Quote:

---

That image is for sale as wall art as is the 400mm 2.8 IS I that I shot it with if you are interested. Comes with original warranty cards (never filled out) big Nikon case, leather hood, Don Zeck lens cap.

---

Dare is ask the cost for the lens?

Id love it, but really cant use it at the range where I do most of my photography. It would have been great post Harvey for my photos at Easterwood.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

So besides the telephoto above, any thoughts for lenses for macro, wide angle, etc...that would be nice to have in the toolkit that my other two couldnt cover?

Thoughts and suggestions on a good tripod?

---

Read this tripod article by Thom Hogan. http://bythom.com/support.htm


I've bought 4-5 tripods at this point. I wish I shelled out for the good one initially. But crazy expensive.

Really, unless you want to do some long exposure or time lapse stuff, I don't think a tripod is that important.


Canon makes a really good 10-22mm wide angle for crop sensors.

Macro:

Good (crop only)

Good (no longer made, FF or crop)

Better

Best (and it is freaking amazing and also makes a good portrait lens)

---

So I have the 28-135 and a telephoto in my kit and looking to add either a wide angle or a macro lens next. I like to shoot landscapes and am leaning towards the wide angle, but it sounds like macro lenses have more than one trick up their sleeve while the wide angles are good for one thing only. Any thoughts?

Paging Guitarsoup

If you like landscapes, I'd go wide angle. Only having 28mm on the wide side means you're losing a lot of opportunities. And if you're on a crop sensor, then you're really in rough shape.

My one lens travel kit is full frame with 24-70. If I add a second lens, I go even wider and grab the 16-35.

Keep in mind that you can get some rough macro-like shots using your telephoto. You won't get the full magnification, but you'll get a decent amount along with some subject-background isolation. A macro lens would be an improvement on a capability you posses, a wide-angle is going to give you capabilities you lack.

Some macros are great for portraits.

I think you would get more use out of a wide angle.

Canon 10-22 for crop bodies is great

I actually have a used Canon 16-35mm 2.8L II for sale. There is a newer 16-35L III if you are really wanting to spend money.

Canon does have a 16-35 f4L that is supposed to be good, but you do lose the stop vs the 2.8.

A macro can be great, but likely a less used lens than a wide angle, especially if you aren't shooting details of flowers and bugs or something.

Canon's 100mm 2.8L IS Macro is one of the best lenses Canon makes. Great for portraits or macro work.

Canon's 100 2.8 -nonL macro is a great performer that can save you a couple hundred bucks, but I would get the L if you can swing it.

Canon's 60mm Macro is for crop bodies only.

Anyone have any opinions on good point-and-shoots? Would be just using it for travel and vacations mostly.

I have been looking into the Canon G9X II or the G7X II. There's also the Sony versions like the RX100 or RX100 II or RX100 III.

So I wasn't paying attention and the screw attaching my black rapid strap to my D600 come loose and my camera crashed to the ground. There is now a crack in the housing around the dial on the left side, the one that changes between auto, shutter priority etc. So is there somewhere I can send it to have it inspected for internal damage? I assume I can send it to Nikon but thought there might be somewhere in TX that could do it quicker.

Anyone heard of Arsenal, or have any thoughts on it?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2092430307/arsenal-the-intelligent-camera-assistant-0

AggieGunslinger said:

---

So I wasn't paying attention and the screw attaching my black rapid strap to my D600 come loose and my camera crashed to the ground. There is now a crack in the housing around the dial on the left side, the one that changes between auto, shutter priority etc. So is there somewhere I can send it to have it inspected for internal damage? I assume I can send it to Nikon but thought there might be somewhere in TX that could do it quicker.

---

You want/need to send to Nikon or a Nikon authorized repair center. Nothing local.

Can't you do all that through the camera apps?

10-4

Guitarsoup said:

---

Can't you do all that through the camera apps?

---

They got my attention with the whole building an HDR stack in seconds onto your camera thing. That seems like a pretty powerful workflow (admittedly not a HUGE HDR guy, but for challenging lighting situations, it does have some appeal).

The long / multiple exposure stuff sounds good too, though admittedly that's relatively easy to do through the camera.

I would rather just shoot bracketed and have the RAWs and use all the control in the world with Adobe or Capture One

Guitarsoup said:

---

I would rather just shoot bracketed and have the RAWs and use all the control in the world with Adobe or Capture One

---

Yeah I've never done HDR on my camera even though the 6d can do it because of this. Its literally 3-4 clicks in LR and it gives you a DNG.

Dear photography gods of Texags, please forgive me for asking about that.

I stand before you humbled and accepting that I should continue my photoshop / image stacking ways.

Updates to lightroom:

I'd like some advice on lenses. I have a D7000 and currently only have a nikkor 17-55 f2.8. I've always wanted the 70-200 f2.8 (probably vrii).

My needs: walking around the ranch (wildlife and landscapes), hunting (cupped ducks, landscapes, portraits), shooting dogs while hunting, and landscapes.

Would the best kit eventually be 12-24 f4, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8? Possibly add a TC if I need more reach later on?

I would look at the Nikon 200-500 f5.6. Won't be as great at night, but for daytime stuff, out on the ranch, I would bet you want more reach than the 70-200 more often than not.




Refurbished 200-500 through Amazon for $1200.


The 70-200 is a great all-around lens that has a ton of uses, so I recommend it to pretty much everyone. But with lots of wide open spaces, the more reach may be what you want.

Ignore that TCs exist. I've owned three and have never really been happy with any.

Thanks I actually had not considered the 200-500. Idk if it's fast enough for shooting light in the hunting I do though. It's definitely affordable. What are your thoughts on the other two lenses?

The 14-24mm 2.8 is fantastic in every way.

The 70-200 is a must have lens for most people.

200-500 will be tough before dawn/after dusk. But you lose light quick and getting 4x more light (like the 70-200 gives you) isn't going to let you shot but for another 30-60 minutes each day.

Let me preface this by saying that I am in no way a photographer at all, but I do enjoy taking pictures from time to time.

For those of you looking to buy lenses and aren't sure what you want take a look at LensRentals.com. I have rented a 70-200/2.8 from them about 3 times, enough to know it isn't what I want for nature shots, but it is perfect kids sporting events. Also, get the insurance, saved me boat loads when I cracked the lens housing.

Just my .02

AggieGunslinger said:

---

So I wasn't paying attention and the screw attaching my black rapid strap to my D600 come loose and my camera crashed to the ground. There is now a crack in the housing around the dial on the left side, the one that changes between auto, shutter priority etc. So is there somewhere I can send it to have it inspected for internal damage? I assume I can send it to Nikon but thought there might be somewhere in TX that could do it quicker.

---

I dropped my camera and lens also when a strap came loose. Luckily everything works and I only cracked my lens hood.

I purchased this tether so it would not happen again.

Thank you ma'am. It is ordered.

NM

Yeah I've rented from borrowlenses.com several times.

Guitarsoup said:

---

The 70-200 is a must have lens for most people.

---

the f/2.8E FL ED VR or f/2.8G ED VR II lens? I think the 2.8E is the newest version of the lens and is $700 more. Worth it?

reddog90 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

The 70-200 is a must have lens for most people.

---

the f/2.8E FL ED VR or f/2.8G ED VR II lens? I think the 2.8E is the newest version of the lens and is $700 more. Worth it?

---

I purchased the Tamron 70-200 2.8 have been extremely pleased.

reddog90 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

The 70-200 is a must have lens for most people.

---

the f/2.8E FL ED VR or f/2.8G ED VR II lens? I think the 2.8E is the newest version of the lens and is $700 more. Worth it?

---

I own the VR II and it is a great lens. I'll eventually upgrade, but it isn't a huge deal to me. The VR II is very sharp and focuses quickly.

dubi said:

---

I purchased the Tamron 700-200 2.8 have been extremely pleased.

---

700mm 2.8 and it reverses down to 200mm !

Oops.

70-200

I have question about photography in general...kind of a then vs. now.

Today, hundreds or thousands of pics are taken at a photo shoot (wedding, birth, etc) and then reviewed and edited via PS or similar program. How did this happen back before digital cameras? I'd imagine the photographer would have several rolls of 35mm film, but how did the cropping and editing take place? Is that the main reason that most pics you see from then were all portrait type pics (lighting and distance perfect) where today's are more "free form" and capturing the moment type stuff?

aTm2004 said:

---

I have question about photography in general...kind of a then vs. now.

Today, hundreds or thousands of pics are taken at a photo shoot (wedding, birth, etc) and then reviewed and edited via PS or similar program. How did this happen back before digital cameras? I'd imagine the photographer would have several rolls of 35mm film, but how did the cropping and editing take place? Is that the main reason that most pics you see from then were all portrait type pics (lighting and distance perfect) where today's are more "free form" and capturing the moment type stuff?

---

Photography was different,

At least for us in 1993 when we got married, our wedding photog used 6x6 Hasselblad, medium format,

He used different filters for softening effects,

That being said, I've spent hours messing around in the darkroom as recent as 5 years ago sniffing nasty chemicals developing and enlarging photos,

You can crop using an enlarger and change the exposure of the picture based on timing,

I'm sure more experienced photographers were able to manipulate the negatives and or airbrush photos,

Photographers back then understood the science behind photography more so than today, imo,

Cropped with an enlarger. You put the print down and the enlarger would expose it how you want. So you make it bigger, have it fit the 8x10 how you want and then expose the print and dodge/burn.

It was a very tedious, not fun process.


You definitely needed a lot of technical knowledge to be a photographer, especially when everything was manual.

Changing ISOs means changing your roll of film.

I can't imagine the amount of film I would waste trying to get one good shot.

I have an immense amount of respect for those of you who do it for a living, digital or film you still have to habe an eye for it.