john michael white
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the vast majority of the podcasts are excellent. To me, it is all about the personality of the guest and hearing their story, regardless of the vein of the subject matter. For instance, I think the Ted Juracsik podcast was one of the best, solely because he had such an amazing life story to tell.
As an alternative to Abe, I really enjoy the art based ones. But that has a great deal to do with my personal interest in writing and photography.
I couldn’t agree more. Personaly, I really enjoy the art and music podcasts, but as Jay said, I too thought the one on Ted Juracsik was a classic. Some of the podcasts that I have enjoyed the most besides the art and photography related ones, are Dr. Whiting, Tom Bie, April Vokey, and Kelley Galloup to name a few.
I think the idea about A.K. Best and John Geirach is great and I would love to hear them interviewed.
Thanks Michael.
As best I can remember, these ducks were anywhere from about 1 yard for the close up on the goose’s head, to about 8 yards on the two geese, to about 12 yards to the mallard preening, to about maybe 17 or 18 yards to the three ducks swimming together. Might have been a little further.
As far as tele lenses, there are other guys on here that know much, much more than me. I and some others have been picking their brains about lenses on some of the other threads here lately, so check those out if you haven’t already.
I will say that a lens test site that I think David? recommended to me as having accurate test data, and being a good reference, is called http://www.photozone.de/reviews
I was kind of in the same boat as you, and personally decided to go with the 70-200 2.8L and then opt for a 1.4 TC as well – my thinking being that this will get me the most bang for my buck. I will have L glass, the 70-200 which I can use by itself in low light, for portraits, indoors, etc, and cover the 70-200 range. Then coupled with the 1.4 TC, I can reach out to 448mm on my 1.6 crop camera. I would like to have more reach than that, as it only almost gets me to the 480mm I had with my 75-300 EF f/4.5-5.6, but with MUCH BETTER and FASTER glass. With the tele, I will be at 448mm at f/4 as opposed f5.6 with the 75-300.
I was able to find an amazing deal and buy my lens from a friend of a photog friend of mine, and got it for $800. He was the origional owner and had kept it in the closet most of the time he had it and taken excellent care of it. Right now new, it is $1300 and the IS version new right now is $1799 I think. I opted for the non IS and saved a ton of money, which down the road I may use on something like the 300mm f.4 prime that the other guys were reccomending – if I find myself really needing extra reach.
Everyone says that you will take a small hit in sharpness when using a 1.4 TC, and a lot of pros say they won’t use them on a zoom, just a prime. The Photo Zone review I read said that the 70-200 2.8L rivals the primes in its range and has excellent sharpness levels. So far, I am very impressed with it. I ordered the 1.4 TC, but it has not arrived yet so don’t have any experience with it combined with this lens. I do remember the Photo Zone review saying that the non IS version was sharper than the IS version on the 70-200. I am sure they are both great lenses though.
Thanks Kendal.
How is that South Texas shoot for the Valley Land Fund Photo Contest (isn’t this the contest you are doing?) going? I have read about it and talked to the guy that started it at a photog meet here in Austin. It sounds like a really cool contest.
For those who haven’t heard, the Valley Fund Contest http://www.valleylandfund.com/ pairs up ranches in South Texas with photographers, and has what I believe is the largest nature photo contest in the world (and best prize money if I remember correctly). The goal is to protect and promote bird/wildlife habitat in the Rio Grande Valley as it gives the ranchers a reason to value and set aside parcels of land for the contest to protect wildlife. And of course, in the contest, the team of the photographer/ranch they are assigned to are represented and share in the prize money.
I have to agree – this is a very interesting thread. I’m not much of a computer guy, but I feel like I have learned a lot and it has been interesting. And who would have ever guessed you would find all this info on a fly fishing site 😀
Well, here are the reworked images after I cut out the cropping on some of them:
No Crop – more ripples, but still not the entire circle of ripples as pointed out above
I like this version better than the first.
John/David,
After still mulling this over, and reading the other post about zooms that Mike started, *at this moment* I think I am leaning towards a 70-200 L USM coupled with 1.4 TC combo. Seems that it would give me the most versatility and bang for the buck (and cover me from 70-280mm range and in low light).
Today, I am really leaning towards the 70-200 f/2.8 L version (found a smokin deal on it), but above you both talked about the f4 versions being sharper and lighter. How much difference in sharpness are you talking about here??
I am really tempted to go with the 2.8, because coupled with the TC I would still be at f/4. With the 70-200 f/4 and a TC, I would be at f/5.6 – I really want it to be faster than that for low light. But, I don’t want to invest all this money if the 2.8 won’t give me tack sharp images… 😛
