Algonquin Moose and Others

[brandon]

Last weekend I headed up to the Algonquin Park area to photograph some spring time moose and some landscapes....enjoy!

 

seems appropriate to start off a post with a sunrise pic - Smoke Lake, Algonquin Park

 

Sunrise-Smoke Lake, Algonquin Park by bbroderick86, on Flickr

 

6 shot pano of the Magnetawan River near the town of Novar

 

Magnetawan River by bbroderick86, on Flickr

 

The Oxtongue River

 

The Oxtongue River by bbroderick86, on Flickr

 

Now for the moose...which don't look the greatest at this time of year so I was trying to get shots of them from a distance...however most were right next to the highway. So here's the one shot from a distance that i'm happy with.

 

Cow and Calf - Algonquin Park by bbroderick86, on Flickr

 

And here's a shot of a young bull shaking his head....I just thought it looked funny

 

 

AH3G6356 by bbroderick86, on Flickr

[Hellfish]

Man clear as day. I must say that the pano is pretty slick and the Bull shaking his head is bang on. Were you using a 300mm or 500mm or something similar? I am looking at the 70-200 is 2.8 but I fear once I get into such a long focal reach that I would want more. I cant stop looking

Edited May 7, 2011 by Hellfish

[brandon]

Yeah the moose shots were all with a 500 f/4. I did take a few shots with my 70-200 f/2.8 but the moose are just so ugly this time of year so those shots won't be posted lol

[Hellfish]

Ahhhh the 500 f4, too many decisions to make. LOL @ the moose, I still have yet to see a moose and I have driven across canada 2 times. Kind of disappointed about that. On that note I am very stoked about the 70-200 2.8IS. If you do not mind do you know the main differences of the version 1 and 2 of that lense?

[brandon]

Oh man just go drive through algonquin right now...we saw 13 the one day I was there and that was just from highway 60. I'm not exactly sure of the differences between the 2 versions of the lens. I've got the version II and a wedding photog I know has the version I and we've been meaning to do some side by side testing but just haven't had time yet. I do know however that there's a better coating on the glass as well as a newer IS but weather or not that's noticeable, I'm not too sure. All I know is that the 70-200 2.8 is a sweet lens no matter what version it is so you really can't go wrong.

[danc]

Beauties Brandon. The sunrise especially.

[JBen]

do you know the main differences of the version 1 and 2 of that lense?

 

Canon has been updating a lot of their lenses.

24-70

70-200

300 f2.8

500 f4

600 f4

etc

 

The primary reason is to bring them up to date with todays bodies, especially given they have much higher MP counts. In order to really take advantage the lens have more/better resolving.

 

Would you notice on an older body with smaller files? Probably not

Would you notice on a newer body with larger files? Maybe but the difference will likely be almost imperceptible.

[Tarzan's Jane]

No question you do take great pictures. I just find the second and third one too perfect....they appear to me to be a little unreal. Nice sunrise.