| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2013 03:11:08 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
If you take and draw a rectangle about 42% of the width and height of your posted photo, that would be about the field of view you could expect at 200mm. For this shot, it would mean that the swan would probably just fit in the frame (almost filling the height of the frame). Looking at it another way, you'd have about 5.5 times the pixels on the subject. |
Thanks Bear and apologies for such basic questions. I will work it all out soon. |
|
|
|
09/07/2013 03:30:34 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Out of interest, I took this photo today of a swan on a lake. Would the 70-200 have enabled me to get a much better photo in terms of getting up close and personal?
 |
The way you improve that shot is simple, no need for a fancy lens.
In fact, no lens would really help too much, unless the landscape was amazing and you used an ultrawide ;)
If it were me, I would have tried to get down to water level, with the camera just above the waterline. Then your lens would have worked fine. A 70-200 would have worked even better possibly. Even that UWA would have worked well from the waterline.
But yeah, the 200 would have helped.
A 400mm would have enabled you to take a headshot, if that was what you were after. :)
|
|
|
|
09/07/2013 03:40:57 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Out of interest, I took this photo today of a swan on a lake. Would the 70-200 have enabled me to get a much better photo in terms of getting up close and personal?
|
The way you improve that shot is simple, no need for a fancy lens.
In fact, no lens would really help too much, unless the landscape was amazing and you used an ultrawide ;)
If it were me, I would have tried to get down to water level, with the camera just above the waterline. Then your lens would have worked fine. A 70-200 would have worked even better possibly. Even that UWA would have worked well from the waterline.
But yeah, the 200 would have helped.
A 400mm would have enabled you to take a headshot, if that was what you were after. :) |
A CP filter would've helped this shot too. |
|
|
|
09/08/2013 03:53:51 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Out of interest, I took this photo today of a swan on a lake. Would the 70-200 have enabled me to get a much better photo in terms of getting up close and personal?
|
The way you improve that shot is simple, no need for a fancy lens.
In fact, no lens would really help too much, unless the landscape was amazing and you used an ultrawide ;)
If it were me, I would have tried to get down to water level, with the camera just above the waterline. Then your lens would have worked fine. A 70-200 would have worked even better possibly. Even that UWA would have worked well from the waterline.
But yeah, the 200 would have helped.
A 400mm would have enabled you to take a headshot, if that was what you were after. :) |
Superb advice - thanks Cory! I guess I was thinking the 70-200 would have allowed me to capture the same photo but it would have been much sharper and more clarity but perhaps that was down to lighting. A water level shot would have been much better but unfortunately the lake was surrounded by reeds so this was not possible.
Message edited by author 2013-09-08 16:54:32. |
|
|
|
09/13/2013 04:05:56 AM · #30 |
Really pleased with the Canon 10-22 - thanks for all the advice. I also now have a Canon 50D:)
 |
|
|
|
09/13/2013 08:02:12 AM · #31 |
| Good choice on both body and lens :) |
|
|
|
09/13/2013 08:10:48 AM · #32 |
Good choices indeed. I also wanted a 70-200 but I ended up with 100-400.
I used to have the 40D with Tokina 12-24 and I really enjoyed.
Have fun!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 03:30:06 AM EDT.
