whosecameraisforpix

<p>Jos: I will be doing a short trek from Manali to Hampta pass, and drive from there to Leh, using this as a base to explore Ladakh on wheels. What trek are you doing?</p>

<p>Thanks Jos. <br>

I am also going to Pangong Tso lake, as well as Nubra valley and other attractions on the Manali-Leh highway. I am very tempted by the versatility that the 70-200 would offer for both nature as well as some tele opps for the vast terrain (esp low light sunrise and sunsets on distant peaks etc. Actually its the 400mm/f5.6 prime I was considering - its considerably lighter than the 70-200/2.8 and incredibly sharp with a super quick focus, but downsides re that its an f5.6 and is a non-IS lens. I am in complete agreement about being careful with backpack weight on a trek, but would like to opt for at least one telephoto - would not want to rue the opportunity if a snow leopard was sighted (wishful thinking, I know!!). I can make excellent arguments for and against both these excellent lenses, but hard to decide not having been there.<br>

On a personal note, India tends to be dusty and with so many lenses you have chosen make sure you have a safe method of changing lenses. I intend to keep the 17-40 on the 5D2 for the vast sweeping terrain, and the 24-105 on the 40D - i.e. no changing lenses. If I take a long lens, will plan to use it only if specifically needed.<br>

I think we can both learn from others who have been there and would like to share their experience. </p>

 

<p>Planning a trip to Ladakh Himalayas this summer. Given the vast landscapes, my primary gear will be the 5D2 with 17-40 and 24-105, with a 40D as a backup spare. Would appreciate advice regarding the third lens - 70-200mm/f2.8 IS or 400mm/5.6? Although there is a difference in weight, I will not be using this as a basis for making the choice, but more concerned about the appropriate long lens choice for the landscape. The trip will involve a 5 day trek and general driving around Ladakh using Leh as a base.<br>

Thanks very much,<br>

Sekhar</p>

Thank to all for your wonderful suggestions. We completed our trip to Utah last week, and I was able to capture some decent pictures. Have posted one already, and more soon.

From your original query and the later clarificaton about shooting kids, here is my two pennies worth:

 

1. A good camera: since the budget is a total of upto $2500, I would suggest the 40D. Price about $900 with the current ongoing rebate. The fast fps on this lens also is great for kids.

 

2. A good general purpose lens, and a good fast lens for kids. For the general purpose, I would recommend the 24-105mm IS (of course there are other lenses around, but this is MY suggestion), cost $1100. For the fast lens, the 50mm f1.4 does a good job ($330) for kids - if price were an issue a cheaper alternate is the 50mm f1.8 ($90). I have both and like the f1.4 a lot more.

 

3. The total tally is now up to $2330. The rest of the kit should include a spare battery ($40), and if you purchase before the end of this month SanDisk has a great rebate going on memory cards, and you can easily squeeze in two or more 4GB memory cards to complete your budget.

 

4. Future purchases can be made by your friend after trying out and playing around with the gift.

 

My suggestions are based on what I would have purchased based on this really generous budget. There are many good suggestions already made, but I think that this package gives your friend a good lens for kids, an excellent general purpose lens, a good camera and supplies to become trigger happy. Hope this has helped. Good luck.

Was in SF recently, and enjoyed my visit to your beautiful city. I tried to capture the

essence of this really beautiful city, and present the evidence in a folder titled 'San

Fran' in my portfolio. Thanks again for your very helpful input.

Michael - I know EXACTLY what you mean. I was in an indentical situation couple of years ago before a trip to the Canadian Rockies wanting the 24-105 and fighting the moral battle. Went round and round for weeks, and one day for no apparent reason really, took the plunge. Suffice to say not only was the lens FANTASTIC, but the pictures from the trip were really fabulous. That was my first brush with L'coholism. I would say that if you have money budgeted for it, go for it, and post some pictures here later. BTW I've been to Yellowstone several years ago (before the 24-105), and if I were to go again, this lens without question, will be part of my kit. Good luck!

Thanks friends for some excellent advice. I think the time has come to retire my tripod,

and will begin the search for a new one.

Looking for some advice - I will be making a trip to Utah in a couple of months, and

am looking forward to shooting in the slot canyons around Page. My current setup

includes a Rebel XT (which has worked well for me), 24-105mm f4, 50mm f1.4,

100mm f2.8 Macro and a 10-22mm wide angle lens. I have read though many

experiences and threads re photography in the slot canyon, and come away with

an impression that there is a very wide variation in lighting from the bright to the

dimly slot canyon canyons. So, my questions to those of you who have been

there are that, if I have to invest long-term in just one more thing to make this a trip

to remember, should it be:

 

1. A camera upgrade? New lens? (I have an old Velbon tripod, that works well for

me).

 

2. How do you assess my setup - is it sufficient? The 50 f1.4 is a new aquisition,

and I am playing with it - how will it perform in a slot canyon setting (I got it to

photograph my toddler and it works well there)?

 

3. Although I'm using the macro lens for macro alone, I've been playing with it as a

100mm and it produces some very sharp images - comments on using it in

outdoors photography?

 

4. Save it for the next model 5D hopefully out later this year?

 

Thanks for your suggestions.

Thanks all for your very helpful suggestions. Hope to post pix next month after my

visit.

Hi Friends! I will be making my first visit to the San Francisco area next month. Would appreciate

suggestions on:

1. Good vantage points for shooting the Golden gate

2. Any other suggestions on good shooting sites around the downtown SF area.

 

Thanks

Hi all - as a beginner find myself leaning toward b&w, and have a question. Am

reading about the use of filters to influence the shot. Now I have a Rebel xt, and

the camera has selections for filters in the B&W mode. Also I hear that there are

softwares that can allow one to manipulate an image with a filter effect. So, is it

advisable to actually buy a filter? If your advise is to purchase one, then (1) Why?

and (2) Can you also recommend a good company and the choice of filters for a

beginner? Thanks for your help

Based on reccomendations in this forum, I recently purchased a Canon 50mm prime

f/1.8 lens mostly for portrait photography of my little kids, and it is working

out well. My questions are to do with an appropriate 52mm protective filters.

1.Should I be using a UV or a plain filter for this lens?

2.My understanding is that UV filters produce better quality pictures in a

bright outdoors setting as they filter out UV rays. However, does the use of a

UV filter pose any limitations for dimly lit indoors photography (where I will

be shooting @1.8). Do any of you have recommendations for a good quality UV

filter, without breaking the bank?

3. If I should be using a plain filter instead of UV, reccos for a good quality

52mm plain filter will be welcome.

4. Finally, is it worth buying a more expensive filter for a lens that costs

only about $75 (the results are wonderful though!), ie where would YOU place

the balance between good pictures and better (more expensive?)filters in THIS

case.

Thanks.

That is a lot of very helpful information. Thanks to all of you for your helpful suggestions.

 

I have been shooting with the Canon EOS 500 film camera for a few years, but have been

using only the camera assisted portion of the shoot. Of late, I am trying to compose my

own pix, and trying to limit myself to the 'creative' side of the camera. Am learning a lot,

and still tons to learn, but at the same time, feeling good about 'my' pix.

 

I have been struggling with getting 'clean' shots with the 28-80, usually of my kids

indoors, in the evening/night time. I like the ambient lighting, and do not want to increase

the brightness too much. Also, I am trying to shoot black and white and keep it natural,

without the aid of flash, which digs me into a deeper hole. Tried maxing out the ISO to

1600, but get a lot of graininess, without addressing the problem of motion blur.

 

So, based on your suggestions, I am going to try out the Canon prime 50/1.8. I have not

used primes before, but the idea of playing around with a relatively inexpensive lens,

which has fairly decent reviews from professional and user sites, is appealing.

 

One question for those of you familiar with the 50/1.8 - how good do you find it for b/w

pictures?

 

And, any general suggestions or tips on how I can improve the quality of b/w photographs

of kids.

 

Thanks again to each one of you for taking the time to address my queries - your input is

much appreciated.

Hi all. I am an amateur just starting off and have a Rebel XT. Going by the comments posted in many

threads in this forum, the advice given are quite solid in most instances, and so I need your help. I am

trying to figure out the most optimal lens (on a budget of about $300) to shoot pictures of my small kids

in a low lighting (indoors) setting without using a flash and avoiding motion associated blurring. I

currently have an ancient 28-80 lens which causes a lot of blurring as the kids move, especially in the late

evening indoor setting. After reading through multiple articles on the net, I think that a lens with an f-stop

2.8 or lower with a faster shutter speed would do the trick - am I right, and any recommendations? Finally,

for any suggestions you may have, what would be the effective focal length for an XT with a 1.6 crop

factor? Thanks much