#1. "RE: Zoo-life shots with the 18-200" In response to Reply # 0
Great captures. As a lover of bigcats the last one is my favourite. I find the only thing with Zoo shots is that the animals feelings are shown in their eyes, to my mind the cat looks sad, but then that is only my opinion as I'm not keen on Zoo's.
#2. "RE: Zoo-life shots with the 18-200" In response to Reply # 1
Metro DC, US
The keepers just fed the cat. They put a mounthfull of food in about ten places scattered around the cage. The cat was surprisingly efficient in running from one food piece to another and gobbled-up the meat/mice very fast. I think it looked "annoyed" from having to move so much for each bite. It was also very focused to find the next one, like in the shot here...
Regardless, eventhough it was not a wild animal, it was hard to capture a good shot as it never stopped still for more than a split second...
#3. "RE: Zoo-life shots with the 18-200" In response to Reply # 1
The animals are in many ways better off than they would be in the wild. No fear of predators, lack of food, disease, poachers.
And in the fact that they're not free to go as they please they're hardly more restrained than the people coming to visit them, most of whom are bound hands and feet to their mortgages, jobs, alimony, etc. etc.
In a perfect world there would be no zoos but there'd be no need for zoos as everyone would be able to see wildlife for themselves in the wild. Most people though will never see any wild animals except pidgeons, jackdaws, and gulls gobbling up the garbage in their cities. And many animal species were it not for research and captive breeding programs (and the fact that kids get taken to the zoo to see them and get interested in conservation) now performed in most zoos would be extinct or fast on the way to extinction.
any size is fullframe for a given definition of frame
#8. "RE: Zoo-life shots with the 18-200" In response to Reply # 3
I have to chip in here with some thoughts:
>The animals are in many ways better off than they would be >in the wild. >No fear of predators, lack of food, disease, poachers.
I think that is a very high price to pay for the lack of freedom to roam in their native country.
>And in the fact that they're not free to go as they please >they're hardly more restrained than the people coming to >visit them, most of whom are bound hands and feet to their >mortgages, jobs, alimony, etc. etc.
People are only restrained due to mortgages, jobs, etc because that is what they choose. Everyone has a choice - most people choose to have a 9-5 job to pay for things that they want. Most of these things are not necessary for survival - they are nice to have. Animals do not choose to live in a cage - they are placed there by people with (hopefully) good intentions. This however doesn't detract from the fact that a large wild animal will not choose to live in captivity. The only time I can justify capture and when an animal is being rehabilitated for release later on.
Hopefully I am not stepping on too many toes. Best regards
#6. "RE: Zoo-life shots with the 18-200" In response to Reply # 5
Metro DC, US
>these are great shots regardless of the lens thathat you >used. Are you disappointed in the lens, wont reccomend it. I >was thinking of getting it and selling my 28-105
Are you asking if I am disappointed with the lens? I'm not. I expected it to be pretty much what it is (I was hoping that it would be more than what it turned out to be, but that's another story ).
My comment was that the 80-400 is sharper, has twice the range on the long end, has no light fall-off wide open. I can't compare to the 28-105, only to the kit 18-70 - they are about equal with a slight edge to the 18-200 in most respects excecpt corner shaprness when open and distorsion in the mid range zoom lengths.