kerry_grim

Check Philip Greenspun's advice on his test of the XTi on photo.net

I agree with Nick's answer.

 

I do not mean to suggest that everyone needs to become a meteorologist to take good photos, but understanding clouds is also helpful. Or maybe I should say watching clouds is useful as there are many interesting cloud formations in addition to sky phenomena such as sundogs, Earth's shadows, etc...

 

As an example, many people at a scenic overlook will anticipate a fine sunset. But, if the sky is clear, and cloudless, likely the sunset will often be a dull photo. Under these conditions, it is best to turn around 180 degrees and you might observe a beautiful Earth's Shadow. Combine that with a moonrise in the Earth's shadow and you will have the opportunity for some awesome photos. That takes knowledge of sunrise and sunset times, the relation of when the moon rises to sunset (usually best the day before sunrise) and knowledge of where the moon will rise from since you need to set up prior to sunset and moon rise. There are many sunrise and sunset calculators on the internet. In addition, a GPS will also give that information.

 

I do not know where John lives, but, if in the Untitled States, there are two books called SKYWATCH EAST a weather guide, and SKYWATCH WEST a western weather guide...both by Richard A Keen and done very well. Although, there are many, many good books on the subject.

Are you sure the distortion you are seeing is not just curvature of the Earth? However, that is my speculation, not that I am saying it is fact. I would try photographing a subject that you know has true horizontal lines.

When I switched from Nikon to Canon, I first purchased a 70-200 2.8 L lens as my first consideration was high school sports (using an EOS-3 body). All along I intended on purchasing the 17-40 zoom, but after having one zoom (even though 100% pleased with it) I thought...one zoom was enough. As funds permitted, I purchased a 24, then a 35, then the 50 macro...all Canon. These would be my lenses for landscape and one consideration was I really prefer using the DOF scales on the lenses.

 

Had I purchased the 17-40, I am sure I would have been pleased with the lens. Had I gone the route of two zooms, then one 77mm polarizing filter would have fit both.

 

In John Shaw's books he states " not once have my lenses gone out and taken a photograph". And that is something to think about.

The circle around the sun as shown in Grayson's photo is NOT a rainbow. It is an ice halo. Again, check the Atomspheric Optics website.

I just checked the website I gave above and it has excellent examples that match your photo. According to the site, the extra bands are called supernumaries, created by small, almost same sized raindrops. Check the website further for a more technical explanation.

 

All nature photographers should find this site informative.

I don't have a specific answer, however the Atmospheric Optic website below has a lot regarding sky phenomena and may be worthwhile to check there.

 

 

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/

Vince, I am not sure how far away it is, but, you may want to consider Middle Creek Wildlife Management Area near Kleinfeltersville in Lebanon County. Although during hunting season, some of the roads are closed.

 

http://www.fieldtrip.com/pa/77331512.htm

 

Further to the south around the PA/MD border there are numerous wintering Bald Eagles around the Susquehanna River, particulary at Conowingo Reservoir. Google for details as I am not familiar with that area.

Charles, somewhere in this thread that went all sorts of directions, I think you said about taking one lens and one camera on an African Safari. Well, FWIT, I read in one of John Shaw's books where a person took just one long lens on an African trip of a lifetime. It was the 28-300 Canon L lens. Unfortunately, she dropped the lens, broke it, and was forced to use a wide angle the rest of the trip. Not very useful for photographing leopards and lions! So it would be good to have backup equipment. Easy for me to say since I am not buying it!

My wish list would include a 24 f2 L lens, and a 85 f2 L lens...fairly fast and sharp without the weight and bulk and high cost of the faster versions that few but professionals can afford. I know this will never happen!

Galen Rowell stated in one of his books that he could have used just the 24 and 85 lenses to do something like 90% of his photography. Although he later had used zoom lenses.

 

Not wanting to start a prime vs. zoom lenses, I think this is a near-perfect combination, without carrying a ton of lenses.

It need not be technical. Although, I suspect Raymond is interested in a good geographical location.

 

However, there are sunrise/set and moonrise/set calculators that give times for specific locations and even coordinate with altitude. Knowing the azimuth may also be helpful. Do a search. Many are available.

 

Recently, I tried a calculator which told of a moonrise time and azimuth. Knowing that information helped in find a good location PRIOR to the moonrise. I set the camera on a tripod, and the rise was exactly as stated...in short, I was prepared because of the program.

I can say that my son's Elan 7N is quieter than my EOS3. But, I use the camera outdoors only, so it does not bother me at all. It might, if I were a wedding photographer.

David: I suspect the grease just hardens. I can take the lens, use two hands and work it back and forth for awhile and it will be a lot better. But, in time it stiffens again. Near infinity it is not as bad. Since I use it more as a wide-angle normal lens (like John Shaw recommends in his books) as opposed to doing close-up photography, I decided I can live with that. The mechanical construction of those old AIS lenses is incredible and landscape photos taken with the 55 lens at say f16 or f22 using a tripod, still amazes me with the sharpness and contrast.

I own the 55 f2.8 AIS Nikkor and have to say it is amazingly sharp. My only problem with it was the grease stiffening up. Focus is extremely slow. Nikon�s estimate to fix it was $130.00 although I realize someone else could fix it much cheaper.

 

I never heard of oil-soaked aperture blades with this lens although this has been a problem with the 35 f2 lens. I have that one also, never knew of the problem until reading on this forum, and then, yes it did stick and ruined a bunch of photos. Well out of warranty, extremely sharp, and too light for a paper weight.

 

For reasons unrelated to these two lenses I switched to Canon and bought the corresponding Canon versions along with other Canon equipment.

 

I am not intending on starting a debate between the two companies. I still do own Nikon equipment.

I never would have believed Canon would have added IS to the 70-200 f4, but perhaps they do pay close attention to photo.net.

 

The fact that Canon did have an excellent range of lenses already in the 70-200 range was a major factor in my switching to Canon a year ago.

If you do not need the speed, consider the 50 2.5 macro. Usually overlooked for reasons I do not understand. It is priced mid-way between the expensive 1.4, but yet has focusing scales, unlike the 50 1.8. And, it is optically excellent with a flat field of focus, has a recessed lens which will ordinairly protect the lens and eliminate the need to attach a lens hood. With outdoor photography, there is seldom a need to use the fast and expensive 50 1.4 lens.

I think a 70-200 with a converter is the better choice. You do not say if the basketball will take place indoors or out. I took many high outdoor track and cross country photos during the last year and this choice (70-200 f2.8) was excellent. However, I am using a film body. I would love to additionally own a 300 f4 but it would not make a substitute for a zoom lens. Nor would I care to carry two bazookas around. Generally, I prefer primes; never would have positioned myself correctly if I were to use a prime lens in this situation. This range of zoom is so useful, that I have no desire to purchase a converter for it. Occasionally, I wished for more reach but not enough to justify the purchase cost. Almost always I was able to move around even during county and district meets, that I did not need a long reach.

 

I would consider how fast these zooms focus and if you can get close enough to the events, the extra reach may not be necessary. However, I do agree with others that the 100-400 would also work well. It would not work well with me since I use ISO 100 film and I am too bull-headed to use higher speed film. However, with digital, you should be able to set the ISO high enough to overcome the f5.6 stop of the 100-400.

 

You may also want to check Sports and Action under the Learn tab if you have not done so already.

Why not consider the 50 macro? It is mid-way in price between the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8. Old design but excellent in sharpness and recessed front lens, eliminating the need for a lens hood. The 60 macro is expensive and designed just for the digital bodies (with crop factor).

I do not necessarily agree that going digital is a faster way of learning. Using a film camera is more expensive but in theory this should slow a person down and compose and expose more cautiously. Using transparency film is essential since what you take is what you get. Using print film you are at the mercy of the developer.

 

Using digital, yes you do see the results immediately. But how well is your monitor calibrated to see them at the correct exposure on the

computer? I do wonder when blasting away at a subject with digital, do photographers really study and learn from their results? Or, are they more active editing out the bad photos?

 

So while I do think using a film camera with slide film is a slight advantage, it is ultimately up to the photographer as to how well he studies his results and leans from his mistakes.

 

I agree fully with the person who said "The most important part of the equation is you".

 

I would also recommend reading and thoroughly studying books on photography. They are many, but some of my favorites are by John Shaw. His books, while all somewhat similar are excellent.

 

As for lenses without spending a ton of money investing, perhaps a 24mm or 28mm wide angle prime would compliment the 50mm lens. Both are excellent. The 24 is my favorite, but more costly than the 28. I have no objections to zooms, but why buy one until you have experience with photography and which case you can make a better purchase decision. Then, you will still have a sharp prime lens (still useful for low light, and compact) as opposed to a so-so quality zooms lens should you purchase an expensive zoom lens.

Good photographers have good luck. Give yourslf the chance to get lucky by being ready all the time. I've tried to guess how the sky would be and it never works for me.

 

One thing I see a lot of people do is anticipate taking great sunset pictures on a perfectly clear eveing with high visibility. If ONLY, these people would rotate 180ﾰ they might see a beautiful Earth's Shadow.

Terence, somewhere in the tests of both the 700-200 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 (I am not sure of the IS) the actual long end was 190mm. Not enough to bother me, but may make a little difference with converters and crop factor combined. And I think a lot of lenses are like this. I recall the 200mm f 2.8 was a full 200mm in the tests.

I don't think it is all that much difference, but the 200 end of the 70-200 is actually 190mm.

 

190 x 1.4 = 266 x 1.6 = 425mm f5.6

 

190 x 2.0 = 380 x 1.6 = 608mm f8.0

 

Manual focus at f8 will be difficult.

 

Consider saving for a 300 f4 and a 1.4:

 

300 x 1.6 = 480mm f4 and optically excellent

 

300 x 1.4 = 420 x 1.6 = 672mm f5.6

Don't compete! Do photography to enjoy it. I took maybe just a few rolls of photos while my kids were growing up. Now, my son is 14 and he has a strong interest in photography and we are doing nature photography together. Compete only with yourself to do better and don't worry about others. It seems to me the most important thing regarding photography is to enjoy it. Thats the nice thing about photography...you can do it on the level you want to.

Get yourself a tiny LED flashlight and manually set the focus at infinity. Don't worry about depth of field. If DOF matters for the sharpness of a lightning photo, you have far more to worry about than photography!