Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Crag Camp with the OBs Crew...

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bellingham, Ma
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 38 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,247
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 398 Times in 250 Posts

    Default

    Having a range of 18-200mm is very nice. One lens can handle a lot of tasks.
    Brad (a 6288 club member)
    http://bradstreet.zenfolio.com Personal Photo sales site
    http://public.fotki.com/bradbradstreet Personal photo web site
    http://public.fotki.com/MWO/saved/2012/ MWO image & video archive site 2006-2012

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    657
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 58 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    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've learned that everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but that all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it."
    ~Andy Rooney

    Follow my photography on Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-Sa...y/156147782386

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,247
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 398 Times in 250 Posts

    Default

    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.
    Brad (a 6288 club member)
    http://bradstreet.zenfolio.com Personal Photo sales site
    http://public.fotki.com/bradbradstreet Personal photo web site
    http://public.fotki.com/MWO/saved/2012/ MWO image & video archive site 2006-2012

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bellingham, Ma
    Posts
    356
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 38 Times in 17 Posts

    Default

    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,247
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 398 Times in 250 Posts

    Default

    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.
    Brad (a 6288 club member)
    http://bradstreet.zenfolio.com Personal Photo sales site
    http://public.fotki.com/bradbradstreet Personal photo web site
    http://public.fotki.com/MWO/saved/2012/ MWO image & video archive site 2006-2012

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado, for now
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    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).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kingston,NH
    Posts
    2,189
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 368 Times in 189 Posts

    Default Wow!

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

    KDT

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    6,247
    Thanks
    112
    Thanked 398 Times in 250 Posts

    Default

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

    http://www.rei.com/product/745686
    Brad (a 6288 club member)
    http://bradstreet.zenfolio.com Personal Photo sales site
    http://public.fotki.com/bradbradstreet Personal photo web site
    http://public.fotki.com/MWO/saved/2012/ MWO image & video archive site 2006-2012

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    657
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 58 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    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
    "I've learned that everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but that all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it."
    ~Andy Rooney

    Follow my photography on Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-Sa...y/156147782386

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •