Crag Camp with the OBs Crew...

Thanks

I'm in the market for a new lens, either a 200 with vr or 300 without due to cost. I was curious what you shot that with even though you were only at 24mm.

Having a range of 18-200mm is very nice. One lens can handle a lot of tasks.

Yeah...it's a good lens, but begins to trail off in sharpness at about 125mm. It's a great lens because of it's range...but given a budget, I would own a 12-24, a 17-40, and a 70-200. I don't find it limiting, but there are better out there...

The canon 70-200mm series is about a sharp a lens made anywhere, and the f4 non IS is very affordable...

Someday...

I have the

Canon 28-135mm IS
Canon 70-300mm IS
Canon 16-35mm wide angle

and like them a lot. Plus I borrow (gee, I seem to have it all the time) my son's Sigma 100-500mm lens.

I have a 50mm f1.8, and an 18-55 now I'm looking for something with some reach. I have a Nikon which is why I'm looking at the 55-200.

A 70-300 would be nice but from what I've been reading trying to shoot at the longer lengths without a tripod is very tough without VR. I can get a non-vr for about $150 but add VR and the cost goes to $550.

I can get a 55-220 with VR for $215 which is a little more tolerable for someone just getting into shooting with a DSLR from the world of point and shoots.

Using a 300mm lens without stabilization is workable. I have used a 500mm with no stabilization and gotten crisp moon shots. Lean against something like a car or a tree and it works. Using the 500mm handheld for moving objects works well. I have done 1,800 pictures in a day at an air show with only the 500mm and been very pleased with the results.

If you can rent or borrow the 300mm, give it a try.

You can also get a trekking pole with a camera mount head to give you some needed support without the bulkiness of a tripod. Plus it can come in handy for the descent.

Jim,
Have you ever tried using the software magic of HDR ( High Dynamic Range) processing? This is a technique where you get a number of images at bracketed settings and basically take the best parts of each image and blend them together. A simple explanation, I know. Here is a primer on it for those interested

http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_1.htm

Some feel that it is "cheating" but it really is no worse than any other manipulation. There are some great examples of it out there ( and some that are in my opinion less so).

Thanks for the link, P! Will check out this tutorial much further.

KDT

As I posted on another thread, I use treking poles from REI that double as monopods

http://www.rei.com/product/745686

Thanks for the links on HDR. I've yet to embrace the technology for a few reasons...

The main reason I do photography is to connect with nature and to capture the scene in front of me as closely as I am seeing it. I therefore use filters, and find great satisfaction in getting the shot right in one shot. My RAW files look very much like my edited photographs, and it's alot of what gives me joy in the field.

Additionally, I have seen a few to many cooked HDRs where the local contrast is gone, causing a very computery look to the scene, which causes me a disconnect with the landscape that was origionally captured.

That being said, the software is getting better, and it will continue to do so. The shots posted in your link look natural and beautiful.

Something I have done to maximize the dynamic range in a picture is to double process the raw images, one for the sky, one for the foreground, and manually bring those together via a mask. Quick, easy, and retains all the character and contrast of the scene, without making a computer tell me what the scene looked like.

Thanks again for the link...
Jim