tommi_syvanpera

Hi Thomas,

I've been there a couple of times myself, on June and September. April/May time there is most probably still a lot of snow there. The water level in the rivers is very high because of the melting snow(could be a good thing if you want to photograph water rapids or falls) so crossing rivers could be a problem.

The most beautiful spring/summer time in my opinion is around mid/end June. This is unfortunately also the beginning time of the mosquito season which lasts at least end of July.

If you want to photograph alpine plants mid June is the best time. Landscapes are pretty spectacular any time of the year but second or third week of September you might also get the colourful autumn foliage. The light in autumn is also very nice since you also get the sunset/rise dusk conditions. Temperatures in Semptember could go pretty low allready in the night (-10C), something you might want to consider if you plan to spend a night outside in a tent.

But as Jim said you'll get used to the bugs.

Good luck, Tommi

Hi,

I just bought a used Mamiya 645 Super with three lenses. All have a

Sekor C ... name. I saw some lenses in an online shop with Sekor

CN ... name. Can anyone tell me what the difference between these two

kinds of lenses are? do the CN lenses fit the old 645 super body? Is

there a difference in performance?

Thanks, Tommi

Thanks everybody for your answers. They have really helped me a lot. It is pretty difficult to make up your mind and gets worse the more you think about the differet qualities of the equipment. I think I'll go for the 28-135 IS for the following reasons:

1. Its lighter than 28-70/2.8L

2. The quality seems very good when stopped down.

3. The filter size is the same as the 135 mm I'm going to get.

4. IS capability allows me to take it along when travelling without a tripod.

5. I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom when photographing out in the wild.

6. I don't think distortion is a very big problem in nature landscape photography (most of the time anyway).

MF is something for me in the near future, but the nature of photography is completely different. It is another story. I don't think I would ever take MF equipment with me on a long hike in the wilderness.

Thanks, Tommi

Hi all,

There has been a lot of discussion about image quality and what is

enough. Some people say that the difference between EF 28-70/2.8 L

and EF 28-135 IS is noticeable. I'm trying to figure out which one to

purchase. My biggest concerns are image quality and weight. If the L

lens is clearly better the price of it is not a concern.

This lense would mainly be for landscape shots stopped down a bit

with a tripod. I like to make long hikes wiht my camera equipment so

the weight is also an issue. Although I probably could live with the

880 g if necessary.

When I say image quality I'm not actually yet sure what I mean since

I only want quality that is enough. For example to produce A3 prints.

There must be a line where the quality reaches a point after which a

human observer no longer sees the difference. For example a lens that

produces 500 lp/mm would clearly be 'too' sharp (or?). I guess my

question is whether the line goes between the two above mentioned

lenses or somewhere else.

If you take a look at photodo MTF graphs (I know some of you don't

like looking at them;) to me it actually seems that the 28-135 IS

performs better wide open than 28-70/2.8L also the other curves seem

pretty much similar, only at 28 mm it looks that the L lense performs

much better (except wide open). Am I missing something here? Isn't

speed what costs in the L lens (in addition to the L). Maybe I just

don't know how to read the graphs.

OK the curves at 135 don't seem so good but I am planning on getting

the EF 135/2L anyway. It just seems that the 28-135 IS would be a

pretty good lens for focal lengths 28-85 mm.

Thanks a lot for your input.