Buzz Bryson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Aaron,
I have, or have had, both those lenses (and the 17-35mm as well). The 17-35 is of course a “classic”, but when I checked my older one against the (then) new 17-55mm, the latter was sharper, using a DX-sensor body.
The 24-70mm is just a fantastic lens.
Price aside, one thing you’ll find, and it may or may not be an issue for you, is that the 24-70 weighs about as much as a tank (no one will ever question its build quality). The 17-55 is somewhat lighter (a big truck). The 24-70 balances well on the larger bodies. Again, though, the weight might not be an issue for you.
The two more significant differences are 1) the wide end 24-70mm coverage on a DX body is only equivalent to approx. 36mm, which isn’t too wide. The 17-55mm is approx 25mm, which is a bit better. I think wide is very important for fly fishing shots.
But, that aside, most reviews suggest the 24-70 is one of Nikon’s best ever, and, as you noted, does double duty on FX sensors.
If I were starting over, and perhaps going to use both DX and FX bodies, or at least not wanting to restict myself to DX bodies, I’d fret a lot about the price and weight, and then probably spring for the 24-70. But then, I’d want to get the 14-24 too . . .
At times like that, I recall how I used to be perfectly happy with a film body and three prime lenses, a 24mm, the 55 macro, and a 105mm. I did have a couple of longer lenses, but didn’t typically carry them on the water. That body and three lenses weighed about as much as a D3-size body and that 24-70.
If low light/high ISO is not a consideration for you, and weight is a consideration, a DX body and DX lenses should be considered. The D300 (I’m sure a D400 will be along soon), and 2-3 lenses (12-24mm, a mid-range zoom, and perhaps a moderate tele zoom and/or macro) would be a much smaller outfit, cheaper, and cover most situations (with a good flash of course).
I think the image quality capability of DSLRs (certainly the high end, most of the mid-level, and even many of the entry-level bodies) is more than what is required by most fly fishing magazines.
Jarrad,
The TCX is one of many excellent rods out there. Pick your favorite flavor.
But, if you are going to consistently be casting flies that large, and in wind, I’d suggest you consider thinking about using a heavier line weight. In either situation, the distance is related to momentum, which is a function of mass and velocity. For a given momentum, you can increase velocity to compensate for a lesser mass (lighter line weight), or have a heavier line moving at a lower speed.
Line velocity is somewhat a function of rod action, and somewhat dependent upon the energy input by the caster.
Bottom line, to move a fly that big a great distance, you can cast it with a lighter line, at a very high velocity (with more effort on your part), or cast a heavier line, with a lower velocity. The latter generally requires less effort on your part, as the heavier line, while moving more slowly initially, loses velocity more slowly than a lighter line.
While the 20-somethings can perhaps maintain a more powerful casting pace for a long day of fishing, the 50-somethings among the crowd typically find the heavier line-somewhat lower speed pace less tiresome.
But there again, that’s why there are so many choices.
Good luck with the selection!
Buzz
Your decision in large part might be driven by the weight you will be carrying, and the suspension system needed to carry that weight comfortably.
Phil,
I suspect you have the artistic look (composition & lighting) part of the equation wired, from years of editing.
And getting there is just boning up on the other half, the how’s-that-done, part.
I’d suggest starting with articles/books by some of the better travel photographers.
I’d suggest calling or e-mailing to verify that the magazine can open raw (.NEF, for Nikon) files for whatever camera you have.
Echoing what John said, you’ll come out cheaper to buy a lens, generally, for that duration.
A decent prosumer lens of moderate wide-to-moderate-telephoto zoom length, whether one from Canon or the likes of Sigma/Tokina/etc, will almost certainly be cheaper to buy than to rent for a two week period.
But, if economics demand, I’d stop by the nearest camera store that carries used gear.
Zach,
Need to ask the really tough questions too:
- Do I have a place to store it?
How much is the registration, insurance, etc annually?
Do I really know anything about operating a boat, what do I need to know, and where do I learn?
What “other stuff” is needed – – – required safety equipment (life jackets, flares, noise maker), electronics, anchor, trolling motor, oars/paddles, etc?
And the biggie – – – will my current vehicle tow it?
What’s the old saying?
- Do I have a place to store it?
