2nd try

On 7/31/2014 12:18 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-31 03:47:26 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/30/2014 10:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that
f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm
f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the
image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting
going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF


I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass.

Now you give us this snippet of information.


I won't remind you that early in this discussion I mentioned that there
wa possible light scatter from my flash on the glass. You mentioned
something about your BS meter. ;-)


I was with a freind who was using a Better Beamer, with his flash almost
touching the glass. He did not have the haze issue. He was also using a
different make of camera, with his lens and a TC, but that is irrelevant
to my issue. (I did not mention that earlier, because I didn't want to
start a tool war.

BTW Here is a shot taken with my iPhone and converted to BW using Camera
Awesome. Not at all a great shot but simply a test.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/2014-07-27%2010.54.22.jpg



The strobe was too far from the glass and I stupidly had the diffuser
down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was caused by light
scatter. If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe was closer I
don't think I would have had the issue. I will try to go back within
the next week or so and test my theory.

I suspect the problem lies more with the glass barrier than the flash.
That said you might have done better with the flash off camera,and
better positioned to illuminate the subject, and not to interact with
the glass barrier. The addition of a CPF rather than the TC might be a
better way to go. Remember, you are going to crop anyway.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.

Now that you have revealed the existence of the thick glass barrier
between lens and subject, I doubt that there is anything wrong with the
lens, Might I suggest a move to manual focus for the next time you try
this shot, for at least one of the shots.

For now, I would hold off on having Nikon check the camera/lens combo.
If you do don't forget to tell them the exact circumstances on the
problematic shoot.

It seems to me you need more planning at the location for this shot.


Yup!

--
PeterN

On 2014-07-31 14:00:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/31/2014 12:18 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-31 03:47:26 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/30/2014 10:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that
f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm
f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the
image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting
going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF


I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass.

Now you give us this snippet of information.


I won't remind you that early in this discussion I mentioned that there
wa possible light scatter from my flash on the glass. You mentioned
something about your BS meter. ;-)

Yup! I mentioned BS meter. However, that was in a response to *nospam*,
and your flash theory, not having to shoot through a thick glass
barrier/wall.

Since there has been some discussion regarding context in this NG, let
us reexamine the path to that remark.

In message ID:
You wrote the following:
"I suspect what you see as soft was light scatter caused by my strobe:
being to far from the glass; and I had accidentally left the diffuser
on. I have been looking for a mounting bracket to fix the first issue."

That is somewhat ambiguous regarding "glass". When I read "glass" in a
photography context, I make the assumption, right or wrong that is
referring to a lens.
You did not sat that this was a thick glass barrier that you had to
shoot through. Mentioning the diffuser, made me think you were further
stretching to find an explanation for the inexplicable quality of the
RAW image.

My direct response to that post was:
"Perhaps. However, unnecessary elements added to an excellent lens
makes better sense. Just because TCs exist doesn't mean they are a
particularly good choice. they will always be a compromise, and there
is never a free lunch with regard to IQ.
Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, even though the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8."

Note: I still have no idea that you were shooting through a glass barrier/wall.

Then *nospam* and I had this exchange:
"depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image
is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot
was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to
me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going
on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches."

Note that my BS meter was twitching with regard to your flash/diffuser
theory. not shooting through a glass barrier/wall which I was still
unaware existed.

So, the first time you made us aware that you were shooting through
glass was when you told us, "The shots were made through a thick glass."

That made most of the problems regarding the mandrill image quite a bit
more obvious, and cleared up the ambiguity of your earlier us of
"glass".


I was with a freind who was using a Better Beamer, with his flash
almost touching the glass. He did not have the haze issue. He was also
using a different make of camera, with his lens and a TC, but that is
irrelevant to my issue. (I did not mention that earlier, because I
didn't want to start a tool war.

You are correct, it is irrelevant.

BTW Here is a shot taken with my iPhone and converted to BW using
Camera Awesome. Not at all a great shot but simply a test.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/2014-07-27%2010.54.22.jpg

....and to what purpose other than providing a Geotag?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_827.jpg

The strobe was too far from the glass and I stupidly had the diffuser
down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was caused by light
scatter. If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe was closer I
don't think I would have had the issue. I will try to go back within
the next week or so and test my theory.

I suspect the problem lies more with the glass barrier than the flash.
That said you might have done better with the flash off camera,and
better positioned to illuminate the subject, and not to interact with
the glass barrier. The addition of a CPF rather than the TC might be a
better way to go. Remember, you are going to crop anyway.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.

Now that you have revealed the existence of the thick glass barrier
between lens and subject, I doubt that there is anything wrong with the
lens, Might I suggest a move to manual focus for the next time you try
this shot, for at least one of the shots.

For now, I would hold off on having Nikon check the camera/lens combo.
If you do don't forget to tell them the exact circumstances on the
problematic shoot.

It seems to me you need more planning at the location for this shot.


Yup!

Phew! Some sort of agreement.

BTW: Now that we have established that you were not out in the wild,
and were reasonably close, can you just ditch the TC next time.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 7/31/2014 11:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-31 14:00:19 +0000, PeterN said:

On 7/31/2014 12:18 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

It seems to me you need more planning at the location for this shot.


Yup!

Phew! Some sort of agreement.

Ideally every shot needs location planning, some more than others.


BTW: Now that we have established that you were not out in the wild, and
were reasonably close, can you just ditch the TC next time.

Nope. Not unless I decide to use the 80-400. In my thought 300mm is a
good FL to use at the zoo.


--
PeterN

In article 2014073108371744819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Then *nospam* and I had this exchange:
"depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image
is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot
was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to
me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going
on.

the problem is that you don't know just by that data whether the f/11
being reported was actually f/8 on the lens for an effective f/11 (and
the teleconverter made the conversion) or if it was f/11 on the lens
(directly reported) for an effective f/16.

On 2014-07-31 20:35:31 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014073108371744819-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Then *nospam* and I had this exchange:
"depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image
is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot
was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to
me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going
on.

the problem is that you don't know just by that data whether the f/11
being reported was actually f/8 on the lens for an effective f/11 (and
the teleconverter made the conversion) or if it was f/11 on the lens
(directly reported) for an effective f/16.

As I said, add the TC and it becomes an issue. Whatever, Peter had to
have set the aperture at something other than the f/2.8 he misread the
EXIF as. My contention is, that once the TC was added he had no idea of
what exposure settings he was actually shooting at, and it was just
guess work, or he left it up to the camera's AE to adjust after he had
dialed in the f/8, or f/11. Other than dialing in that aperture there
was no planned action on his part.

Whatever the case, it is an example of a good capture opportunity
spoilt because of poor choices & preparation. As a second attempt, the
workable result is better than the first one, but the damaged NEF was
in needed much heavy lifting in post to make something out of it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014073114163451361-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

"depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image
is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot
was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to
me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going
on.

the problem is that you don't know just by that data whether the f/11
being reported was actually f/8 on the lens for an effective f/11 (and
the teleconverter made the conversion) or if it was f/11 on the lens
(directly reported) for an effective f/16.

As I said, add the TC and it becomes an issue. Whatever, Peter had to
have set the aperture at something other than the f/2.8 he misread the
EXIF as.

he apparently thought the lens tag was its actual aperture.

the lens is a 70-200mm f/2.8 no matter what it's set to and there is a
tag to identify it.

*other* tags will say what focal length and aperture was used for a
given photo and also the distance at which the lens was focused (and a
lot more data too).

My contention is, that once the TC was added he had no idea of
what exposure settings he was actually shooting at, and it was just
guess work, or he left it up to the camera's AE to adjust after he had
dialed in the f/8, or f/11. Other than dialing in that aperture there
was no planned action on his part.

unless you know which teleconverter he used and what it does with the
data, you don't know whether the conversion has already been made or if
you need to adjust it yourself afterwards.

Whatever the case, it is an example of a good capture opportunity
spoilt because of poor choices & preparation. As a second attempt, the
workable result is better than the first one, but the damaged NEF was
in needed much heavy lifting in post to make something out of it.

i'm only commenting the accuracy of the exif data.

On 2014-07-31 21:23:13 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014073114163451361-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

"depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image
is shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot
was made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC
0.7 at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to
me that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going
on.

the problem is that you don't know just by that data whether the f/11
being reported was actually f/8 on the lens for an effective f/11 (and
the teleconverter made the conversion) or if it was f/11 on the lens
(directly reported) for an effective f/16.

As I said, add the TC and it becomes an issue. Whatever, Peter had to
have set the aperture at something other than the f/2.8 he misread the
EXIF as.

he apparently thought the lens tag was its actual aperture.

the lens is a 70-200mm f/2.8 no matter what it's set to and there is a
tag to identify it.

*other* tags will say what focal length and aperture was used for a
given photo and also the distance at which the lens was focused (and a
lot more data too).

You might have noticed, I have a pretty good idea of what information I
can get from EXIF and other image file Metadata.

My contention is, that once the TC was added he had no idea of
what exposure settings he was actually shooting at, and it was just
guess work, or he left it up to the camera's AE to adjust after he had
dialed in the f/8, or f/11. Other than dialing in that aperture there
was no planned action on his part.

unless you know which teleconverter he used and what it does with the
data, you don't know whether the conversion has already been made or if
you need to adjust it yourself afterwards.

I believe in this case Peter was using a Nikon TC1.7. I don't know how
that is going to effect the recorded data, but I know that he is no
longer dealing with an f/2.8 Max aperture any more.

Whatever the case, it is an example of a good capture opportunity
spoilt because of poor choices & preparation. As a second attempt, the
workable result is better than the first one, but the damaged NEF was
in needed much heavy lifting in post to make something out of it.

i'm only commenting the accuracy of the exif data.

As I said, the whole thing was a little bit of Russian roulette.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:47:26 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/30/2014 10:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass. The strobe was too far from the glass and I
stupidly had the diffuser down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was
caused by light scatter. If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe
was closer I don't think I would have had the issue. I will try to go
back within the next week or so and test my theory.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.

Something else has occured to me.

You probably didn't review the image in the rear screen after you had
taken the shot. You almost certainly didn't have a look at the
histogram in the rear screen after you had taken the shot. If you had
just looked at the image you would know there was a problem and the
histogram would have given you a good idea of what it was.

All I can say is 'naughty, naughty'. Let this be a lesson to you,
which it probably is.

I learned the benefits of checking the histogram on site some years
ago. I had to travel several hundred miles to take photographs of a
burned-out BMW. When I got there it was a brilliantly fine day (of the
kind that Savageduck seems to use), the BMW was variously soot black
or ash white and was situated onbrilliant light-grey sand dunes. I
checked the rear screen (D70 in those days) and saw that the image was
awful and was off both ends of the histogram. In the end I finished up
using my flash at full power to fill the shadows and thereby got
useable images. If I hadn't reviewed the images I would have gone home
with a large number of practically unuseable images.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 7/31/2014 7:38 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:47:26 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/30/2014 10:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:43:16 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 7/29/2014 9:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-07-30 01:02:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014072907132454400-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Also consider that once you add that TC you no longer have that f/2.8
lens, eventhough the chip in the lens will ID it as a 70-200mm f/2.8.

depends on the teleconverter. some will send the effective aperture
while others just pass the lens data on through.

When the metadata/EXIF IDs the lens as a 70-200mm f/2.8 and the image is
shot at 340mm on a D800 @ f/11, it tells me what aperture the shot was
made at, and it tells me that this 70-200mm f/2.8 has at least a TC 0.7
at max zoom. Add to that the use of flash and ISO 2000, it seems to me
that there is still a fair degree of Russian roulette shooting going on.
Peter says he misread the EXIF as f/2.8, but this was shot in aperture
priority @ f/11, so who set that aperture if not him?
Then he says the edge softness might be due to the flash. Once more my
BS meter twitches.

The image was a crop from the center. Edge falloff would not be a
factor, especially with the TC 17.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140727_bronz%20zoo_5289.NEF

I presume this is the original unedited image and that it hasn't been
cropped. I have looked at this in Photoshop, NX2 and Photo Paint (I
haven't the module for your camera to enable me to open in DxO) and I
have to agree with Savageduck. There seems to be something seriously
wrong somewhere.

The image is very flat with the main part of the histogram occupying
about 1/3 of the width available. There are long thin tails on both
the bright and the dark side but not even they reach the ends. The
result is that you have an extremely flat murky image which you have
had to deal with in post processing. My question is, how did this come
about?

Ignoring the focal length, the EXIF reports "Auto exposure,
Aperture-priority AE, 1/60 sec, f/11, ISO 2000, Compensation: -1/3".
This suggests the lighting was not good but was it really as flat and
monotonous as the image suggests? And why the compensation of -1/3?

How would you have shot this without the teleconverter? Apart from the
size, would the results have been any different?



The day was overcast and the lighting was flat. The shots were made
through a thick glass. The strobe was too far from the glass and I
stupidly had the diffuser down. I suspect the greenish grey flatness was
caused by light scatter. If I had used my better beamer, and the strobe
was closer I don't think I would have had the issue. I will try to go
back within the next week or so and test my theory.

I will also take the camera over to Nikon and double check on the focus.

Something else has occured to me.

You probably didn't review the image in the rear screen after you had
taken the shot. You almost certainly didn't have a look at the
histogram in the rear screen after you had taken the shot. If you had
just looked at the image you would know there was a problem and the
histogram would have given you a good idea of what it was.

All I can say is 'naughty, naughty'. Let this be a lesson to you,
which it probably is.

I learned the benefits of checking the histogram on site some years
ago. I had to travel several hundred miles to take photographs of a
burned-out BMW. When I got there it was a brilliantly fine day (of the
kind that Savageduck seems to use), the BMW was variously soot black
or ash white and was situated onbrilliant light-grey sand dunes. I
checked the rear screen (D70 in those days) and saw that the image was
awful and was off both ends of the histogram. In the end I finished up
using my flash at full power to fill the shadows and thereby got
useable images. If I hadn't reviewed the images I would have gone home
with a large number of practically unuseable images.


After the burn, the BMW didn't move as fast as as the mandrills. During
the shoot I knew I was having a problem, but I could only use what I had
with me. I started looking for a suitable off camera flash mounting
bracket.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN wrote:

My 2nd attempt at a mandrill in which I incorporated some of the
suggestions he

The guy is the boss:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mamdro%3B%3B%202nd%20try.jpg

In this image he looks friendlier.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mandrill3648.jpg

Well, what can I say. Dump your teleconverter in the trash and crop your
images in your computer. Youv'e got 36 wonderful megapixels of data and you
can crop a *lot*

Crank up the shutter speed to at least 1/focal length, and open up that
aperture. You don't need to shoot at 2.8, but f11 gave you nothing in this
particular instance. The reason for going with a smaller aperture is for
sharpness and greater depth of field, but the 70-200/f.28 is pretty much as
sharp throughout the focal length.

If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed, but in
this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear that not enough of
the subject will be in focus, and your shutter speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said:
"If you can't get sharp photos with this lens, you are a sad excuse for a
photographer."

His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no reason what
so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of improvement, but
that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here that Peter may be a bit
shakey to begin with, so I stand by the shutter speed of 1/focal length
in spite of the VR II.

--
Sandman[.net]