Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lenses for Death Valley Wildflower Trip

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 15, 2005 2:58:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've got a D70 & getting pretty serious with it so I'm outgrowing my
nikor 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 and have been researching for a while but now I
wanna get out & shoot for a couple weeks & I haven't bought anything
yet. I'm thinking of running out to a local shop & get one or two of the
following. I can get them for $10 to $40 more than B&H locally at
Calumet but would I also save on taxes ordering from NY?

These are the local prices (B&H savings in parens):

$1630 -$150 rebate ($30)
70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
This is the killer. Too bad I've already got that range but the fast &
sharp are major differences plus VR.

$100 ($1)
50mm 1.8 Nikon
If I got the 70-200, this is just a tad faster. Otherwise the 70-200 has
the bokeh & sharpness & pretty fast.

$679 ($10)
12-24 4.5-5.6 Sigma
The Nikon is $940 at B&H but it's cropped frame. It won't kill me to get
one Sigma. The reviews seem excellent. I didn't get the kit lens so I'm
stuck at 28mm now & it'd be dumb to get the kit at $400 ($60) now. Fixed
wides are even more & this would be cool to have especially out in the
desert!

$659 ($30)
105 2.8 Micro Nikon
I like closeups but that's a lot for a fixed lens that seems it would
cramp my style. I suppose if I wasn't going to get the 70-200 this would
be useful for normal shooting too with great performance like the 50mm
prime but the 70-200 is just as good. What I'm thinking is to get a
closeup diopter for that (see next item). I'm almost happy with my
28-200 for close-up work.

$180 ($40)
Canon 500D Close-up diopter
This would fit the 70-200 VR & I'd be able to get darn close with VR,
zoom & f/2.8 Well, maybe I lose a couple stops, I'm not sure. This is a
high quality device with 2 elements & I could put it on my 28-200
walkaround with a step-up (I think). Too bad it's overpriced but I'm
going to be dying to do flower & bug closeups on this trip.

$460 ($30)
TC 20E II telephoto converter 2x (maybe more f loss?)
or
($409)
Nikon TC-17E II telephoto converter 1.7x f/1.5 loss
This would extend my 70-200 which would be pretty cool. Probably all
kinds of crazy wildlife out there.

So this is the max I'd go for:
$1480 70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
$180 Canon 500D Close-up diopter
$460 TC 20E II telephoto converter
$679 12-24 4.5-5.6 Sigma
$100~ Polarizing filter & step-up rings
$100~ UV 'protectors' cause I work dirty
$100~ Sensor cleaning kit
$3100 subtotal
($110 less if I wait & order online but this is the best wildflower
season in 50 years *right now*)
$264 8.5% tax
$3363 TOTAL (yikes)

or a minimal kit:

$100 50mm 1.8 Nikon
$180 Canon 500D Close-up diopter
$679 12-24 4.5-5.6 Sigma
$960 subtotal
$82 tax
$1041 TOTAL
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> $1630 -$150 rebate ($30)
> 70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
> This is the killer. Too bad I've already got that range but the fast &
> sharp are major differences plus VR.

Well, here's a suggestion: If you already have that range covered with
your zoom, but you're looking for a faster, sharper lens, why not get a
prime lens (or TWO) instead? A 180mm 2.8D will only set you back $670 after
rebate - but will give you an aperture of 2.8 at full 180mm, instead of the
5.6 that your current lens has at that focal length. With the savings, you
could even throw in a shorter prime as well.

> $659 ($30)
> 105 2.8 Micro Nikon
> I like closeups but that's a lot for a fixed lens that seems it would
> cramp my style. I suppose if I wasn't going to get the 70-200 this would
> be useful for normal shooting too with great performance like the 50mm
> prime but the 70-200 is just as good. What I'm thinking is to get a
> closeup diopter for that (see next item). I'm almost happy with my
> 28-200 for close-up work.

You could get the 105/2.8, 180/2.8, *and* the 50/1.8 and still come out
cheaper than just the 70-200VR. Do you really need the convenience of
rapidly zooming?

steve
March 15, 2005 4:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Wolfe wrote:

>>$1630 -$150 rebate ($30)
>>70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
>>This is the killer. Too bad I've already got that range but the fast &
>>sharp are major differences plus VR.
>
>
> Well, here's a suggestion: If you already have that range covered with
> your zoom, but you're looking for a faster, sharper lens, why not get a
> prime lens (or TWO) instead? A 180mm 2.8D will only set you back $670 after
> rebate - but will give you an aperture of 2.8 at full 180mm, instead of the
> 5.6 that your current lens has at that focal length. With the savings, you
> could even throw in a shorter prime as well.
>
>
>>$659 ($30)
>>105 2.8 Micro Nikon
>>I like closeups but that's a lot for a fixed lens that seems it would
>>cramp my style. I suppose if I wasn't going to get the 70-200 this would
>>be useful for normal shooting too with great performance like the 50mm
>>prime but the 70-200 is just as good. What I'm thinking is to get a
>>closeup diopter for that (see next item). I'm almost happy with my
>>28-200 for close-up work.
>
>
> You could get the 105/2.8, 180/2.8, *and* the 50/1.8 and still come out
> cheaper than just the 70-200VR. Do you really need the convenience of
> rapidly zooming?


Yeah, I think that's really important to me. I'd go nuts changing lenses
for every shot. I'll also get vibration reduction with this setup
including for macro work! Thanks for the thoughts for comparison though.
It's real hard to be sure about spending that much but I'm pretty sure
I'd be very happy with it. The thing is, I'm totally lacking wide angle
too <clutching wallet with sweaty hands>.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 7:52:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:58:21 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
<paul@not.net> wrote:

>I've got a D70 & getting pretty serious with it so I'm outgrowing my
>nikor 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 and have been researching for a while but now I
>wanna get out & shoot for a couple weeks & I haven't bought anything
>yet. I'm thinking of running out to a local shop & get one or two of the
>following. I can get them for $10 to $40 more than B&H locally at
>Calumet but would I also save on taxes ordering from NY?

If you're not in NY, then you don't pay taxes to B&H.

>These are the local prices (B&H savings in parens):
>
>$1630 -$150 rebate ($30)
>70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
>This is the killer. Too bad I've already got that range but the fast &
>sharp are major differences plus VR.

Also given your other post, don't forget it's bokeh. See the wildlife shots
at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/D70/misc/inde...
All but the one of the egret taken with the TC-20 as well.

>$460 ($30)
>TC 20E II telephoto converter 2x (maybe more f loss?)

Two stops.

>($409)
>Nikon TC-17E II telephoto converter 1.7x f/1.5 loss
>This would extend my 70-200 which would be pretty cool. Probably all
>kinds of crazy wildlife out there.

Remember, for AF and metering to work you need a max aperture of f/5.6, so
even the 1.7 with your existing lens will lose this functionality at the
far end.

You might also consider the import models for the TC, which will then be
warranted by B&H. I opted for this with my TC-20, but go the US version of
the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, given the rebate and the longer 5 year warranty.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 8:02:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:13:48 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
<paul@not.net> wrote:


>I'd be very happy with it. The thing is, I'm totally lacking wide angle
>too <clutching wallet with sweaty hands>.

Should have bought the kit lens?
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
March 15, 2005 8:02:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>>I'd be very happy with it. The thing is, I'm totally lacking wide angle
>>too <clutching wallet with sweaty hands>.
>
>
> Should have bought the kit lens?


Yup. It'd be dumb to get it now for $400.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:07:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:20:34 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
<paul@not.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>>TC 20E II telephoto converter 2x (maybe more f loss?)
>>
>> Two stops.
>
>1/2 stop for 60mm extra zoom. Hmmm. As I understand that applies to all
>conditions, not just limiting the minimum.

Not sure what you mean by this.

> Remember, for AF and metering to work you need a max aperture of f/5.6, so
>> even the 1.7 with your existing lens will lose this functionality at the
>> far end.
>
>
>I should be able to get 4.3 (or 4.8) all the way through (with a tripod).

?? Doesn't 3.5 +1.5 stops get you to 5.6 at the max aperture? So anywhere
you are above f/3.5 on this lens you will lose AF and metering with the
TC-17 attached.

>> You might also consider the import models for the TC, which will then be
>> warranted by B&H. I opted for this with my TC-20, but go the US version of
>> the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, given the rebate and the longer 5 year warranty.
>
>That makes sense. Not much to go wrong without moving parts.

There is the pass through for the aperture setting. FWIW, the TC's do
effect AF speed. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is snappy by itself, but a bit
sluggish in comparison with the TC-20.

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
March 15, 2005 11:07:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:20:34 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
> <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ed Ruf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>paul wrote:
>>>
>>>>TC 20E II telephoto converter 2x (maybe more f loss?)
>>>
>>>Two stops.
>>
>>1/2 stop for 60mm extra zoom. Hmmm. As I understand that applies to all
>>conditions, not just limiting the minimum.
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by this.
>
>
>>Remember, for AF and metering to work you need a max aperture of f/5.6, so
>>
>>>even the 1.7 with your existing lens will lose this functionality at the
>>>far end.
>>
>>
>>I should be able to get 4.3 (or 4.8) all the way through (with a tripod).
>
>
> ?? Doesn't 3.5 +1.5 stops get you to 5.6 at the max aperture? So anywhere
> you are above f/3.5 on this lens you will lose AF and metering with the
> TC-17 attached.


I was assuming it's not usable with my current lens and figuring it with
the 70-200 2.8




>
>>>You might also consider the import models for the TC, which will then be
>>>warranted by B&H. I opted for this with my TC-20, but go the US version of
>>>the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, given the rebate and the longer 5 year warranty.
>>
>>That makes sense. Not much to go wrong without moving parts.
>
>
> There is the pass through for the aperture setting. FWIW, the TC's do
> effect AF speed. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is snappy by itself, but a bit
> sluggish in comparison with the TC-20.


My current 28-200 is darn sluggish focusing, in less than ideal light it
becomes crippled and is very annoying.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 11:28:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:21:31 -0800, in rec.photo.digital paul
<paul@not.net> wrote:

>I was assuming it's not usable with my current lens and figuring it with
>the 70-200 2.8

OK, that makes more sense. With the TC-20 it's an f/5.6 combo.

>My current 28-200 is darn sluggish focusing, in less than ideal light it
>becomes crippled and is very annoying.

One of the other reasons I opted for the 70-200 f/2.8VR. I was always
struggling with low light long focal length shots with my 990 and 5700 with
add on TC's.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 12:46:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>I've got a D70 & getting pretty serious with it so I'm outgrowing my
>nikor 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 and have been researching for a while but now I
>wanna get out & shoot for a couple weeks & I haven't bought anything
>yet.

What about the Micro Nikkor AF 60mm f2.8 ($345 at B&H)? (I was
considering these things yesterday).

That would let you do the Wildflowers, and given the extra crop
of the D70 might do the job of a longer macro and is much less
cost than the 105mm.

I'd personally avoid any MF macros, given the poor focussing screen
on the D70.

Also, if you go for zoom tele, you'd be wise to pick only an AF-S
so that you can use a TC and still stay autofocus.

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 4:16:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:
> paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>> I've got a D70 & getting pretty serious with it so I'm outgrowing my
>> nikor 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 and have been researching for a while but now
>> I wanna get out & shoot for a couple weeks & I haven't bought
>> anything yet.
>
> What about the Micro Nikkor AF 60mm f2.8 ($345 at B&H)? (I was
> considering these things yesterday).
>
> That would let you do the Wildflowers, and given the extra crop
> of the D70 might do the job of a longer macro and is much less
> cost than the 105mm.
>
> I'd personally avoid any MF macros, given the poor focussing screen
> on the D70.
>
> Also, if you go for zoom tele, you'd be wise to pick only an AF-S
> so that you can use a TC and still stay autofocus.

Fellow on the news said you got about ten days before the heat moves
back in and renders your subjects straws in the wind ...

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:09:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

>
> So this is the max I'd go for:
> $1480 70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
> $180 Canon 500D Close-up diopter
> $460 TC 20E II telephoto converter
> $679 12-24 4.5-5.6 Sigma


i'd go for that or the 17-35/2.8, cokin p holder, plus singh ray grads:
2 stop soft, 3 stop hard, 2 stop reverse, and the rest on a carbon
fiber tripod. everything else would be secondary for a death valley
wildflower trip, imho.



> $100~ Polarizing filter & step-up rings
> $100~ UV 'protectors' cause I work dirty
> $100~ Sensor cleaning kit
> $3100 subtotal
> ($110 less if I wait & order online but this is the best wildflower
> season in 50 years *right now*)
> $264 8.5% tax
> $3363 TOTAL (yikes)
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 11:41:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> I've got a D70 & getting pretty serious with it so I'm outgrowing my
> nikor 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 and have been researching for a while but now I
> wanna get out & shoot for a couple weeks & I haven't bought anything
> yet.

> So this is the max I'd go for:
> $1480 70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
> $180 Canon 500D Close-up diopter
> $460 TC 20E II telephoto converter
> $679 12-24 4.5-5.6 Sigma
> $100~ Polarizing filter & step-up rings
> $100~ UV 'protectors' cause I work dirty
> $100~ Sensor cleaning kit
> $3100 subtotal
> ($110 less if I wait & order online but this is the best wildflower
> season in 50 years *right now*)
> $264 8.5% tax
> $3363 TOTAL (yikes)
>
> or a minimal kit:
>
> $100 50mm 1.8 Nikon
> $180 Canon 500D Close-up diopter
> $679 12-24 4.5-5.6 Sigma
> $960 subtotal
> $82 tax
> $1041 TOTAL

Yikes, that's a bunchamoney!

I shoot an ancient MF Canon brick and don't know squat about Nikon's
lens lineup, so I can't begin to offer specific advice. I will say that
$3.5K will buy me a LOT of film and chemicals. ;) 

FWIW, I've done well shooting wildflowers with a lowly 200/4 and a
selection of extension tubes. Anything around 150~200mm, f3.5~4, should
do well on your DSLR. Lens speed isn't a huge issue since you'll be
stopped down for DOF most of the time. Yea, you have to zoom with your
feet, but the buy in will be MUCH lower. Bring a good tripod.

As for an uberwide zoom, I suspect you're just gonna have to take it
like a man. ;)  IMO, I'd pay the extra for a real Nikon lens.

-Greg (Who REALLY hopes to manage the trip to DV before everything blows
away...)
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 11:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Steve Wolfe wrote:
> >>$1630 -$150 rebate ($30)
> >>70-200 2.8 VR Nikon
> >>This is the killer. Too bad I've already got that range but the
fast &
> >>sharp are major differences plus VR.
> >
> > Well, here's a suggestion: If you already have that range
covered with
> > your zoom, but you're looking for a faster, sharper lens, why not
get a
> > prime lens (or TWO) instead? A 180mm 2.8D will only set you back
$670 after
> > rebate - but will give you an aperture of 2.8 at full 180mm,
instead of the
> > 5.6 that your current lens has at that focal length. With the
savings, you
> > could even throw in a shorter prime as well.
> >
> >>$659 ($30)
> >>105 2.8 Micro Nikon
> >>I like closeups but that's a lot for a fixed lens that seems it
would
> >>cramp my style. I suppose if I wasn't going to get the 70-200 this
would
> >>be useful for normal shooting too with great performance like the
50mm
> >>prime but the 70-200 is just as good. What I'm thinking is to get a
> >>closeup diopter for that (see next item). I'm almost happy with my
> >>28-200 for close-up work.
> >
> > You could get the 105/2.8, 180/2.8, *and* the 50/1.8 and still
come out
> > cheaper than just the 70-200VR. Do you really need the convenience
of
> > rapidly zooming?
>
> Yeah, I think that's really important to me. I'd go nuts changing
lenses
> for every shot. I'll also get vibration reduction with this setup
> including for macro work!

VR probably won't help macro. For macro, hand vibration cause focus
error, which VR can not correct.

And at shorter focal length (200mm), VR is less important than at
longer (400mm...).

> It's real hard to be sure about spending that much but I'm pretty
sure
> I'd be very happy with it.

BTW, the zoom + 2x may not be sharp enough, while a prime + 2x will be
sharper.
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 9:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's frequent quite windy in the desert in the spring (>20MPH).
Camera shake in macro flower shots has not been that siginificant to me,
compared to the swaying of the stems in the wind. A tripod doesn't help
when that pretty little thing is bouncing in the breeze. One of those
flexible arms with an alligator-clip-style clamp on the end may help.
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 12:01:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>> You could get the 105/2.8, 180/2.8, *and* the 50/1.8 and still come out
>> cheaper than just the 70-200VR. Do you really need the convenience of
>> rapidly zooming?

>Yeah, I think that's really important to me. I'd go nuts changing lenses
>for every shot. I'll also get vibration reduction with this setup
>including for macro work! Thanks for the thoughts for comparison though.
>It's real hard to be sure about spending that much but I'm pretty sure
>I'd be very happy with it. The thing is, I'm totally lacking wide angle
>too <clutching wallet with sweaty hands>.

You also might find you use the tele- for telephoto shots rather
than macro. In theory you could get shots of flowers in botanical
gardens, but using a telephoto to compress distance perspective
you could make great landscape+carpet of flowers shots.

--
Ken Tough
March 20, 2005 12:32:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Greg Campbell wrote:
>
> I shoot an ancient MF Canon brick and don't know squat about Nikon's
> lens lineup, so I can't begin to offer specific advice. I will say that
> $3.5K will buy me a LOT of film and chemicals. ;) 


What the hell, I should be set for many many years of shooting.


>
> FWIW, I've done well shooting wildflowers with a lowly 200/4 and a
> selection of extension tubes. Anything around 150~200mm, f3.5~4, should
> do well on your DSLR. Lens speed isn't a huge issue since you'll be
> stopped down for DOF most of the time.


I did do OK without a tripod for most shots at f/22 1/60 - 1/30 running
around when the light was good in & out of dust storms & such.



> Yea, you have to zoom with your
> feet, but the buy in will be MUCH lower. Bring a good tripod.
>
> As for an uberwide zoom, I suspect you're just gonna have to take it
> like a man. ;)  IMO, I'd pay the extra for a real Nikon lens.


The Nikon wide zoom is a cropped frame & the primes are nutty prices. As
long as this puppy doesn't malfunction I'm satisfied.


>
> -Greg (Who REALLY hopes to manage the trip to DV before everything blows
> away...)


Well it's raining again so you got plenty of time to check it out. I
just got back with most of that kit & I'm afraid I didn't know what the
hell I was doing (sorta) but I guess I did OK. Will head back to other
areas once the rains quiet. I've got a 17 year-old car (which I'm happy
with) & this stuff is much more fun to me than a shiny new car so I
don't feel to bad from that perspective & a hell of a lot less than a
decent newer camper van & I bet I get a lot of mileage out of this setup.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 1:11:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

.... just got back from a wildflower riot in Anza-Borrego Desert State
Park ... Principal impression is that nature put on a marvelous display
whose effect is that the desert blooms with Photographer Butts.
_Every_where! As far as the eye can see, all points of the compass.

Bent at the waist, bent at the knee, kneeling and bending, crouching and
doubled like pipe-cleaner people with no sense of decorum, pointing and
flashing at (I presume) the green-force-driven heralds of life.

A Hundred-Year flood of Gluteus Maximii moonshots.

I FrisbeeĀ® the CF card ditchward.

I slouch studioward.

Epochal gloom descends.

--
Frank ess
March 20, 2005 9:47:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yep, it was indeed a mob scene.

Frank ess wrote:
> ... just got back from a wildflower riot in Anza-Borrego Desert State
> Park ... Principal impression is that nature put on a marvelous display
> whose effect is that the desert blooms with Photographer Butts.
> _Every_where! As far as the eye can see, all points of the compass.
>
> Bent at the waist, bent at the knee, kneeling and bending, crouching and
> doubled like pipe-cleaner people with no sense of decorum, pointing and
> flashing at (I presume) the green-force-driven heralds of life.
>
> A Hundred-Year flood of Gluteus Maximii moonshots.
>
> I FrisbeeĀ® the CF card ditchward.
>
> I slouch studioward.
>
> Epochal gloom descends.
>
March 20, 2005 6:57:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bj286@scn.org wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>>I'll also get vibration reduction with this setup
>>including for macro work!
>
>
> VR probably won't help macro. For macro, hand vibration cause focus
> error, which VR can not correct.


I think it worked out OK. I'm not sure what you mean about hand
vibration compared to what? It is true that for the best DOF with macro,
you need lots of light but slower shutter helps with that. The f/2.8
gives ridiculously narrow DOF but I did find this setup useful with the
2x converter I could track a butterfly at about 3 to 10 feet. Kind of
like a bird at 100 feet. At the closest it's almost as big as 200mm with
the closeup diopter. With the diopter plus the 2x, a quarter dollar more
than fills the image but it's extremely difficult to hold steady.


>
> And at shorter focal length (200mm), VR is less important than at
> longer (400mm...).
>
>
> BTW, the zoom + 2x may not be sharp enough, while a prime + 2x will be
> sharper.


Oh well, this ought to be not too bad <grin>. And extremely flexible.
March 20, 2005 6:59:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Koester wrote:

> It's frequent quite windy in the desert in the spring (>20MPH).
> Camera shake in macro flower shots has not been that siginificant to me,
> compared to the swaying of the stems in the wind. A tripod doesn't help
> when that pretty little thing is bouncing in the breeze. One of those
> flexible arms with an alligator-clip-style clamp on the end may help.


Yeah, that was a big problem. I hardly did any closeups.
March 20, 2005 7:03:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Tough wrote:

> paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> You could get the 105/2.8, 180/2.8, *and* the 50/1.8 and still come out
>>>cheaper than just the 70-200VR. Do you really need the convenience of
>>>rapidly zooming?
>
>
>>Yeah, I think that's really important to me. I'd go nuts changing lenses
>>for every shot. I'll also get vibration reduction with this setup
>>including for macro work! Thanks for the thoughts for comparison though.
>>It's real hard to be sure about spending that much but I'm pretty sure
>>I'd be very happy with it. The thing is, I'm totally lacking wide angle
>>too <clutching wallet with sweaty hands>.
>
>
> You also might find you use the tele- for telephoto shots rather
> than macro. In theory you could get shots of flowers in botanical
> gardens, but using a telephoto to compress distance perspective
> you could make great landscape+carpet of flowers shots.


That's mostly what was useful, compressing long views. The closeups were
good too though. It's amazing the difference switching to 12-24 from
70mm. One good thing with the wide angle is I could show a flower in the
foreground a foot away and put it in context with the whole landscape
all in focus.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 11:15:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> OK, here's the results from my trip. I'm so sick of desert wildflowers
> now <grin>. Yes, I did boost the saturation on most of these.
>
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Des...;
>
>
> Some other nice pics from the trip:
> <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
>
Paul,
Very nice. I'm sad that I will miss the whole thing
(too much other stuff going on that is taking priority).

Roger
March 21, 2005 8:15:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You might also consider getting an extension tube. I spent yesterday
at Anza-Borrego, and I used my 25mm tube for about half my shots. I
noticed that someone mentioned the wind. Yep, it was really blowing
the flowers around, but I did manage to get some decent macro shots.
They weren't as good as I would have liked, but I can't complain. The
cactus flowers made especially good macro subjects since they weren't
moving much.

I took a look at your Death Valley pictures. I wish that I could have
taken an long weekend and gone up there as well.

I haven't gotten around to working on any of the pictures from
yesterday, but the pics from last weekend are on pbase if you want to
compare Borrego to Death Valley.

http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/abdsp
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 11:49:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MadHatter wrote:
> You might also consider getting an extension tube. I spent yesterday
> at Anza-Borrego, and I used my 25mm tube for about half my shots. I
> noticed that someone mentioned the wind. Yep, it was really blowing
> the flowers around, but I did manage to get some decent macro shots.
> They weren't as good as I would have liked, but I can't complain. The
> cactus flowers made especially good macro subjects since they weren't
> moving much.
>
> I took a look at your Death Valley pictures. I wish that I could have
> taken an long weekend and gone up there as well.
>
> I haven't gotten around to working on any of the pictures from
> yesterday, but the pics from last weekend are on pbase if you want to
> compare Borrego to Death Valley.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/abdsp


http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/image/40982980
How did you get them to stand up straight? Rattle your keys, like at the
Zoo?


--
Frank ess
March 22, 2005 12:33:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

MadHatter wrote:
> ...
> I took a look at your Death Valley pictures. I wish that I could have
> taken an long weekend and gone up there as well.
>
> I haven't gotten around to working on any of the pictures from
> yesterday, but the pics from last weekend are on pbase if you want to
> compare Borrego to Death Valley.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/madhatter/abdsp


Thanks for sharing. I meant to head down there too but got burnt out.
Lovely macros!
!