[mikesbike]

thanks for the response and advise. Got yr point.
i Have a few other pics at the same setting. Pl comment on them also.

Your 2nd example does look quite good. Nevertheless, using a faster shutter speed as others have noted is always a good idea, both in terms of being at the limit of what SR can do at long focal lengths, and the subject movement. Even when a bird moves its head or body slightly, they move with great speed.

There's also the matter of greatly reduced depth-of-field in long tele shots, especially when not at or near infinity focus. Even a slight body movement by you as you press the shutter release can throw focus off. The reduced DOF alone is a good reason to stop down, preferably to at least f/8 while maintaining higher shutter speed. This means a boost of ISO setting, which in good lighting will not likely be excessively high. At a moderate distance with a 300mm FL, f/8 will probably adequately defocus the background, otherwise to shoot at f/5.6 it is best to use a tripod as normhead suggests, if that is practical for you.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 09-21-2017 at 01:04 PM.

[Alex645]

If you shoot RAW, there are many different software that will help to sharpen your image in post. There is no substitute for faster shutter speeds, smaller aperture, and critical focus, but whether you use Photoshop or Lightroom or Nik Collection's Sharpening app, in moderation, it will help to take some of the softness and loss of detail. Here's an example from your jpeg.

[Madaboutpix]

To be fair I now have the PLM version and it is far superior at focus. Same basic optics, though.

Whereas, coatings aside, the smc DA(-L) and HD DA WR versions share the same optics (12 elements, 8 groups), the new HD DA PLM WR version is a completely new design (14 elements, 11 groups). As far as consumer telephoto zooms go, all four iterations seem to perform quite decently, with the PLM at a slight advantage, if at the cost of a slightly-slower widest aperture.

[jgnfld]

Whereas, coatings aside, the smc DA(-L) and HD DA WR versions share the same optics (12 elements, 8 groups), the new HD DA PLM WR version is a completely new design (14 elements, 11 groups). As far as consumer telephoto zooms go, all four iterations seem to perform quite decently, with the PLM at a slight advantage, if at the cost of a slightly-slower widest aperture.

Correct. I should have said same basic IQ.

The real advantage I notice for the PLM version is the really fast focus. Once focused I really do not see much to choose between them. I have found both very usable once focused.

[mikesbike]

The older DA-L and DA HD WR 55-300mm have quite long focus rotation design, which is slower for AF, especially when going from a near to a far point. If working at various points, all at similar distances, focus is much faster. Also, the longer rotation is better for fine-tuning MF. The newer design has a shorter focus rotation for quicker response and a quiet DC motor, instead of being screw-driven, and has internal focus, which tends to shorten effective focal length at closer distances. Your bird might not fill your frame as much, being more like perhaps at 250mm instead of 300mm.

I used the original version for some years, then bought the HD WR, giving away the older one. It had damaged filter threads, but works perfectly. Even though having the same optics, I noticed a slight improvement in image quality with the added HD coatings.

[mehulmandan]

thank u everyone. Yr valuable suggestions and advice will surely help me improve.
Thanks