Question for David Anderson or others
- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Sep 20, 2007 at 2:01 am by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi David I really enjoyed your Brookie photo on the fly fishing board. I have a couple of questions about that shot and some general questions as well. Zach feel free to chime in here too.
Aside from being gifted with the eye do you think the Glass make’s that much difference in your shots vs amateurs like me?
I’m still on a kit lens budget but have considered biting the bullet and upgrading. What lens would you guys consider “the lens” for fish photographs?
What is the most useful piece of advice you remember when you were learning the trade?
Also, in the Brookie Photo can you tell me a little bit about how that shot was set up and edited. Was a tripod used?
Thanks in advance guys I enjoy your work and have a burning desire to be that good someday.
Well Im not David or Zach but assuming you don’t mind I’ll chime in with some random thoughts on the topic.
I’m a firm beleiver that your lenses are as important if not more important than your choice of body.
Simple anology. Using entry level glass and a pro body will result in mediocre results. Using high end glass on entry level bodies will result in some eye poping results. Ultimately you need both but all else being equal I’m a beleiver that your lenses do more for you, than your body.My main pursuit is wildlife photography, followed by fly fishing related photography. I use Canons 400 f5.6 L and if I could justify the coin Id get their 500 f4 L. There are alot of alternatives in terms of long lenses available to amateurs or people starting out and looking to save some money. None of them hold up. There just no way a 70-300 can compare to a 300 f4 or come close to 400 f5.6 etc. Back to the anonlogy. Again putting a entry level 300mm on a 1DmkIIn will yield moderate results. Putting a 400mm, or 300 f4 L on a Rebel XTI will yeild some stellar results. Other considerations beyond contrast, colour, sharpness (IQ) are things like build quality and focu speed. I do alot of bird photography and focus speed is critical.
by way of example.
Your just not going to get that kind of result with less than good glass.Different types of photography have different concerns. With WAs alot of people look at CA and vignetting, sharpness, IQ, focu speed, etc. Again, the more money you spend on the lens the more differences you’ll notice. Im not a landscape photographer though so as yet, I haven’t my WA.
I borrowed a friends Canon 17-40mm f4 L for a recent trip to Nova Scotia. It was glued to my body for alot of the trip although I would switch in my 17-55mm kit lens periodically. There was a noticeable difference in colour, contrast etc.
Peggys Cove
Im not a huge landscape shooter though so for now my kit lens will be the lens and when Im ready to spend coin on a good WA I’ll certainly get the 17-40 f4 though.
When it comes to lenses there are litterally dozens of pros and cons. They can start with weight and run the gamut right upto and including price. Canons “nifty 50” is a “cheap” 50mm lens. Ultimatelywhen deciding on lenses its about trade-offs. What I would suggest is spend your money on a lens that is designed for the area thats of the most interest to you. For *me* intitially it was wildlife photography so I didnt mind dropping the coin on a 400 f5.6 L. Next up was my Macro lens and so on.
As for “fishing” lenses. I think theres a few ways to approach that. A good WA will cover alot and allow for good landscape/waterscape while your out. However it wont do as good a job when it comes time to shooting people imo, which is when youd want a nice portrait lens so a mid range zoom like a 24-70 f2.8 etc.
Fast glass is another consideration. Controlling depth of field and having the option to use some selective focusing with great back ground (bokeh) blur is another fine chocie. I have an 85mm f1.8 that I like to use and thus far its yielded some great shots.
As good as the 17-40mm f4 L is, it Cant get this kind of effect.
Lastly.
Good glass if you take care if it can last a lifetime and travel with you from body to body if/when you upgrade bodies. In short glass last, bodies dont.Get the best you can (within reason) and if I were to get a good all purpose lens for “fishing” Id look for something like Canons 24-70mm f2.8 L.
Thank you for the reply John. It was pretty short sighted of me to just ask Zach or David considering the talent I’ve seen on this board. You work is superb as well.
My dilemma is that I have the Sony Alpha and I can’t decide if I want to keep it or switch over to Nikon or Cannon. I Kind of hate to buy a lot of glass and then decide I really want another brand body. Though I think the Sony has more potential then I’m utilizing right now. My gut tells me I’ll just stick it out with Sony and see what happens.
I searched Ebay and found a few lenses. Aside from the perils of buying on ebay,,, are these more in line with where I need to be looking or would I need to spend more?
The famous Beercan lens. I’ve had my eye on this one for some time now. It isn’t a hige priced lens but it is well known for being a high quality lens.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-Maxxum-AF-70-210mm-f-4-lens-beercan-Sony-EXC_W0QQitemZ270164211099QQihZ017QQcategoryZ3342QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem(nice shots John !
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
Hi Mike. Don’t worry about asking Zack or David, I’d defer to their experience each time to 🙂
Couple things to add in response to your latest.
Sony, Nikon, Canon……I don’t know if theres a right answer. I have a hard time keeping Canons lineup straight :). Each maker has some strengths ans weaknesses both in the body lines and their lens line. Sony, what little I know of it is seems to be coming along and if there was an area of weakness it was their lens lineup. Alot of that unless Im mistaken can be attributed to their relative short time in the DSLR market. Its hard to compete with Nikon/Canon in that regard.I dont even want to hint a suggestion as to what you should do. If Sony is coming out with lenses and filling gaps then I might wait it out a bit, their bodies do seem promising. Switching systems is prohibitive especially once you start adding some glass.
As for some 3rd parrty Lenses. Both Sigma and Tamron make some really good lenses. You might need to do some more digging and research to find themas they dont get as much press as the nikon and Canon propietary lenses but they exist. A few Im aware are
WA
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is highly regarded. As an added bonus you get a pretty fast lens at f.28.Macros
I own Tamrons 180mm f3.5, if I didnt have that one Id get the Sigma 150 f2.8. The main differential with reards to macro lenses is mostly their focal length which ulitimately translates into working distance. The more focal length the more working distance you get. Sigma also makes a nice 105 f2.8 1:1 macro.Super Teles.
I tested Sigmas 50-500 (Bigma) and Tamrons 200-500 when I was shopping for my super tele. Both have good IQ and if theres a drawback to them its their focus speed. They are slower than some others and for *me* that as important . If you arent a big bird shooter or bird in flight thats likely not a big issue. Other considerations in this category are their 300 f4s.When it comes to glass there are almost endless possibilities. I think the key is to identify which “discipline” of photography be it WA, Macro, Portrait, mid tele for sports or super tele (wildlife) interest you the most. Once you have that identified you can target where to invest heavily initially.
for example.
If WA isnt *really* your main interest I might keep the standard kit and add a nice 70-200 or 100 f2.8 macro to complement it. A nice 50 or 85 f.18 can be had for portrait etc.Hope that helps some.
JMike –
For artistic purposes, I wish I could afford everything from 12-600mm in f/2.8, with polarizers, along with a collection of macros and primes and a Sherpa named Tilmuk to carry it all.
Hey Mike. Great advice from everyone. Zach made some excellent points just now. I know I cannot afford to be switching camera makers–you have to buy a system. This is especially true if you are on a limited budget. When you look at it that way, Nikon or Canon is about the only real choice if you are going to expand your gear over the years. This falls in the category of upgrading equipment too. You need a strategy, and as has been suggested only you can make that determination.
There’s a good article on ‘The Upgrade Game” by Tim Grey in this issue of Digital Photo Pro at:
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/the-upgrade-game.htmlIt might give you some further food for thought and help you identify a strategy for what you want to do with your photography and the gear you are then going to need to accomplish your goals.
Dave, that is an awesome brook trout photo!
I know Pentax is considered the “red-headed step child” on this board but I think to be fair we should include the Pentax K-10d in this conversation.
Thanks for the response everyone there’s enough information here that’ll keep me busy for a spell. Again thanks for the time!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.