eivind_larsen

<p>I would not consider Flickr as part of the back-up solution. Depending on where you are, internet connection could be slow, very slow, or even non-existent. It will not be fun to try to upload (for example) 50 x 300kb photos through a slow connection in a hotel lobby or internet cafe in some remote place. Unless you plan on spending more time in front of your computer than being out seeing and shooting things. Uploading a few photos now and then to share with your friends is an entirely different matter.<br>

As suggested by several others, a more practical solution is to dump your images on DVDs and DHL them back home. Ideally your laptop has an internal DVD writer.</p>

<p>Lake Malawi is fantastic, the water is generally crystal clear unlike shallower lakes such as Lake Victoria. Be aware that there is some civil unrest in Malawi at the moment and it's advisable to not linger too much in the capital. If you are used to travel in Africa, this may not be a problem for you. You better check the situation a few days before arriving if you get nervous by roads blocked by burning car tires etc.<br>

Your trip sounds most excellent, wish it was me.</p>

<p>The best focal length will depend a lot on where you are going on safari and what animals you plan to shoot. Here in Uganda we can frequently get very close to animals and I find that my Sigma 150-500mm sometimes is too long. A 70-300mm is often ideal for large animals if you can get close. In East Africa, Rhinos are mostly in private parks where you can get very close. Hippos will often let you get very close as well. Elephants, Giraffes, Gorillas are so large that in my experience you don't really need long lenses, unless you want a close-up of their head only.<br>

In other words, if you are short of cash and find it difficult to justify taking a second mortgage for a 600mm f4, you will still be able to take great photos of large animals using the equipment you already have. You may struggle with birds though.<br>

I do realize that my statements above appears to contradict what many others (and probably more professional than myself) state that lenses should be "long, longer and longest".</p>

<p>Mary, instead of trying to find a US office for Precision Air or finding a US agent, why not call Precision Air directly in Tanzania? They do speak English. Please note that East Africa Time is GMT+3. However, as Marios points out, TIA, and rules and not really rules.<br>

Precision Air head office, Dar Es Salaam: Tel: +255-22-2860701 Mob: +255-748834800</p>

 

It's nice for flowers. Depends on the size of the subject - if the subject is 10-20cm wide, the working distance with the 105mm can become inconveniently long.

For landscape, your aperture would normally be more important than your shutter speed, unless you want to blur or make sharp some moving objects (leaves blowing in the wind, waves, running water etc.). Set the aperture that gives you the sharpness and depth of field you require, then set whatever shutterspeed that follows. That is, unless you need blurry or sharp movements are of importance. Low ISO will usually be preferrable to help maxiumum sharpness. Sorry to not be able to give you an exact answer.

There is a Nikon 12-24mm f4.0, which could complement your existing lens

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1224_4/index.htm

This also comes in a (cheaper) version by Tokina, also 12-24mm f4.0 (I have this lens and am very satisfied with it)

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4_nikon/index.htm

 

If you would like a zoom, there is not much available which is significantly sharper/better without also being more expensive. So your thoughts of a prime might be the solution. In that case, I guess the most important issue is to get the focal length that most suits your style. It's difficult for other to suggest whether 24mm or 28mm is the best. Just keep in mind the 1.5x focal length multiplier. Neither lens will be very wide on your D70.

There is no such thing as an all-purpose lens for everyone. Some people shoot closer, some shoot further away. Some like primes, some like zooms. An open question like that cannot possibly result in an accurate answer.

 

How do you mostly shoot your current lens? wide open? stopped down? at the wide or the long length? in the middle?

 

Do you want to continue shooting like you do, just with a sharper and "better" lens? or do you want to shoot subjects that you cannot shoot now?

 

That said, if you consider the 24 or 28mm, perhaps a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX would be a possible alternative. About same focal length as your current, but sharper, "better" and more expensive http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1755_28/index.htm

Alan, many thanks for the link to a brilliant thread that explained it very well

Hi CC,

 

If you miss 24mm and 28mm for landscapes, the 18-55 or 17-55 may not give you the full width you are looking for. Have you considered the 12-24mm? It gives you 18-36mm equivalent (35mm). There are also 3 similar lenses produced by Tokina, Sigma and Tamron if your budget does not allow the Nikon. Plenty of tests available on the internet.

These are with Tokina 12-24mm f4.0

http://www.photo.net/photo/6061001

http://www.photo.net/photo/6060996

I use a regular polarizer, though not at the widest focal length - the polarizing effect tends to be uneven across the wide area covered.

Nicolas, I don't believe this is an focussing issue.

If the lens focused too far or too close, since the bricks were shot at 45 degrees, the brick wall would be sharp somewhere else than intended (the centre / intended focus point). As we can see, the brick wall is unsharp even at the "sharpest" spot. This suggest that at even perfect focus, the lens is still unsharp.

I attempted to compare the sharpness of my Nikon 18-135 vs my Sigma 105mm f2.8

macro for close-ups using my D80.

 

It appears to me that the Sigma's 105mm provided longer focal length than my

Nikon 18-135 at its longest zoom.

 

I mounted the camera on a tripod with the 18-135 lens, zoomed out to the max

and focused at the closest distance (approx 40cm) on a piece of paper. I

marked the paper at the edges of what I could see in the viewfinder.

 

Changing the lens to the 105mm without moving the camera, I expected that I

would see a larger area, that I could capture an area outside of my marks.

 

The opposite was true - the 105mm captured a much smaller area than the 135mm,

in fact I needed to raise my camera significantly to be cover the originally

marked area.

 

Can anyone explain why this is so? Is the max focal length of the 18-135mm

reduced when focused very closely?

 

Next step is naturally to compare the lenses at infinity focus on an outdoor

target, hopefully I can see a smaller area of the subject at 135mm than the

105mm. I have not done this yet.

 

cheers

el

<div></div>

<div></div>

I am happy with my Sigma 105mm.

 

Reviews of these lenses here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

Owners' comments:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php

I have just returned from Angkor, at the beginning of the low season. The crowds that I could see were mostly concentrated at the three most popular places - angkor wat, bayon, ta phrom - which receive busloads of guided tourists. You will however not have any trouble finding serene places.

 

As for where to go, there are plenty of spots with huge treeroots growing on the ruins. Ta prohm is the most well known, but I suggest preah khan which has much fewer visitors.

 

Go a bit further away, e.g. bantey srei or bakong, and you will be almost alone.

 

The rainy season starts around May. There is a build-up of the monsoon, in the beginning it doesn't rain much at all, only a few short intense showers during the day. It was overcast most of the time, so not much of intense sunsets/rises. If you want clear skies, suggest you travel there during the dry season. As you're looking for next fall, perhaps November/December would be most suitable for you.

 

you can reach all the temples and ruins from siem reap.

 

The way to get around is to rent a tuk-tuk for the day (different from Thai style, this is more of a rickshaw attached to a scooter). Foreigners were now banned from driving scooters by themselves, but I got a driver for all day including petrol for $12 per day (which seemed to be the standard fare). Throw in another $3 if you want your driver to start work at 4am to make it for the sunrise. Entry fee to the park is $20 for 1 day, $40 for 3 days. I am not sure how much it cost for longer than that. You will be swamped by tuk-tuk drivers soliciting for business, you can arrange that as you arrive in siem reap.

 

There are hotels for all your budgets and needs. I was happy staying in Bopha Angkor (http://www.bopha-angkor.com) which had a colonial character and location that suited me. In the evenings, suggest you go out to eat/drink in the old French Quarter.

 

Not sure which country you live in, but since you read Washington Post, perhaps you are american. Air Asia (www.airasia.com) has cheap flights from Kuala Lumpur to Siem Reap. Unless you have a lot of time, be aware that roads in Cambodia are extemely poor. Except for the road from Phnom Penh to Siem Reap, they are all mud roads that are washed away when it rains. Even short distances takes ages. E.g. 6-9 hours from Poipet (border to Thailand) to Siem Reap, a distance of approx 170km.

 

Any practical issues, feel free to ask.

 

cheers

eivind

Not all animals need long lenses, especially elephants may come very close to your safari vehicle - somewhere around 50-100mm lens may be suitable for that.

Elephants, or other animals, doesn't suddenly appears out of the blue next to your vehicle though. You'll have plenty of time to change from a longer lens to a shorter as you get closer.

UR Galaxy Photo, Hong Kong. See ebay.

Lester, I have the Sigma 105mm Macro EX, the build quality is excellent. Assuming the 50mm is similarly built, I don't think you will be disappointed.

 

Review here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_50_28/index.htm

 

If the set-up is to be used by non-photographers who are not interested in the technical aspect, I think it will be more successful to have a lens that allows the camera to run on automatic exposure (such as this Sigma). Only you can consider the expected users - will they really want to use a grey card and light meters?

I was at Siem Reap 5 years ago and there were very few tourists there. I'm going back in May this year, things seems to have changed a lot since then. Even with increased tourism, there are so many temples scattered in the jungle that unless you come there specifically for Angkor Wat, you will easily find places for yourself. Suggest to buy a detailed map of the area, rent a motobike (with driver) for the whole day, and tell him exactly where you want to go.