huntrbll

<p>I would look at the 16-35mm and 70-200mm f4 lenses, and a 50mm f1.8. Excellent quality, reasonable size, cover FX and DX in case you decide to upgrade in the future. The 70-200mm f2.8 is a great lens, but a bit of a beast. If you don't need the f2.8, save the money.</p>

<p>I upgraded lenses 2-3 years ago, and sold my 70-200 f2.8 to help buy the 70-200 f4, as well as the 16-35 and 24-120 f4 lenses. No regrets. For your info, I shoot with a D7100 and a D600.</p>

 

<p>Try again...</p><div></div>

<p>Bryce Canyon, D600......</p>

<p>I would take the 24 and 50mm primes, and the 80-400 zoom. If you are really into fisheye photography, take that as well. I would never consider a trip like this without a second body as backup. I would consider a DX body which, when combined with the 80-400, would be great for wildlife.</p>

<p>I shoot with both, a D7100 and a D600. I like to use the D600 for lower light and wide angle shots, the D7100 for wildlife and other telephoto work. Batteries are interchangeable, and the feel and controls are almost identical. I usually carry the f4 lenses....16-35, 24-120 and 70-200....and a 105 macro. This combination gives me an effective field of view of 16-300, and a backup camera body.</p>

 

<p>My suggestion is see if a local camera club offers a beginning photography course.....and if not, look for a couple good books on basic photography. There is no "best" aperture to shoot at a given time, it depends on the subject and what you are trying to convey. To do that effectively, you must learn the correlation among apertures, shutter speeds and ISO. Briefly, large apertures allow less depth of field and isolate subjects, faster shutter speeds freeze action better and higher ISOs allow you to shoot in lower light, but usually with a sacrifice in quality. Learn how these things work together and then you will control the camera and results.</p>

<p>Personally, I have had mixed results with third party lenses, so I tend to stick to Nikon now. IF you are never planning to go to FX, I would suggest a basic kit of the 12-24 DX, which I find optically good from 12 to about 18 and excellent above, and which also takes filters; the Nikon 24-120 F4 is a great walk around lens, constant aperture and I find very sharp. Some pooh-pooh the distortion, but I'm not into architecture so it is not that big a deal; the 70-200 F4 lens is as sharp as its f2.8 big brother and a joy to use. That would be my basic three lenses. If into macro, I would look at the 85mm DX lens. A friend has that and is quite pleased with it. I like the 105mm f2.8 macro....but that is a lot heavier. Throw in the prime that you think best suits your needs and perhaps a 1.4 extender, and you have a four, maybe five, lens outfit (if you really think you will need the longer reach, keep the 70-300 lens. Nice lens, but not as sharp, in my opinion, as the 70-200).</p>

<p>Lex, I just resized a previous image I posted on Facebook....makes this look a touch oversharpened here.....</p>

<p>This was taken this afternoon at my feeders....about 20-25 feet away......</p>

<div></div>

<p>I was photographing birds today with the Nikon 1 V1, lens converter and a 300mm f2.8 VR lens. Whenever the camera was on, it sounded like VR was engaged whether I was touching the shutter button or not. Never had this problem with other lenses. Any ideas as to what would cause this??</p>

<p>I have the older version of this lens, and it served me well in Africa. As many have noted, the older version of the lens is not the fastest focusing, but I have still been able to photograph eagles in flight with it. The new version is definitely on my wish list, and reviews I have read have been positive. Most of the African wildlife photos on this site were taken with my "old" 80-400. Good luck on your safari...... <a href="http://gwkeatoncom.fatcow.com/?p=114">http://gwkeatoncom.fatcow.com/?p=114</a></p>

 

<p>Personally, I would not take such a trip without a backup body. What is $200-300 for an extra body compared to an Alaska trip. I go about every other year, and yes there is Wal-Mart....but not all over Alaska and you don't specify where you are going. If nothing else, I would think about a used D200 as a backup and if you don't want a second body, sell it when you return.</p>

<p>I like the location, Lisa. The one criticism I wuld have is the light area in the lower right keeps drawing my eyes away from the rest of the photo. Maybe a couple of steps forward would have eliminated that? Keep up the work.....</p>

<p>Overlooked the fact you had a 16-85....sorry.......</p>

 

<p>The last time I was in Africa, 2007, my lenses included the 12-24, 18-70, 70-200 and 80-400 zooms. A lot of people discount the 80-400 because it is not the fastest focusing lens on the block. But, from my experience during three trips, the vast majority of your pictures will be static or slow moving subjects, and for that it is very versatile. I don't know if your safari will be strictly photographing wildlife, but I would suggest a lighter, moderate range zoom if you will be visiting any of the African villages, street markets or any other place exposed to cultural sites. I suspect you will need something to shoot people, and for that my 18-70 came in quite handy. The 12-24, honestly, didn't get used much. With two camera bodies - and a backup is a must - you could put an 18-xxx on one and the 80-400 on the other and those would serve most your needs. Thom Hogan's review of the 80-400 - <a href="http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm">http://www.bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm</a></p>

<p>I was fortunate enough to snag some Michael Freeman books - "The Photographer's eye," "The Photographer's Mind" and "The Complete Guide to Black and White Digital Photography." And thanks to Matthew Currie in the Classic Manual Cameras forum, an Olympus XA..........</p>

<p>Sent you an email.......thanks, Matthew!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>

 

<p>OK...I'll bite. I have been thinking of getting a couple small cameras to load with Tri-X to keep with me all the time for street photos. How much, and what do I need to do?</p>

 

<p>I would take a close look at the Nikon 35-70 f2.8. The 35mm would give a nice full length portrait, and at 70mm on a D7000 it would give the same field of view as a 105mm on a full frame body, excellent for head shots. Perhaps a little heavy, but it has good reviews for image quality and they can be had from the auction site for well within your budget.</p>

<p>I just picked up a mint Minox 35 EL, hoping to use it for street photography. I have read they often have shutter problems, and right now the shutter does not appear to be working on mine. I don't have a battery yet, however, and was reading the shutter is electro-magnetic. I assume, therefore, I shouldn't make any judgements on the camera until I have a proper battery installed? Thanks in advance for replies.......</p>

<p>Nikon D7000, with a D200 for backup (I think that is important).<br>

Nikon 12-24, 18-70 and 70-300....good to excellent image quality. For lower light situations, the 35mm DX f1.8, and for closeups a 60mm macro. If I want to make a step up in image quality I take a 70-200 f2.8 VR and a 300mm f4, but that is a lot more bulk. If wildlife is a possibility, I also take my 80-400 VR....slow to focus, sometimes, but decent image quality.<br>

An SB400 flash can do a lot with little weight and bulk...an SB600 can do a lot more.....</p>

<p>A Fuji GA645Zi.....think it would make a great street camera with the modest zoom and larger negs....something to carry around most of the time......</p>

<p>Ben,<br>

I used to live in Cody, one of the gateway towns to the park. Here are the differences I see in the times you propose....<br>

In June it is going to be a lot more crowded, but if you like photographing many of the waterfalls in the park the water should be at a reasonable level. You can't say the same for a fall trip. In the spring you get a chance to photograph wildlife with their young, though some of the animals may look a little scraggly just coming off winter, depending on how harsh a winter they get through. Photographing wildflowers is an option in the spring, depending on your timing.<br>

In the fall, if you are lucky enough to time it for the changing of the aspens, the park can be a beautiful place, less crowded and the wildlife is at its peak as far as looks and health. In the fall if the weather is cooler, the steam coming off some of the thermals can be more dramatic.<br>

I've never been there in the winter, so I can't comment. But it is on the bucket list......</p>

<p>If you are talking B&W, it is really a simple process. I would add a thermometer to Bob's list. The key is consistency. Consistent temperature, and a consistent agitation process. It can be a lot of fun.....good luck.....</p>