mcgarity

Thank you Stuart. I just sent you an email detailing how to blend two bracketed exposures.

"Is a light meter necessary, or is the 9% spot metering on my EOS 10D okay?"

 

A light meter is not necessary. And I wouldn't worry about spot metering either. What I would do if I were you is use the histogram display on your camera to determine exposure. Thats the best way to insure you have the proper exposure.

 

"Are Neutral Density filters worth considering for the shot?"

 

Absolutely. Polarizers too. Or a combination of both with your lens stepped down to between f11 and f16. If you do that you slow down exposure time and that can give you motion in the clouds which can make for some very interesting images. See this image taken with a polarizer and a neutral density filter to see what I mean.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4024150

 

Graduated neutral density filters can be hard to use. A much better way is to bracket your shots and expose one for the sky and the other for the landscape. You can then blend them in photoshop quite easily. You can dramatically extend exposure latitude that way. Its very easy to do. I will be glad to provide you step by step instructions if you don't know how. Using a tripod is essential and you need to use the same aperture for both shots. Your camera has a in exposure bracketing capability which makes bracketing a very easy thing to do.

 

"What is the safest approach for framing a shot with the sun in it (sunrise or sunset), to protect both the camera and one's eyes?"

 

I don't do this and you you need to be extremely careful if you try. The only way I would shoot with the sun in the frame itself is if it were literally touching the horizon and I could look at it directly without going blind. And even then I would use stack a couple of neutral density filters on the camera. And as someone already pointed out that does raise the possiblity of flare.

There are some that say carbon fiber dampens vibration better than aluminum. I haven't found any problems with aluminum in that regard so for me personally its a non issue.

 

Carbon fiber is also lighter than aluminum. But in the case of the Explorer line the G-2227 is only six ounces lighter than the G-2220. I just can't bring myself to believe that small a weight differential means much. The day I can't carry an additional six ounces is the day I will give up photography.

 

Carbon fiber is easier on the fingers in cold weather than aluminum. But a little foam padding like you put over water pipes will solve that problem. Besides thats why they make gloves. I use the G-2220 at extremely cold temperatures and its not been an issue for me.

 

One other thing you might consider aluminum may be more durable than carbon fiber if you are rough on equipment. If you hit it just right carbon fiber can shatter on you. I don't know of anyone that has actually had that happen though.

 

In the end both the G2220 and G2227 are excellent pieces of equipment and either will do the job and do it well. Both will probably be still be going strong long after you aren't. I don't think there is any right or wrong choice.

I personally believe that the hood for the EF-S 10-22mm is about as close to useless as you can get. I own one and wish I had saved my money. I think Canon knows something we don't. Namely that hood is so puny it can't possibly shield the front of the lens. I almost always end up shading it as best I can with some other object.

The Kirk BH-1 would bust the budget. And it really would be overkill.

If price is no consideration the Canon is the best choice. Its a better lens, does not have compatibility issues, and if you ever decide to sell it will retain more of its value. The only negative is that its heavy.

As others have said the EF-S 17-85mm is a better choice for landscape than the 70-300mm. A couple of people also mentioned the EF-S 10-22mm. Thats a GREAT lens but its not a good choice for a beginner. It takes a good deal of effort and skill to compose at focal lengths between 10 and 17 mm. Until you have learned a bit about photography and the art of composition, you would probably be better served with the 17-85mm.

With regards to legsets, there are a ton of choices available to you. You are probably going to have to go with aluminum. If you want to stick within your budget you won't be able to buy carbon fiber and still get a decent ball head. Personally I think the Gitzo G-2220 Explorer is an excellent choice. I am delighted with mine. Its about the most flexible tripod on the market. Its load capacity is around 13 pounds or 6 kilograms and its runs around $200.

 

I will give the Kirk BH-3 ballhead a good recommendation. I don't know the exact price these days but a couple years back they were somewhere in the neighborhood of $250. It a very good head. I think it weighs around 20 ounces and has a load capacity of 11 pounds. I may be off a bit but not by much. In any event it will easily handle any or your equipment and then some. If you go that route you will probably want to pick up a quick release plate for your 70-200mm. I paid around $60 for one a plate to fit the EF 70-200mm f4L.

Kevin. Right you are. I did mispeak. Must be force of habit. I have been using step up rings for a quarter century but I have never had occasion to go the other way.

When you use a polarizer at the wide end you should be aware that the amount of polarization varies a substantial amount at different points in the sky. That variation will be very apparent on photos taken with a wide angle lens. And with an ultra wide and you can end up with some very odd looking skies

 

I don't have any personal experience with the Tokina. But I have been using a the Canon 10-22mm for some time. Ultra wide focal lengths require a lot of work to get effective compositions. But its more than worth the extra effort when you succeed.

Now all you need is a 72mm to 77mm step up ring.

Frank Uhlig

 

I agree with the points you make completely. Better equipment will not make a better photographer. That said I don't agree with telling the guy he is silly. Everyone is beginner at some point and it doesn't hurt to be polite to those that still are.

At 10mm the lens vignettes very badly with a Hoya circular polarizer and a Hoya neutral density filter stacked together. I suspect your proposed setup would do the same. If you zoom up into the middle of the focal range you can probably get away with it. But its unlikely to work well at the short end.

 

Polarization varies a great deal at across the sky. The wider the lens the more pronounced the effect will be. With an ultra wide focal length like 10mm that variation is going to show up big time and you can end up with color banding in the sky. It can be enough to ruin a photo. You can use a polarizer with wide angles but I think 10mm is just too wide for it to be practical.

There are a couple of very compelling reasons NOT to buy a slim filter unless you absolutely have to. Unless you are shooting ultra wide its probably not necessary. A couple of years ago I spent $110 buying a B&W 77mm slim UV filter and have been wishing I hadn't ever since.

 

For one thing slim filters are more expensive. (I never will understand why something that contains less in the way of material should cost more, but they do.) They also don't have a front thread. But the real irritant is you can't use your lens cap with a slim filter. Most slim filters come with a flimsy cap of their own but as caps go its likely to be pretty useless. The one B&W supplied is a flimsy construction and falls off at the slightly touch. Its a waste of time trying to use it.

"It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice."

 

Deng Xiaoping

All I can tell you is that I have been using the G2220 with a Kirk BH-3 ballhead for a couple of years to photograph wildlife and landscapes. I am more than happy with it and its construction. I am quite certain it will outlast me.

I have been using the EF-S 10-22mm since shortly after it was released in 2004. (And for the record I am a contributing member and I have posted images taken with this lens.) Even though its missing the red stripe, it uses the same materials and asperical elements that normally go into an L lens. What I know for certain is that it produces high quality images. I can't speak to the Sigma one way or another.

 

Someday the EF-S mount will be obsolete thats true. But you can say the same thing about FD lenses and you can still get respectable money for one on Ebay. I am sure the same will be true of EF-S lenses. In any event, by the time full frame bodies are available at a price I am willing to pay, the 10-22mm will long since have paid for itself and then some.

I have been using the Gitzo G2220 with a Kirk BH-3 ballhead for a couple of years and am more than satisfied with it. I disagree with the poster who says its cheaply made. I have bounced mine all over the Western United States and have found it to be quite robust. It is a very good legset and fits within your budget. The more expensive carbon fibre do not.

I own both the EF 70-200mm f4L and the EF 300mm f4L IS. If I had to choose just one, the 300mm would win hands down every time. Its practically welded to a EF 1.4 TC and stays mounted to my camera most of the time. The 70-200 is a good focal range but even with a TC its not a substitute for the 300mm and TC combo. If you are shooting wildlife you never have enough focal length.

Its dust on the sensor pure and simple. And I would bet money thats not the only speck on it. If you shoot wide open you might never see the dust on your sensor. But the smaller the aperture the smaller, darker, and more visible the speck will become. If you want to see just how dusty your sensor really is take a picture of a white wall or a blue sky at f22. You might be surprised at just how dirty it is.

 

If you are using a digital camera and change lens at all your sensor is going to collect dust. Thats pretty much assured no matter how careful or quick you try to be. Mr. Atkins used to have has an excellent essay on how to do clean a sensor. His is the only method I have found yet that works.

One of the major reasons people suggest you get the f2.8 is to be able to shoot wide open and blur out a background. Thats a big advantage when doing portraits that you won't get from bumping up the ISO. That said if I were you I would NOT buy the f2.8 model.

 

The f4L is just as good optically as the f2.8L version at about half the cost. If you go with the EF 70-200mm f4L, you save enough that you could buy the zoom, an EF 50 f1.8, an EF 85mm f1.8 and still be a few hundred dollars ahead when you done. Optically the primes are going to be better than either one of the zooms and offer even more of an advantage speed wise.

I can't speak to the quality of the EF 100-400mm as I have never used it. But I have heard good things about it. The people I have known that own it generally love it. The one drawback it has is softness at 400mm. Or so I am told.

 

I own and use the EF 300mm f4L IS. Its a hard act to beat. I think its around $1200. If you get it, you owe it to yourself to also pick up the EF 1.4TC for around $270. You get some serious reach on an XT with this pair while retaining excellent optical quality. For birds there is no such thing as too much reach.

 

The EF 70-200mm f4L is as good optically as the EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS. But it cost about a third as much. Last time I looked it was around $570. You probably get more bang for the buck with it than with any other L series lens. You certainly can't go wrong with it. It also retains excellent optical performance when paired with the EF 1.4 TC. I don't use mine a lot. But am very happy with it when I do.

 

For landscape and scenery the EF 17-40mm f4L has an excellent reputation. I don't this lens but from what I have read its a gem. I believe its around $700.

 

If you want real wide angle there is only one way to go and thats with the EF-S 10-22mm. Its will deliver the goods. It is L quality without the stripe. I know that personally I was blown away when I started using this lens. I quit worrying about the fact that it is an EF-S lens the first time I saw the results of an outing with it. I paid $799 in late 2004. I doubt its changed that much in price.

 

Macro advice I will leave to others because I use and prefer a manual focus micro Nikkor for macro aplications.

Film camera - EF 17-40 f4L

 

Digital camera - EF-S 10-22mm f3.5/4.5

You can order a Nikon to EOS adapter from Fotodiox for $27.95. I purchased this item from them and it works beautifully.

 

http://www.fotodiox.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=718

In the last 30 years I have owned a couple of Nikons but my primary system has always been Canon. At one point I had over 25 different pieces of FD glass. The quality of FD optics was and is top notch but there is no practical way to use most of them on a digital camera. Manual focus Nikkor lenses on the other hand can be ported over. That backwards compatibility is an advantage which preserves a major investment. If could go back 30 years I would have invested strickly in the Nikon system and I wouldn't be shooting Canon today.