Things are waking up in Montana....

[Jaime Johnson]

http://www.linctel.net/~jaimej26/041109-Rattlesnake-01y.jpg

f5.6
1/4000
ISO 400

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Jaime,

That's an interesting shot. You have good ears and eyes. The colors are wonderful. The pattern of the snake really disguises it in the b.g. But, does that protect from birds or they are too well fed on rodents anyway? What species is that and how large is it?

Asher

[Duke Beattie]

Nice shot.. I was in the Kalispell area last weekend. If I was to see a snake it would have been a snow snake. :) Things are not awake there yet. I am guessing this was with something other than a 50mm lens.

[Eric Diller]

great capture Jaime!!! That snake looks like trouble to me..... Love the tongue sticking out!

[Don Cohen]

Great capture of the moment!

[Jaime Johnson]

http://www.linctel.net/~jaimej26/041109-Rattlesnake-03y.jpg

Here's another one - these are Western Rattlesnakes -

Closest one was about three feet (by accident) - after a hasty retreat - I took the pictures!

[Don Cohen]

I like this one even better - less background and setting distraction, excellent focus, while still capturing the tongue being flicked!

[Asher Kelman]

Jaime,

This new picture of the head and darting tongue stretched out sensing for prey or enemies is so impressive! That tongue is such an amazing ribbon. Did you even stop to sharpen this? BTW, what are the shot specifics and the distance to the snake?

Asher

[Jaime Johnson]

http://www.linctel.net/~jaimej26/041109-Rattlesnake-05y.jpg

The first and third are about 15 feet from the snake (different snakes). The middle was closer - maybe 9 feet.

First and third were 1D Mark III and a 500mm f4 - the second was with the 300mm f2.8.

They are emerging from their den. We plan to head back to the den in two weeks - there should be many more coming out as the weather gets nicer!

I'll take a few pictures of the area when we go back. The den is at the bottom of a cliff - maybe 50 feet high. There are lots of bushes and rocks. You really have to watch before you step!

[Asher Kelman]

First and third were 1D Mark III and a 500mm f4 - the second was with the 300mm f2.8.


Jaime, do you actually schlepp down that rock both the 300mm f2.8 lens and the 500mm f4, that's heavy. I sold my 300 mm lens as it was too heavy to lug around for hours at a time. However, right now I'm considering getting at least the 300mm f4 IS for the extra reach in concert and dance performance and to shoot animals. Do you think you often choose to use the aperture wider than f4.0? The f4.0 lens seems to have a good quality and with the IS can be used at lower speeds than my original 300 2.8. Then I guess, the 500 f4 would be not to bad to carry with it!

Asher

[Jaime Johnson]

Jaime, do you actually schlepp down that rock both the 300mm f2.8 lens and the 500mm f4, that's heavy. I sold my 300 mm lens as it was too heavy to lug around for hours at a time. However, right now I'm considering getting at least the 300mm f4 IS for the extra reach in concert and dance performance and to shoot animals. Do you think you often choose to use the aperture wider than f4.0? The f4.0 lens seems to have a good quality and with the IS can be used at lower speeds than my original 300 2.8. Then I guess, the 500 f4 would be not to bad to carry with it!

Asher

My wife and I each carry one of the camera/lens setups. I usually carry the 500 and she carried the 300. Both are great lenses. I think the 300 might be the best for this area because it is pretty tight (weeds and boulders). I always have to back up to the 14.7 feet (minimum focus) to get the snake focused (with the 500mm).

I personally swear by the f2.8 300mm, but I'd bet the f.4 would perform just fine!

I found this discussion on the subject:
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=143314

[Don Cohen]

I always have to back up to the 14.7 feet (minimum focus) to get the snake focused (with the 500mm).

You're probably aware of this, but just in case others aren't, you can use Extension Tubes to decrease the minimum focusing distance of any lens. They do eat up a little bit of light, and while they're on you can't focus at infinity, but they can be used in just this kind of situation.

[Jaime Johnson]

You're probably aware of this, but just in case others aren't, you can use Extension Tubes to decrease the minimum focusing distance of any lens. They do eat up a little bit of light, and while they're on you can't focus at infinity, but they can be used in just this kind of situation.

I honestly have read about them, but have never used them. When I did a little looking, I didn't know what I should buy - If I stayed with Canon, what would you recommend?

[Don Cohen]

I honestly have read about them, but have never used them. When I did a little looking, I didn't know what I should buy - If I stayed with Canon, what would you recommend?

An Extension Tube is just a hollow ring, with the appropriate electrical contacts and mount for the camera and lens. No glass involved. For that reason, there is basically no reason to spend more money getting a Canon set. Most people I know of, including me, use an inexpensive set made by Kenko. Three rings: 12mm, 20mm, 36mm, which can be used individually, or in any combination. Around $120 or so, if memory serves.

They can used with any lens - combined with a macro lens will allow fairly high magnification, which can also be fun to play with.

[Steve Robinson]

These are some great images Jaime but as far as I'm concerned they could stay inside all year.