Richard Bernabe
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know if you lose autofocus on the 2x on this lens? What about IS and teleconverters?
I keep debating over the 10-22 and the 16-35 L 2.8? If I really need the true 16mm angle of view I can use it on my film body until I can afford a full frame camera body. I plan to rent both and try them out first. Not sure I want to commit to the EF-S lenses and I would really like a 2.8 lens. That may make my decision for me. Any thoughts?
Thanks,
ScottScott, you do NOT lose AF or IS with Canon teleconverters and lenses.
Also, do not overlook one of the best buys in wide angle zooms – the Canon 17-40mm f4 L lens. It helps if you have a full-frame DSLR, but the range is fantastic, the images are tack-sharp (it rivals the Nikon 17-35, which was a classic) it is smaller and lighter (f4 not f2.8), its only $550, and its a pro-build “L” lens. I love mine and the f4 max ap. instead of f2.8 is not a problem at the wide end.
Its a good lens, but not a very useful range of focal lengths for the needs you cited.
With the 1.6x crop factor of the 30D, your 24mm on the wide side is an unimpressive 38mm. The 105mm on the long end (even with the crop) is not long enough for wildlife (168mm), which you mentioned is an interest of yours.
The “L” lenses, on the other hand, are GREAT lenses – solid build for pro use, sealed for dust and moisture – and are excellent investments in glass. I suppose its as good a place to start as any other, but you have two crucial areas to cover after this lens is purchased. If I were you (doing the type of photography that I do) I would go ahead and get the 10-22mm first, learn how to use it, how to compose wide-angle landscapes and become familiar with its alien perspective, before moving on to a mid-range zoom. But thats just me.
Moose,
Great guy.
During our first job, I was the only person on site who knew how to load 8×10 film holders, so he looks me up whenever he is in the Southeast. He’s alot of fun when you get away from work. He used to be a fly fishing guide in Alaska so he loves talking fishing too.
Matt,
I just checked out the site and it is the same company. Very reputable and safe to buy from.
I was an assistant for Andy Anderson for a few assignments and Calumet is the only place he bought his equipment and film.
Calumet is an old, very reputable photo dealer in Chicago (if its the same company) Check them out before buying anything.
Richard,
Thanks for responding to the post, and there is certainly no reason to apologize for the delay. I look through the galleries on your web site from time to time and can’t believe that changing equipment could improve them; you’ve made some beautiful images.
Thanks so much, Bryan. Certainly you would not be able to tell any difference between the D2X and 5D images at that posted size. Its only at much larger sizes when the difference is discernable.
Nikon is reputedly preparing to go back to full frame in the upcoming D3 series in an effort to finally beat their noise issues versus Canon. This is going to be a good thing if true; full frame is better than APS-frame for almost everything except cost (and better engineering can destroy that advantage).
I hope youre right, Zach. It would be great for Nikon users to at least have an option. I might even switch back if Nikon came out with a 15 MP, full-frame DSLR under $4000.
Splitshot,
I am truly sorry I didn’t see this until now. I was away for a while and this post had migrated to the 2nd page. Sorry, I guess 4 months late is better than never, however.
After shooting with Nikon products for 15 years, I thought the change would be painful. It wasn’t. I have owned and used the Nikon 8008s, N70, N80, N90s, F4, F100 (3 of them), F5, and lastly D2X and D200. I have absolutely nothing against Nikon. They had served me well over the years and I owe much of my success to them.
The decision to jump to Canon was a gradual one. I was putting together a book – 75 percent of the images were D2X digital images – and I was displeased with the noise issues I was getting with this camera. 12.4 megapixels crammed into an APS-sized sensor, with the technology they had at the time, was a loser. Other pros said the same thing and had the same problem. The D200 was an vast improvement. I cant speak for the updated D2Xs. I spent countless hours on the phone with the Nikon folks and they finally said, “Our sensors will improve when Sony makes us a better sensor.” I put my D2X and Nikon lenses up for sale the following day.
I now shoot with two Canon 5Ds. I love this camera. It is NOT not perfect, but the image quality is better in almost every way. The files are cleaner than either the D2X or D200, with greater dynamic range as well. This is not even debatable. I do miss the Nikon ergonomics. I also miss Nikon’s intuitive and superior flash technology. Thats about it.
Hope this helps some. Any specific question, email me. Sorry its so late.
Two considerations when it comes to 3rd-party lenses:
1) There are always good and bad copies when it comes to particular lens models. But you are getting more uniformity when you stick with Canon, Nikon, etc. You might get a great Sigma, Tokina, Tamron copy that is good as the major manufacturer, but your chance of getting stuck with a dog are much greater.
2) Resale. Canon, Nikon lenses hold their value much better if you ever decide to sell later. With 3rd party lenses, you WILL take a loss, regardless of how well you have taken care of it.
There is a misconception about magazines accepting raw files. I have yet to deal with a magazine or publisher that wanted or needed the RAW file. Thats proposterous. Most wouldnt know what to do with it, plus that would be like sending in incomplete material!
When they say “raw” they mean the image right out of the camera or right out of the converter. This is in response to overediting, compression, etc. by photographers. They do not, I repeat DO NOT want RAW file formated files sent to them. Two different interpertations of the word “raw”.
Zach explained what the RAW information is and what it means – very well. I ONLY shoot in RAW file format for many many many reasons.
By the way, check out the new ACR in Photoshop CS3. Best converter yet.
Hey Robert,
Nice first attempt.
The first thing I would ask is….whats with the leaf? Big distraction. Shoot it again without it.
VR= vibration reduction. The same as Canon’s IS=Image stabilization.
The 70-200 f2.8 VR is a much better buy, not only because of the VR feature, but the build quality of the lens, the fast f2.8 aperture, and the superior optics they put into this lens. I sold mine last month after the Canon switch and I can say its one of Nikon’s best, IMO.
Some of the point-and-shoot digital camera models are pretty damn impressive. Since you didn’t mention any names or camera models, we will just assume its a generic 6 MP camera.
I would venture to guess – on average – the difference would not be that great. Obviously, the D70 or any other DSLR is going to allow you many more creative choices during the capture, however. The only other difference would be the optical quality of the lenses. Most point-and-shoot cameras have lenses with optics of questionable quality while others are quite good. With a DSLR, you can choose the best quality glass for resolving power, contrast, etc.
Hey Zach,
It doesnt make any difference, other than having an unnecessary piece of glass in front of your lens. The day I started shooting digital, I got rid of my warming and cooling filters. Its duplicitous. All I carry now are a polarizer and a set of Singh Ray GND filters.
The WB adjustments should be done in the RAW conversion where its non-destructive.
I am not familiar with the +1 +2 +3 WB compensations on the D70. The D2X and now the 5D have precise WB settings in Kelvin. 5500K for daylight, etc. and you could adjust that number, depending on the conditions.
But, if you shoot RAW, it doesnt matter. RAW captures every possible WB combination at the time of the capture. Thats the beauty of RAW. When you make the adjustments in the RAW converter, you are choosing a WB setting and discarding the other possibilities. Its a process of discarding data, not changing it. Thats why its non-destructive.
I leave my on-camera WB at or near 5500. Thats the light temperature of daylight-balanced film. I can expect results that are pretty close to what I got when I shot film. Then I fine-tune in the RAW converter to fit my taste.
The warmth is a subjective call. But my reason for asking is why add an 81a (or Moose) when a WB adjustment would be so much easier and precise?
TX, #2 and #4 are my favorites.
Nice images, TX
One question. Why the Moose filter? If I am not mistaken, it is a combination polarizer and 81a. With digital, there’s no need for the 81a. The last coulple of trout pics and the cimmaron look unnaturally warm.
Ozark,
I have no idea. The Fuji digital SLR is such a disaster that anything is possible with that bunch.
I hope Nikon comes on strong, now that I am with Canon. Good competition will keep Canon from getting fat, lazy, and selling me poor equipment down the road.
Zach, sorry for hijacking your thread, man.
It helps to have a niche, number one. Its so competative these days. I got started in the early 90s and flyfishing imagery -emphasis on the southeastern US – was mine. No one else was doing it at the time (now everyone is, haha) so it made it easier to break in. I loved FF and photography. It was easy for me.
I went fulltime 5 years ago. I dont do as much editorial work as I used to. Writing certainly opens alot of doors, so if you can write, you can get your images published. Develop a large stock library of your subject and keep building. For instance, I have over 15,000 FF images from the SE.
I have branched out into other outdoor sports areas plus natural landscapes as well. I primarily write for some local magazines – some steady photo assignment work. I write a column for South Carolina Magazine called “South Carolina Adventure” and do alot of assignments with the state tourism dept. Assignments, books projects, photo workshops, etc. I have an art consultant who sells prints for me and a stock agency to handle a good deal of my stock images. Steady income is the name of the game.
Email me if you have any specific questions.
