eric_t2

I'll be staying with family near Kalispell, MT from June 6-14 and

would like to do a 2-3 day backpacking trip in the park. Since its

early summer, I know Logan's Pass will be closed (I checked

conditions as of this posting), so a trip in the lower elevations of

the park might be advisable. Any suggestions (obviously with the

emphasis towards nature photog.)?

 

I've done day hiking in past years to places like Hidden Lake,

Avalanche Lake, but not much else.

 

Thanks!

On these lenses, how bad is vignetting? and do any of them have rotating ends?

 

I know the Minolta 24-105 is not rotating, how about the others?

 

It seem ridiculous that these lenses would be designed with vignetting built into them, so complaints of it seems like it has to come with putting on filters or probably too many filters. For the most part, I'll be using no more than 1 filter at a time. Later I plan on getting a graduate neutral density filter attaching it with either a Cokin holder or just gaffer tape.

I have a 7xi which I'm going to buy lenses for replacing the 35-80

kit lens. I want to cover the range from 24-300mm with at least 2

lenses. I do lanscapes, closeups (will get a true macro down the

road), and various other outdoor shots. My uses for the lenses aren't

completely limited to those applications, but primarily those. So

fast lenses aren't important to me. I do use filters such as a

polarizer and various black and white film filters.

 

Right now I'm looking to buy the lens covering the 24 mm + range

first. While I am willing to pay for a more expensive lens if it

means better optical qualilty, I do have a budget. I've been looking

at used lenses at KEH and B&H and reading reviews.

 

I was looking at the 24-105 mm and the 24-85 mm. Also, the Tamron 24-

135 mm looks good. But I've also been reading tonight good things of

the 24-50 mm. I'd like to avoid gaps in the focal lengths between 24

and 300, but if there is a better optical choice for the money that

doesn't compromise too much I'd be interested in it.

 

PS-my previous expereince is a Canon AE-1 with a 50mm, so I do know

the bang for the buck you can get out of the 50/1.8.

 

Thanks!

Thanks for everyone's replies. To answer previous questions, I'll be transferring this January for my upper division work. So it'll still be a few years til I'm working prefessionally. At this point it's hard to say where I'll be working professionally first, most likely a local newspaper.

 

I have no problem using manual for my personal photography, but I'd like some more features beyond what my AE-1 currently offers. Things like partial or spot metering, shutter speeds longer than 2 seconds. I know I can get these features in a Canon FD body like an FTb and others, but if I'm going to buy a new body and more lenses it seems to make sense to buy into a lens system that I would eventually use with a DSLR.

 

On the other hand, the lenses I'll be using now probably won't be what I want to use as a photojournalist. Also, in 2 or 3 years the DSLR system will evolve more to where I might make a different choice of the system to get, Nikon or Canon or maybe even something else. So locking myself into a system now doesn't make sense from that argument. And certainly buying used manual equipment would be cheaper.

 

Am I worrying about this too much???

I'm a college student at the moment, majoring in photojournalism. For

my personal interest right now I do black and white (processing and

printing at my school's darkroom) with my manual-focus Canon AE-1

with a 50mm 1.8.

 

First off for my personal use, I'd like to expand my lenses to

include wide angles like 24 or 28mm, and telephotos up to 300mm.

Certainly, I can buy more lenses to fit my camera now, but I realize

of course that as a photojournalist I would be using digital. So

buying lenses for a manual-focus camera seems like a waste of money

in a way, plus I'd like some more features that my current body

doesn't have.

 

As digital SLRs are out of my budget right now, I was thinking of

getting an auto-focus 35mm SLR. Would this be the best choice for me?

It would cost more than buying more manual lenses and even a

different manual body, but those auto-focus lenses could be used with

a future digital SLR. Is that a sensible way to go?

 

Thanks in advance.

Again, thanks everyone for their input and opinions, it is very much appreciated.

 

Backing up a bit, is getting a different Canon FD body really the best choice for me? Here's my current list of cameras/lenses:

 

Canon AE-1 body with: Canon 50mm f1.8, Vivitar 70-210mm, Sears 60-300mm (all in optically very good shape)

 

Minolta Maxxum 7xi body with: Minolta AF 35-80mm (both in near mint)

 

The type of photography I'm doing mostly is nature photography. I'm very much a beginner, so I have equal interest in both close-up and landscape photography. The main reason why I was thinking of a different Canon FD body is to use my existing lenses. Or would be getting additional lenses for the Minolta a better choice since its a current lens system, and my body does have some of the features I'm looking at (despite it not having DOF preview).

 

Guidance please???

Thanks for everyone's replies, I really appreciate the help. I'm guessing that the camera's mentioned don't have any major common problems or any annoying design issues that I might want to be aware of, right?

I'm looking at upgrading from my AE-1 to get some features I'm

missing, they are:

 

1) Depth of Field Preview

2) Spot Metering

3) Interchangable Focusing Screens

4) Mirror Lock-Up

5) Shutter speeds up to 30 seconds

 

Do any Canon FD cameras have all of these features? If not which ones

have the most of these features?