Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Camera Discussion > Lenses: DSLR and Rangefinder, MF adaptions to 35mm such Zoerk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 21st, 2010, 02:46 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,785
Default

Winston,

I was surprised that you could conveniently take such a picture given you were focused on bird shots! What was the camera mount you were using.

"Sony DSLR-A700 ,Sony SAL-70400G, 1/125s, f/16.0, 70.0mm, iso320"

I now know that Sony has a really great range, from 70-400 and that's impressive!

Is it push-pull?

Asher

I was surprised by this wonderful picture. After all, Winston was set up for bird photography. So I thought of the lens! So I repeat it here, to look at the unique favorite lenses we each rely on.Asher



Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Mitchell View Post
Weather permitting, I do a lot of trail walking. I always cary my camera with the birding howitzer mounted. It occurred to me recently that I never record the trail itself, just the things I find around it. Here's a recent attempt at a trail image.




2009 Winston Mitchell: Cottonwood Creek Trail
Sony DSLR-A700 ,Sony SAL-70400G, 1/125s, f/16.0, 70.0mm, iso320
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 21st, 2010, 02:55 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,785
Default

Imagine being on this path, setup for birds, lugging a heavy tripod and long lens combo and you realize the path itself demands to be recorded.

What do you so? You have a spare camera with a WA lens or you carry a P&S? I'm impressed by the Sony quality. What do others here use for such a wide range?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old January 21st, 2010, 03:11 PM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

No wide range here I'm afraid. I sold my 70-300DO as it never got any use and only have the 24-105 f4 IS and 70-200 f4 IS now. The 24-105 is a great walkaround lens if you want the zoomability and don't mind the size, and the 70-200 is my long(ish) lens. I'd like the 135/2 and 200/2.8 but the pair cost more than the zoom... and as I haven't use the long end much of late it's not really necessary.

I do use the zoom for panoramas, at which it excels.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old January 21st, 2010, 03:22 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Asher,

My favorite zoom lens is my Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

My most commonly used zoom lens is my Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old January 21st, 2010, 03:26 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,785
Default

Mike,

I've often thought about the value of the Canon 28-300 L. It seems to be an aggressive range for perhaps a fashion shoot, (or wedding) where the subjects are 60 feet away and then a half a minute later, it's all happening a within whispering distance!

However, I've only heard of one photographer here who owns this lens.
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old January 21st, 2010, 04:57 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
I've often thought about the value of the Canon 28-300 L. It seems to be an aggressive range for perhaps a fashion shoot, (or wedding) where the subjects are 60 feet away and then a half a minute later, it's all happening a within whispering distance!

However, I've only heard of one photographer here who owns this lens.
It sounds like a nice idea, but:

It costs about USD 2400
it weighs about 3.7 lbs, almost 'arf a pound more than a "milk bottle" (70-200 f/2.8 IS)
The zoom is "push-pull", which some people like, but I find hard to control (like a slide fader on a vertical mixer panel).

But, to make a bad pun, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old January 21st, 2010, 05:02 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr View Post
The zoom is "push-pull", which some people like, but I find hard to control (like a slide fader on a vertical mixer panel).
Doug,

The fact of the matter is that the exact focal length is not important as getting somewhere near "very wide" and "tele" very quickly is what the tool can do. In all this rapid change, (as we all know), the perspective is not changed but the amount of pixels assigned to the subject of interest.

If we had enormous resolution and lenses to match then one wide angle lens would be all we'd ever need!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old January 21st, 2010, 05:05 PM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr View Post
Hi, Asher,


It sounds like a nice idea, but:

It costs about USD 2400
it weighs about 3.7 lbs, almost 'arf a pound more than a "milk bottle" (70-200 f/2.8 IS)
The zoom is "push-pull", which some people like, but I find hard to control (like a slide fader on a vertical mixer panel).

But, to make a bad pun, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Best regards,

Doug

Yes Doug, all good reasons to leave it in the shop. You could buy a nice Zeiss Ikon and C-Sonnar for that much, and practice real photography:)

In jest, but I have grown less patient with the big heavy kit (including the 24-105 really) and, unless I have a good reason to use the dslr, prefer the lighter camera at the moment. I can't afford an M9 yet, but if I sell a few big prints who knows... I had a play with one in my local shop the other day and I was quite taken with it.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 21st, 2010, 06:52 PM
Will Thompson Will Thompson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near the "Out House" of the Mouse (Disneyland)
Posts: 828
Default

My favorite zoom lens is the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L and my feet for the zoom.

It is sharp, AF is fast, has a large max F stop for low light, and low weight.

It also fits in a small bag and is water sealed.
__________________
Will T.

"Galleries don't hang DxO charts" David Hull
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 21st, 2010, 07:18 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Doug,

The fact of the matter is that the exact focal length is not important as getting somewhere near "very wide" and "tele" very quickly is what the tool can do.
" .... sagittal strokes for approximate folks."

Sometimes we might want "somewhere near the middle".

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old January 21st, 2010, 08:11 PM
Charles L Webster Charles L Webster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Silicon Valley CA
Posts: 596
Default

My favorite zoom these days is the Canon 17-40 f/4L. Since I'm shooting indoors more these days, I find the range suits what I'm doing.

Almost all my studio work is done with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro, I use the zoom rarely in the studio, but frequently for events.
__________________
<Chas>

Everything in the frame must contribute to the picture.
http://www.charlesLwebster.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old January 21st, 2010, 09:32 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Charles,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles L Webster View Post
Almost all my studio work is done with the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro . . .
Is that a lovely thing or what!

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old January 21st, 2010, 10:25 PM
George Elsasser George Elsasser is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 12
Default

I am kind of old school when it comes to lenses, infact I did not go near a zoom lens until I began doing commercal work (in about 1993) and journalistic weddings in 1997.

Prior to that for my personal work; from 1977 - 1986 it was a 50mm. Then from 1986 -1992 a 35mm 2.8. After that from 1992 - 2005 mostly a variety of primes depending.

That only began to change for the personal work when I started using digital in 2005 at which time I used the nikor 18-200mm VR on FX bodies. That was a very fine lens on the FX cameras.

In early 2008 - till now a nikor 17-35mm 2.8 on a D3 is what I have been using, it is a wonderful lens the best I have ever owned. It is also nice cause I can switch the camera to FX mode and it becomes about a 26-53mm with greater depth of field if I desire such. Sample image below:

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old January 21st, 2010, 10:44 PM
Winston Mitchell Winston Mitchell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 449
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Is it push-pull?

Asher
Twist.

Asher,

If you duplicate my stuff in a new thread, please leave some bread crumbs. I almost didn't see this. I generally don't read the hardware forums.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old January 21st, 2010, 10:57 PM
Winston Mitchell Winston Mitchell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Posts: 449
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Mike,

I've often thought about the value of the Canon 28-300 L. It seems to be an aggressive range for perhaps a fashion shoot, (or wedding) where the subjects are 60 feet away and then a half a minute later, it's all happening a within whispering distance!

However, I've only heard of one photographer here who owns this lens.
I was in Tanzania in June of '08. Two people (brothers) had this lens mounted on 40Ds. It was the only glass they had and they seemed happy with the setup. They didn't seem to use the neck straps much.

My 70-400, f/4-5.6 weighs a little less (3.3 lbs) and was, like many lenses, about $1/gm.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 03:34 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,785
Default

Winston,

Your right, next time I'll leave a good trail! I was just blown away by the good set-up you had and realized that with the fantastic new Sony (Konica Minolta) lenses, there was a really good option for natural life photography, to be able to shift from tele to at least normal range very fast.

Will Thompson has the Canon 28-300 and calls it a paparazzi lens as it can cover the red carpet from brushing distance to a distant grab-shot as she's trying to maneuver out of her car seat or slipping into a restaurant across the road.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 08:49 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Will Thompson has the Canon 28-300 and calls it a paparazzi lens as it can cover the red carpet from brushing distance to a distant grab-shot as she's trying to maneuver out of her car seat or slipping into a restaurant across the road.
And in that case, the push-pull zoom control seems very apt, if not from a human factors standpoint certainly from a metaphorical standpoint!

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 09:31 AM
Charles L Webster Charles L Webster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Silicon Valley CA
Posts: 596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug_Kerr View Post
Hi, Charles,


Is that a lovely thing or what!

Best regards,

Doug
Indeed. The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, not to mention light-weight and fast focusing (when I use AF).
__________________
<Chas>

Everything in the frame must contribute to the picture.
http://www.charlesLwebster.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 10:17 AM
StuartRae StuartRae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.....
I'll second that.

Returning to zooms, I'd like to put in a word for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

My favourite though is the 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is light enough to carry round all day and is a joy to use.

Regards,

Stuart
__________________
-----------------------------------
C&C and edits always welcome
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 10:25 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartRae View Post
My favourite though is the 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is light enough to carry round all day and is a joy to use.
Stuart,

That's a remarkable lens! I have the older non-IS version for travel. It fits n my pants pocket and is so light. I get some looks when I take it out!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old January 22nd, 2010, 11:12 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Asher,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
That's a remarkable lens! I have the older non-IS version for travel. It fits in my pants pocket and is so light. I get some looks when I take it out!
Yes, there are times I wish I had the 70-200mm f/4L IS rather than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.

The practical reality is that for much of my shooting I use the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS, and put up with the IQ deficiencies. When I feel improved IQ is worth the effort, I switch to the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, or the latter plus the Canon 2x focal length converter. (And does that latter rig take care of the girl in the seat in front at the rodeo or football game who jumps up just as the action starts to get exciting!)

In fact I'm just now loading my bag for tomorrow's rodeo.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old January 24th, 2010, 10:51 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,361
Default

I have had 2 zoomers since I was born. I acquired a lens few years back. The 50mm summilux aspherical.
With these two, I have no limits, except the boundaries of my mind and the type of work I want and do do.. and my age!
The ichiban zooms or otherwise are just pretenders, giving their users a false macho sense of being wannabe weight lifters.

Flame on!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 24th, 2010, 11:43 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Fahim,

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
I have had 2 zoomers since I was born. I acquired a lens few years back. The 50mm summilux aspherical.
With these two, I have no limits, except the boundaries of my mind and the type of work I want and do do.. and my age!
The ichiban zooms or otherwise are just pretenders, giving their users a false macho sense of being wannabe weight lifters.

Flame on!
I'm not sure I follow.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 24th, 2010, 11:55 AM
StuartRae StuartRae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 1,025
Default

Quote:
giving their users a false macho sense of being wannabe weight lifters
I think Fahim is trying to tell us that large zooms are very heavy :-)

Regards,

Stuart
__________________
-----------------------------------
C&C and edits always welcome
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 24th, 2010, 12:20 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Stuart,

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartRae View Post
I think Fahim is trying to tell us that large zooms are very heavy
Indeed! I schlepped my Canon EF 70-200mm f.2.8L IS USM to the Fort Worth Rodeo yesterday, and when I was done, I was pooped!.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old January 24th, 2010, 01:35 PM
Mike Shimwell Mike Shimwell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,792
Default

I carried my 5D with 24-105 across the corridor tonight to grab a picture of the youngest - I was quyite shocked at how heavy it is. Just got used to the Ikon I suppose, but even the 1Ds3 with 50/1.4 feels light in comparison!

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old January 24th, 2010, 01:59 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,566
Default

Hi, Mike,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Shimwell View Post
I carried my 5D with 24-105 across the corridor tonight to grab a picture of the youngest - I was quyite shocked at how heavy it is. Just got used to the Ikon I suppose, but even the 1Ds3 with 50/1.4 feels light in comparison!
Probably we old guys should pay more attention to the Four Thirds movement.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old April 25th, 2017, 02:00 AM
An Pham An Pham is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 6
Default

The fact of the matter is that the exact focal length is not important as getting somewhere near "very wide" and "tele" very quickly is what the tool can do. In all this rapid change, (as we all know), the perspective is not changed but the amount of pixels assigned to the subject of interest.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!