008-06-17 03:45:07 +0000 UTC]

this is awesome! those wings are amazing. and good thing you have them flying around everywhere. i only get to see them at the zoo.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to jayshree [2008-06-17 04:37:07 +0000 UTC]

Hey thanks! Ya I think i just feel like that because I went from living in Winona, MN (rediculous amounts of Bald Ealges reside there, especially in the winter) to here in Seattle, where some of the highest density populations of bald eagles come for refuge in (also) during the winter on the Skagit River. I think im spoiled...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jayshree In reply to Raymaker [2008-06-17 04:40:26 +0000 UTC]

you think your spoiled? lol honey, you are. i was so thrilled to go to the zoo the other day and take pics of 2 bald eagles in their enclosure and you have them flying all around. they must look huge in the sky. when i was driving to the beach the other day there was a hawk going after a seagull in mid air and i got all excited about that. i can only imagine what it would be like to see a bald eagle going for something.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to jayshree [2008-06-17 04:46:23 +0000 UTC]

Haha, well, you should probably do yourself a favor and go somewhere that has them!! Washington is real nice this time of year...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

jayshree In reply to Raymaker [2008-06-17 05:05:22 +0000 UTC]

my brother just moved there 2 weeks ago, so a trip will be in the works at some point in my life. lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Nate-Zeman [2008-06-17 00:58:02 +0000 UTC]

bout effing time! this is sweet i wish there were eagles here

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Raymaker In reply to Nate-Zeman [2008-06-17 00:59:02 +0000 UTC]

Ya, Ill catch some and bring them over.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0