lens choices - DPChallenge Forums

10/12/2007 01:07:13 PM · #26

Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

If you have a good monopod, it would be an valuable item for treking up and down rock trails and getting the low light or long shots. You can also use it with self timer to get camera positions that you would not otherwise be able to get, like over a crowd, or over the edge of places. I have one that packs in my luggage.
An example; while steam railroading in NM.

I've done that before, but I'm not convinced I have the arm strength with my current brick of a camera :) I don't know that I recommend doing this over the chemical pool that is 'badwater' though.

Message edited by author 2007-10-12 13:09:22.

10/12/2007 01:07:34 PM · #27

Rather than just taking one prime, I might, instead, take 3, the 85, a 50 and either a 28 or a 24. Then perhaps restricting myself to only one of those for the morning and another for the afternoon.

None of the lenses is particularly wide so you would be forced away from the typical ultrawide panorama shots that attempt to cram all of Yosemite into one shot and pushed in a direction you seem to want to go.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZF f/1.4 Planar T

10/12/2007 01:08:49 PM · #28

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

and either a 28 or a 24.

I could really do with getting a wide prime. Can't seem to find a good option that isn't $800+ or more though (Sigma 15's etc)

nikolaos

Nikon D200

10/12/2007 01:45:56 PM · #29

Bring the 85 mounted on the camera and give your wife the 17-40. But tell her that under no circumstance should give you the lens no matter how much you cry or beg. You will have there an extra creativity push... the lens will be with you, so, you want be constantly thinking the wide angle lens that you left home or the pictures that you could have taken with it as the lens will be with you but you will not be able to use it.

Hmm... anyway, I went for a short half day trip a few day ago and I brought with me 2 lenses. The 60mm mounted on the camera and the tokina 12-24 in the bag... I took only 2 pictures with the tokina at the end of the day when I was siting in a bench although many times I wished the 12-24 was mounted on the camera. I simply did not do it... I kept the 60mm and found a smaller detail to shoot instead. Maybe I'm just lazy but I would suggest that better have the options with you and not use them willingly than not have them at all.

Disclaimer: The pictures I took with the 60, as well with the 12-24 where crap.

-N.

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

10/12/2007 01:46:58 PM · #30

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
and either a 28 or a 24.

I could really do with getting a wide prime. Can't seem to find a good option that isn't $800+ or more though (Sigma 15's etc)

What about the 20mm f2.8? I know it's not really wide, but without going to the Canon 14mm it's about the bet thing going.

I use my Sigma 12-24 like a 12mm prime. I almost never take it off the widest setting. It runs only about $600 and it has full frame coverage so it will work on your camera.

Bugzeye

10/12/2007 01:55:42 PM · #31

you know the one lens you leave at home will be the one you need the most when you get where you are going. I have been in that position several times where I kick myself for not bringing a lens I was going to bring then not going to etc.... So now when I know I am going to shoot I take the whole collection.

Bud

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM

10/12/2007 02:36:50 PM · #32

Yosemite, you will definitely need wide and also need the reach to compress some distances. Really, 17-40 + 70-200 +1.4x converter + 85 prime would cover all your options, pretty much. All of that does not add up to too much weight at all and it would be a shame to make the trip and regret not having the tools to do the job.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

10/12/2007 02:43:29 PM · #33

I think the point Gordon is trying to make is that given a single focal length - you'll create images that would most likely be ignored in favor of the "textbook yosemite" stuff that everyone usually takes.

He's saying there's no such thing as "you will definitely need".

What's important is that you not regret what you've done. Be happy with what you create, not sad about what "could have been".

Originally posted by aguapreta:

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/12/2007 03:13:34 PM · #34

Originally posted by hopper:

Right, least that's my basic theory. Dunno if it is really a point yet though.

I know for a fact I'm not going to do better than all the other great Yosemite pictures out there, if I pick the same lenses and use my GPS to find Ansel Adam's tripod marks (I believe there is a guidebook that lists them).

A large part of the trip is photography, but it isn't a photography trip. I won't be spending every waking moment chasing the light, like previous times I've been in Death Valley. We'll be going to good views in good light and I'll have plenty of time to photograph. So I'm torn. Half of me says have the courage of my convictions and try something a wee bit different. The other half says follow the herd, use the focal length that you 'definitely need' for any given subject.

I'm not going to be unhappy either way. I get to spend a week with Amanda and we'll be in Yosemite - what's to regret ?

Message edited by author 2007-10-12 15:14:09.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

10/12/2007 03:19:52 PM · #35

I like your theory ... just not your focal length choice

:)

I'd go just a smidge more wide myself - maybe a 50 or 35 or your camera (24 or 28 on mine)

with the 85, you won't even be able to shoot your wife sitting across the table from you at starbuck's - you'll actually have to get up and move back

DelRioPhoto

Nikon D700

10/12/2007 03:29:08 PM · #36

Originally posted by Gordon:

Would be good as paperweight for me :) Doesn't fit on my camera.

Do you have something against vignetting? ;O)

ErikV

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

10/12/2007 03:36:49 PM · #37

Now a word from the dark side: this dilemma is why I got the Nikon 18-200mm VR II lens.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

10/12/2007 03:42:31 PM · #38

I was an Assistant Scoutmaster for about 10 years and lived their motto of "Be Prepared".
In a survival situation you may not have all of these things. The MOST important thing for survival is what's in your head. So either take just a pencil and paper and sketch what you want to shoot.

Or be prepared, but discipline your time, say 10 minutes Wide-Angle, 10 minutes 85mm, use a Stopwatch. You could always just Pretend for a scene, say to yourself. Now what would I do with just my 85mm.

I'd rather err on the more side then lose a shot of a lifetime if one came up.

Most importantly, pretend you'r shooting photos of your wife, too. She could be "Waldo" size in the bottom-left corner, and cropped out later. In other words, don't forget about her.

Message edited by author 2007-10-12 15:45:35.

10/12/2007 03:44:26 PM · #39

Originally posted by hopper:

Yeah, over lunch I actually started thinking that I may switch to the 50mm 1.4. I've been shooting the 85 1.8 almost exclusively for 9 months now, maybe time to try something a touch different. I'm willing to put my vacation where my mouth is and see if this theory pans out.

I'm hoping I can't find a starbucks in Yosemite valley. I won't be surprised to be disappointed though.

Message edited by author 2007-10-12 15:50:53.

10/12/2007 03:45:39 PM · #40

Originally posted by jahoward:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Would be good as paperweight for me :) Doesn't fit on my camera.

Do you have something against vignetting? ;O)

I've shot a few 'digital' tamaron lenses for just that reason in the past. But I think the 10-22 physically won't fit, will it - doesn't it stick too far into the camera and get in the way of the mirror ?

10/12/2007 03:49:00 PM · #41

Originally posted by ErikV:

Now a word from the dark side: this dilemma is why I got the Nikon 18-200mm VR II lens.

I think this is why I've avoided that sort of lens in the past (there's a very similar canon option I think) If I had all that range right in my camera, I'd probably be using the 'correct' focal length for every shot, without trying anything different. Just hitting the focal length that I know is 'right'

I have a vague memory of a Gary Winograd shot of American football shot with a 20mm. That's obviously the 'wrong' focal length to use. Yet it stands out in my mind far more than all the 200mm and 400mm or longer football shots I've seen.

10/12/2007 03:52:42 PM · #42

Originally posted by justamistere:

I did the scout thing for years when I was younger too. The discipline thing I don't think would work though, I could just wait it out and then get the lens I naturally 'want' on the camera :)

I'm sure I miss shots of a lifetime, every day.

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

10/12/2007 04:15:14 PM · #43

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jahoward:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Would be good as paperweight for me :) Doesn't fit on my camera.

Do you have something against vignetting? ;O)

I've shot a few 'digital' tamaron lenses for just that reason in the past. But I think the 10-22 physically won't fit, will it - doesn't it stick too far into the camera and get in the way of the mirror ?

I can think of a potentially expensive way to find out, but out of the box, no, the lens will not fit, the lens mounts on 1D series cameras do not accept the EF-S lenses.

Message edited by author 2007-10-12 16:16:51.

EyeTrap

Canon EOS-40D

10/12/2007 04:15:24 PM · #44

What do you take when you go for hike or a walk-a-about with no real purpose in mind? That should probably answer which lens to take. If you normally just carry your 85mm, then go with that, if you bring the tele-photo then choose that. Just because there are lots of photo's taken of a place, that shouldn't change how you decide which lens to take.

How many pictures of flowers have you seen? Yet once in a while (very rarely for me :P ) someone captures a flower in a different/unique way that makes it stand out against the rest that are just pretty flower pictures.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

10/12/2007 04:17:05 PM · #45

Originally posted by EyeTrap:

What do you take when you go for hike or a walk-a-about with no real purpose in mind?

Sorted. Lensbaby it is. Thanks! ;)

ErikV

Nikon D7000

10/12/2007 04:40:16 PM · #46

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ErikV:
Now a word from the dark side: this dilemma is why I got the Nikon 18-200mm VR II lens.

I think this is why I've avoided that sort of lens in the past (there's a very similar canon option I think) If I had all that range right in my camera, I'd probably be using the 'correct' focal length for every shot, without trying anything different. Just hitting the focal length that I know is 'right'

I have a vague memory of a Gary Winograd shot of American football shot with a 20mm. That's obviously the 'wrong' focal length to use. Yet it stands out in my mind far more than all the 200mm and 400mm or longer football shots I've seen.

I often deliberately take shots at both "correct" and "incorrect" focal lengths. You are right, often the "incorrect" focal length produces the more interesting picture. I like the option of being able to do both with minimal hassle.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/12/2007 04:47:04 PM · #47

Just a simple comment from a simple village idiot.

Take all your normal gear with you. Put a wide angle on the camera and carry something longer as a backup. We all know that something happens that we want to catch and we have the wrong lens. Your intentions may be to get a different view, but the unexpected can happen. Better to have some backup than kick yourself for missing that 'classic' winner!

Enjoy your trip, whatever you take with you:)

10/12/2007 04:47:42 PM · #48

Originally posted by Gordon:

I have a vague memory of a Gary Winograd shot of American football shot with a 20mm. That's obviously the 'wrong' focal length to use. Yet it stands out in my mind far more than all the 200mm and 400mm or longer football shots I've seen.

Garry Winogrand shoots football.

10/12/2007 04:55:39 PM · #49

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Gordon:

I have a vague memory of a Gary Winograd shot of American football shot with a 20mm. That's obviously the 'wrong' focal length to use. Yet it stands out in my mind far more than all the 200mm and 400mm or longer football shots I've seen.

Garry Winogrand shoots football.

Good place to shoot it too. That's the picture I was thinking about. Thanks for finding it, I haven't seen it for about 5 years I think.