MWGL Photography thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaxn, I don't see any real difference in the amount of work involved. :shrug:
jaxn slim said:
I do 99% of my editing in UFRaw and reserve GIMP for the heavy lifting like merging two photos. I have to export to a JPG or TIFF to do the GIMP work, but by then the exposure and color stuff is already straightened out. And that's just the 1% of my shots that need it.
Click to expand...
Fixed for my workflow :wink:

bridge.jpg
 
Last edited:
Had a great night last night at the Ryman Auditorium. Damien Rice with an Icelandic/Swedish duo named My Bubba. The lighting was pretty cool, except it was dark dark dark.

DamienRice-1.jpg


DamienRice-2.jpg


DamienRice-3.jpg


DamienRice-4.jpg
 
I have a question for you guys. I'm going to Alaska (inside passage area) this summer on a cruise ship with my extended family. My parents wanted to get everyone together one more time, as none of use are getting any younger, and after my dad's medical scare this year they figured this year was as good a time as any. I know some of the lenses I will bring...but I'm a little worried my long zoom will not be long enough for wildlife up there. We will be doing some hiking and stuff on shore, not just hanging out on the ship.

The current zoom I have is a Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens. Sort of Canon's middle of the road zoom. Not the cheapest model, but far from their high end L zooms. I'm using it on a crop sensor EOS70D, so the actual focal length is a bit longer. It is a pretty nice lens, and I use it pretty regularly, so I am at least used to the way it behaves.

I'm worried, however, that this might be a bit short on zoom for taking pics of animals and whales and things. I'm debating getting something really big, like a sigma 50-500 or 150-600 and a monopod to be sure I have enough reach. I think I would also use the same lens for sports and car racing and birds at home, so it wouldn't be a 'one time use' kind of thing. Does anyone have any experience with some of these giant lenses? I figure I am not likely going to ever go to Alaska again, so I want to really capture a lot of photos.

FWIW, Other stuff I am planning to bring with me....

50mm Signa f 1.4 prime (small and fast, so no reason not to take it)
10-22mm f 4-5.6 Sigma wide angle (also small and pretty fast, and good for wide scenery stuff)
Canon 17-55mm f 2.8 (walking around lens)

and...a zoom lens to be determined. Either the existing 70-300 canon, or a giant lens.

I have another body that my daughter might use with the 70-300 if I get another zoom.

So, anyone use a big zoom like the ones I am talking about? Anyone ever been to Alaska and have any advice?

I know big primes are more in line with a professional's choice for this application, but they are really quite expensive, and I can't justify something like that for my skill level. I've been looking at the following....

Sigma 50-500 (around 1500)
Sigma 50-600 C series (brand new, but seems to go around 1K)
Sigma 150-500 (maybe 800)
Tamrom 150-600 (1K)
and the classic Canon 100-400 L (1500)
 
Last edited:
Tiltsta said:
I have a question for you guys. I'm going to Alaska (inside passage area) this summer on a cruise ship with my extended family. My parents wanted to get everyone together one more time, as none of use are getting any younger, and after my dad's medical scare this year they figured this year was as good a time as any. I know some of the lenses I will bring...but I'm a little worried my long zoom will not be long enough for wildlife up there. We will be doing some hiking and stuff on shore, not just hanging out on the ship.

The current zoom I have is a Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens. Sort of Canon's middle of the road zoom. Not the cheapest model, but far from their high end L zooms. I'm using it on a crop sensor EOS70D, so the actual focal length is a bit longer. It is a pretty nice lens, and I use it pretty regularly, so I am at least used to the way it behaves.

I'm worried, however, that this might be a bit short on zoom for taking pics of animals and wales and things. I'm debating getting something really big, like a sigma 50-500 or 150-600 and a monopod to be sure I have enough reach. I think I would also use the same lens for sports and car racing and birds at home, so it wouldn't be a 'one time use' kind of thing. Does anyone have any experience with some of these giant lenses? I figure I am not likely going to ever go to Alaska again, so I want to really capture a lot of photos.

FWIW, Other stuff I am planning to bring with me....

50mm Signa f 1.4 prime (small and fast, so no reason not to take it)
10-22mm f 4-5.6 Sigma wide angle (also small and pretty fast, and good for wide scenery stuff)
Canon 17-55mm f 2.8 (walking around lens)

and...a zoom lens to be determined. Either the existing 70-300 canon, or a giant lens.

I have another body that my daughter might use with the 70-300 if I get another zoom.

So, anyone use a big zoom like the ones I am talking about? Anyone ever been to Alaska and have any advice?

I know big primes are more in line with a professional's choice for this application, but they are really quite expensive, and I can't justify something like that for my skill level. I've been looking at the following....

Sigma 50-500 (around 1500)
Sigma 50-600 C series (brand new, but seems to go around 1K)
Sigma 150-500 (maybe 800)
Tamrom 150-600 (1K)
and the classic Canon 100-400 L (1500)
Click to expand...

I've been very curious about the Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3, so if you pull the trigger I'd love to hear what you think about it.

I know that Sigma makes a similar lens, but it's gone through different iterations and some are reviewed well while others are not. That said, I love my daily "walk around" lens — a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 and I have no issues with the build quality of their products.
 
Also, I'd be a little concerned about shooting without a tripod with a focal length that long, but maybe the image stabilization is just fine.
 
dmn23 said:
Also, I'd be a little concerned about shooting without a tripod with a focal length that long, but maybe the image stabilization is just fine.
Click to expand...

From the reviews I have seen for some of these lenses, the newest versions all have pretty solid image stabilization, so people seem so get decent pics handheld, even on the long end. Not sure if that would be true after a whole day of talking pictures. Also, I wonder how well that translates to a crop sensor camera, where these things are effectively like 800 mm. I figure I would use a collapsable monopod to stabilize stuff if I go this route.
 
Last edited:
I probably wouldn't bother with any of the lenses starting at 50mm. Conventional wisdom is the more zoom, the more compromises on other aspects. However, that might not be universally true. I don't know much about the Tamron vs. Sigmas in the long zooms, but I have heard more good things about the Sigmas in general.

150-500 or 600 would be a pretty sweet focal range for wildlife IMO.
 
Looks like the new Sigma 150-600 contemporary model is getting some good reviews, and most comments suggest it is better than the tamron of the same length. It seems to have optical quality quite close to the Sigma 150-600 sport, but it lacks the metal tube, weather sealing, and is of a different optical design internally. Of course, this makes is 1000 bucks cheaper and 2 pounds lighter. I don't care so much about the weather proofing or if it is made of plastic.

FWIW, the reviews I've seen so far suggest that the lens has lots of softness in the corners at 500-600mm lengths on full frame sensors, but these are reduced a lot on the APS-C crop frame camera (which makes sense, as the sensor never sees to edges of the lens where these issues originate). I think this kind of issue is common to just about every lens at the extreme focal length, and, honestly, I looked at some sample images highlighting the issues, and it was pretty impossible to notice with anything but one of those camera target calibration pictures. For wildlife, they looked fine to me.

I want to read a little more, but the new Sigma 150-600 seems like the front runner.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top