KESTREL

[ColinM]

Beautiful photos and a beautiful species Mongo.

Interestingly, back in the 70's and 80's in the UK, you could usually rely on seeing one or more Kestrel hovering above the verges of many motorways. I hardly ever see them now

[pluton]

I like the last shot that shows the talons.

[Mongo]

thanks again all for your kind comments.

Do bird enjoy flying or do they take it for granted?

Interesting question David. Do humans enjoy walking or do they just take it for granted. Mongo thinks that its probably a little of both.

Beautiful photos and a beautiful species Mongo.

Interestingly, back in the 70's and 80's in the UK, you could usually rely on seeing one or more Kestrel hovering above the verges of many motorways. I hardly ever see them now

Colin, Mongo is very happy to say that it is the other way round here. There are more of these beautiful creatures living in our suburban parks and in the open ground along our beaches than ever before. This is also true of many other raptor species.

[John G]

Hi Mongo
.              Your time spent Kestrel watching produced these great captures.
I would have them as keepers and be very satisfied.
Is there any obvious traits in the images that are contributors to your decision to part with the 200 - 400 ?
How much difference in overall image quality can be seen in the Pre Down Sampled files, between the 200 - 400mm
and the 300mm with TC17 ?

[David Paterson]

Superb. There's no other word.

[Mongo]

Hi Mongo
.              Your time spent Kestrel watching produced these great captures.
I would have them as keepers and be very satisfied.
Is there any obvious traits in the images that are contributors to your decision to part with the 200 - 400 ?
How much difference in overall image quality can be seen in the Pre Down Sampled files, between the 200 - 400mm
and the 300mm with TC17 ?
[/quote]

Thank you John.
As far as the 200-400mm is concerned, only the first image is from that lens. Despite owning it for 3 years and having sent it back to Nikon 4 times or adjustment to make it perform as it should, it never did. Mongo has probably only about a dozen images he has kept from that lens. So, Mongo cannot demonstrate the reasons by reference to any images posted in this post (the first one being an exception) as to why he parted with it. However, a quick summary would be:- generally poor performance in relation to IQ, extreme inconsistency (very occasional great shot against a huge number of poor shots. Mongo thinks its ability to focus accurately had a lot to do with this), poor performance with converters.

Having said that, Mongo’s friend’s copy of this lens was much better (not amazing but still, very good and more consistent). Still, you do not wish to pay about $8,000 for a lens that not even Nikon could get to work properly ! Mongo would not recommend this lens at all. Cannon’s version runs ring around it. There are now better and cheaper options in any event.

Mongo can say with experience that the AFS 300mm f4 he uses (especially fine tuned) will give superb results even with a 1.7EII converter and very good results with 20EIII converter. Needless to say, the 1.4EII on this lens is as good as if there were no converter fitted. Disadvantages over the 200-400mm may include AF speed (although Mongo has never felt the 300mm lacking in this regard) and slower apertures. However, weight and size are an advantage over the 200-400 was well as price.

How much difference between 200-400mm and 300mm with 1.7EII ? On Mongo’s copy of the lens - Nil. Even with a good copy of the 200-400mm, Mongo would still estimate the IQ to be not enough to make any real difference.

You may now begin to understand why Mongo sold his copy off and now uses 200-500 f5.6, AFS300mm f4 and AFS 600mm f4 instead. Hope this information has been helpful to you.

Superb. There's no other word.

Very big thanks David for your overly kind words.

[John G]

Hi Mongo
              Thank you for your very precise explanation, based on your experience with the products.
It satisfied all my thoughts around your lens experiences.
It is saddening to hear of your frustrations with the 200 - 400mm reliability failures. Corporate business/entrusted brand, can really let a customer down
when they get it wrong and bury their heads on the subject, hiding behind trade law. I believe in the UK, a Company gets three attempts to do corrective works to a faulty model, before the customer can demand their money back, or a replacement model. I think a more modular law should be in place, if a item is offered at a certain level of performance " Professional ", then the item should be honoured by law, to be just that in law, any failures beyond user error in a warranty period, should be immediately remedied for the customer by the company, so the purchaser can function in a way that was justified by the purchase price of the item.   
Thank you for clearly pointing out, their are more affordable options today, that outperform the 200 - 400mm.
Just another interest was raised from your words, Does the 200-500mm outperform your friends 200-400mm from your recollection ?   

[Mongo]

.............
Just another interest was raised from your words, Does the 200-500mm outperform your friends 200-400mm from your recollection ?

John, Mongo will try and answer this question as briefly but concisely as possible. “outperform” is a broad term. There are some areas Mongo briefly mentioned where the 200-400mm was not necessarily outperformed and others where if clearly was. No one lens will necessarily outperform another in all respect. The most important to Mongo is IQ and consistency. In these areas (and some others) , the 200-400 was a poor performer. Mongo also forgot to mention that it was a terrible performer over long distances and one would have thought a 400mm focal length was intended for use over those distances.

It is hard to directly compare Mongo’s friend’s copy with a good 200-400mm in all respects. Mongo can, however, clearly say to you (having used both lenses) that he would not for a second consider buying the 200-400mm in preference to the 200-500mm in many relevant respects. There are just too many better reasons for owning the 200-500mm instead. One of the only annoying features of the 200-500mm is its relatively poor ability to find and lock focus on moving subjects within a useful time. Mongo has tried this on several bodies including his D4s and the fault is definitely in the lens. You will get a lot of keepers but you will also get a lot of missed opportunities because of this factor. Practice helps a little and getting to know the characteristics of the lens better but the lens could do with some real improvement in this regard. Also, the collar and foot are not as good as the 200-400mm but after market products can address this (although, they should not have to).  Perhaps generation II will address these issues. Of course, this factor does not affect stationary objects.

Some may say it depends on the use you intend to put the lens to. However, Mongo does not get that feeling about these two lenses.

[Ron Scubadiver]

Do bird enjoy flying or do they take it for granted?

LOL, great question.  The answer is all of the above.