|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Apr 9, 2003, 5:19 PM
Post #1 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
Hey Everybody,
Thanks for all the info regarding wide angle lenses, I eventually managed to coerce what I considered a good enough deal on the Canon 16-35 and I'm extremely pleased with it so far. I'm pretty settled on getting the 70-200/F4L as it's pretty nice quality for the price in the Canon world. A friend of mine has the 75-300IS and the IS feature works awesome (check out http://crag.assimilation.org/Pics/JoshuaTree-04-05-03/115_1504-768.JPG for a picture of Headstone Rock from Ryan Campground. Handheld 300mm with IS on, realistically 480mm w/ the 10D's 1.6 tele effect) but I found the 70-200 to be noticably sharper.
But anyways, here's my next question, mostly just curiousity: What do people tend to use when they're taking pics of El Cap from the meadow or similar extreme telephoto situations. I can't imagine that they have super expensive 600mm or 1200mm primes, but rather that they're using something like a mirror lens or something like Quantaray's 600-1000mm $300 Zoom POS, or a cheaper prime or zoom in the 500mm+ range and a 2x teleconverter?
I can't see myself buying a lens just to take pictures of El Cap but seeing some of the photos that Pete has posted got me thinking about it, given the cost of the big lenses!
Anyways, thanks,
josh
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Apr 9, 2003, 5:26 PM
Post #2 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
I'm about 90% sure that they are using 600, or 1000mm primes.
These lenses are great for bird & other wildlife photography. Remember that it is possible to rent these special purpose (expensive) from many camera shops. That should bump the price of a $3000 lens down to about $100 for a long weekend. Call around and see what you can find.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 9, 2003, 5:49 PM
Post #3 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
one guy who's kind of a regular in the Meadow, uses a Cassegrain telescope with a lens mount attachment. I have a shot that he took of a guy on Iron Hawk and it's pretty rad -- tough to get that "out-in-space" perspective any other way :-)
Second the motion to rent. I try and rent any lens before I buy it, and anything seriously expensive I try not to buy at all... only rent.
A 70-200 is kind of a heavy lens -- not saying that a slowish (f/4) tele zoom will necessarily be too heavy, but I'm sick of my 80-200/2.8 and am selling it. I'd rather rent a 400/2.8 and maybe an extender than own the 80-200, knowing what I know now. (although it did make some great pictures)
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Apr 9, 2003, 6:17 PM
Post #4 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
Why dont you like the 80-200mm f/2.8. I've got a 90-230 f/4.5, and I'd use it alot more if I had the extra stop and a half avaliable.
Of course I've also got a 300mm f/4 that I use for all my wildlife stuff.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Apr 9, 2003, 6:55 PM
Post #5 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
re: 80-200/2.8 -- too heavy. For the same $$$ you can pick up an 85/1.4 (at least in the Nikon system) which I find to be a more useful lens. I've said it before and I'll probably say it again -- the best pictures I've ever taken were with a 20-35/2.8 and that 85/1.4.
If it's speed you need, an f/1.4 prime is tough to beat :-). Plus the 85mm is just a really nice lens -- not too big, very bright in the viewfinder, snaps into focus faster than you would believe, and the out-of-focus elements are delightfully blurred. I made a profit when I sold mine and I still feel like I got gypped. I never should have sold it.
The wideangle is IMHO mandatory for the foreshortening effect when you're shooting from above someone on a climb, and it's nice to zoom from wide-to-wider when you're on a ledge. With the 85mm I can just crop out anything I don't like. Hard to un-crop when a shot's too tight, though.
Having a couple of bodies with a couple of not-too-heavy lenses (about a pound each) is a nice way to (nearly) always get the shot you want. The second body is optional but IMHO, the second lens is not :-) unless you are shooting with something like a 24-120 and can live with the slow aperture. I know that Harrison Shull has published some fine shots with a 28-200mm zoom, for example. Greg Epperson was the guy who got me thinking about an 85/1.4 when he mentioned it as a "sweet" lens in his Rock Prints book. It is a sweet lens, much more so (IMHO) than the 80-200, because although both are top-notch optically, the 85mm is a third the size of the 80-200. Much easier to carry and therefore more likely to be there when you want to take a picture.
I like to climb longer routes so I always have to rationalize any equipment I'm going to take. Staring at an 80-200mm stovepipe prior to packing for a 3-hour approach is not encouraging.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Apr 9, 2003, 7:23 PM
Post #6 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
Thanks for the comments - the telescope idea is pretty cool. A good friend of mine is a rogue amateur astronomer type so I'm going to look into getting a lens mount for his telescope...
Re: 70-200. The F4 seemed pretty nice to me and weighs in around 18 oz. vs 3+ lbs for the F2.8 (also about $900 cheaper). I don't mind the weight on approaches too much, I took that into consideration. Of prime importance to me is being able to handhold and being able to manuever around with the lens while dangling from a rope. I'm not likely to be hauling my DSLR on multipitch climbs - for those I have an old Digital Elph that's served me just fine!
josh
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Apr 9, 2003, 8:01 PM
Post #7 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
I am totally in the market for a 24mm or 28mm prime lens for just the same reason you like the zoom Tim.
For my old Pentax I should be able to pick up the prime 28mm for less than 30 bucks if I keep hunting.
I've said this before too- One day I will be able to afford a 20-70mm f/2.8, and a fanzy auto focus body, and will never carry any other lens for climbing. But until then my 50mm prime and good ole '73 pentax body are shooting just fine
Damn, I'd love a AF body though. I don't even care about auto metering, I'd never use it anyway.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
peanutbutterandjelly
Apr 9, 2003, 10:41 PM
Post #8 of 8
(1913 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2001
Posts: 238
|
I have a 100-400 image stabalizer, 80-200 2.8, and 300 2.8. The 300 2.8 (with and with out a 2X conv.) is a little bit sharper then the 100-400 IS. I find the 80-200 2.8 to be about the same sharpness as the 100-400 IS. I really like the image stabalizing because it gets rid of the need for a tripod or monopod. The only thing that could be better is if each of these lenses weighed less then a pound. Hand holding a camera with a power drive on it and aa 100-400 lense does tend to get heavy after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
