IDs sorted.....Redshank, Bar Tailed Godwit and Rock Pipit. Thanks everyone!

[crusher]

I think this is a Redshank?

Not sure about this one?

Or this one?

All shot on the River Hamble this afternoon............at the very limit of my 70-300mm VR

 

[kaz10]

Hi Crusher the first one is a Redshank and I think the second is a Bar Tailed Godwit nice shots to

 

[kirk09]

Fantatsic Captures very well done

Kirk

 

[wontolla]

#1 Redshank
#2 Bar tailed Godwit??
#3 Not sure!!

 

[RJL2005]

No.3 Looks like a Rock Pipit

 

[crusher]

Hi Crusher the first one is a Redshank and I think the second is a Bar Tailed Godwit nice shots to

Thanks for promt reply and kind comments.

Fantatsic Captures very well done

Kirk

Thank you........much appreciated.

#1 Redshank
#2 Bar tailed Godwit??
#3 Not sure!!

Thanks........looks like the first two are sorted.

No.3 Looks like a Rock Pipit

Thanks..........I thought it might have been a water pipit but now I think you are correct. Here is the same bird from a slightly different angle:

 

[RJL2005]

Water Pipit should have more of an eye stripe and whitish edge to the tail. The Redshank is a lovely capture BTW

 

[Dave Stone]

Not too shabby at all Keith. Nice work.

 

[crusher]

Water Pipit should have more of an eye stripe and whitish edge to the tail. The Redshank is a lovely capture BTW

Thanks very much for you kind comments and info - Rock Pipit it is then.

Not too shabby at all Keith. Nice work.

Thanks Dave...............I really need a longer lens though, there were a couple of Curlews about and some Lapwing which I couldn't get near!!

 

[paul_g]

I would say no 2 is a Black Tailed Godwit, long legs, no streaking on flanks, short supercillium, no sign of barring on tail.

 

[lammie]

I'd second that Paul. Black-tailed for me.

 

[crusher]

I would say no 2 is a Black Tailed Godwit, long legs, no streaking on flanks, short supercillium, no sign of barring on tail.

I'd second that Paul. Black-tailed for me.

Aaaaaaaaagrh.......you can't say that.......I've just changed the title

Anyone else have an opinion?????

 

[Cuddy]

Shame you could not get some detail from the ring on the Rock pipits leg ring, canny set.

 

[j.palmer]

fanstaic shot and you've proved that you dont need big lens.

the 70-300vr was a opption i hade whrn i swoped over the one i tryed was a very nice lens.

 

[crusher]

Shame you could not get some detail from the ring on the Rock pipits leg ring, canny set.

Thanks............yes, a shame about the ring, I can make out a couple of numbers but not the whole lot.

fanstaic shot and you've proved that you dont need big lens.

the 70-300vr was a opption i hade whrn i swoped over the one i tryed was a very nice lens.

Thank you..........you're right, the 70-300 VR is a great lens and I've been lucky enough to get some good stuff using it but mainly in reserves and the like where the wild life is used to people being around. I'm starting to find that in the "wild" I could really do with something longer!

 

[artyman]

However long your lens is, it is always too short to fill the frame with the bird. I think it is some sort of immutable law. The corrorally is that birds close to you will be inside the Minimum focussing distance

 

[crusher]

However long your lens is, it is always too short to fill the frame with the bird. I think it is some sort of immutable law. The corrorally is that birds close to you will be inside the Minimum focussing distance

Now ain't that the truth