hector_andrade

<p>Ray, I followed the advices from here trying to upgrade from my 18-135. Altough money was not an issue, weight was. I went for the 17-50 none-VC and Im happy with it! I will take it to a mountain hike next weekend.</p>

<p>Done! I did exactly what Eric said in his last post. Looking forward for my trip on Sunday, and to get my bag of goodies... Thanks a lot to everybody!</p>

<p>Thank you very much for all the responses. I will order the Tamron 17-50 following your recommendations and taking advantage of the price at Photo4less for USD 380. I will buy a 77 mm polarizer (one in the thousands of different options) for my 11-16 with an adapter for the 17-50. This is my thrid shop following your recommendations, I really appreciate them. <br>

Cheers! <br>

Hector</p>

<p>Sorry, forget the "...., when it is compelitelly dark outside" from my previous post regarding the 70-300.</p>

<p>Uf...</p><div></div>

<p>One more try...</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you very much for the responses. I must admit that I partially have NAS, but this was brought by my trip to the US where prices are 30-40% lower than in Norway. The Tamaron 17-50 would serve me well for low light shooting inside houses during the winter pluss landscapes. My desire of something longer started once I was in a trip and saw a guy standing on the distance, as you can see in the picture below. This made me think that it might need a longer lens. If lucky one can find sometimes reindeers walking at the distance., when it is compelitelly dark outside. However, I don't like much to take candids (and get complains from my wife). Now I'm turning in favort of the 70-300 VC as Shun tested it here and gave very possitive reviews... </p>

<p>Dear photoneters, I hope you are doing fine. In one week, I will be travelling to the US and have planned to buy accessories for my new D7000 hoping to increase the quality of my landscape pictures. After emailing with Shun and Erick Arnold, I thought that I had made up my mind but a live chat with a store put questions in my head again.<br>

I was planning to upgrade my 18-135 that came with my D80 to something like the tamron 17-50 non vc for the main purpose of landscape photos as I have follow your discussions about kit lenses not living up to the expectations of higher pixels demand. However the guy from the store told me that I will profit more from a 70-300 VR instead as I shoot anyway in good light at F8. I have a 300 f4 (recommended by you here) and feel that maybe the 70-300 will be "repetitive". So I'm torn between buying a lens that is optical better with a shorter reach that maybe I wont notice quality differences, or a lens that could give me more reach in my trips (if I take the 300 f4 on my backpack, I will brake my back). I will buy a Hoya polarizer to go with the lens and have already purchased a gorillapod as a trip-tripod. You can see the kind of pictures that I want to take in this thread <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00U4lf">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00U4lf</a> (which made me decide on a tokina 11-16 back in 2009)<br>

Thanks a lot!<br>

Hector</p>

<p>This is indeed a very informative thread. Thanks for all that have been posting. I have been wondering about a camera that will allow me to take some shots when snorkling. I have a diving license but my ears are not so good, so cannot go so deep. After reading all of you here, I will go probably for the S90 or G11 and housing instead of buying the house for my D80. If at 10 feet I found out that still, more light is needed even in bright days, then will go for the strobes.</p>

<p>I had the same question some months ago. Based on the comments here, Peter Hamm's review, Photozone test (for Canon), etc. I decided to go for the Tokina 11-16, with first sharpness and then speed as the most important issues for me. I registered for the update mailing list from B&H and a week ago I got a message saying the lens was finally available. I bought it and now again is listed as "back-ordered", so lucky me. I was a bit afraid about the focus issues some people commented months ago, since the lens will come to Norway through a person I know (then avoiding customs which will make it 40% more expensive). I bought insurance so it can be replaced here if something goes wrong. Hope this helps to make up your mind. </p>

<p>Yes Hamish, it is Tromsdalstin. It is a pitty you did not get the view. I recommend Storeblåman for the next time you are here. The trip is shorter but more challenging. And bring your 10-24! </p>

<p>Thanks Rene for the encouragement! I'm at the office and here I cannot seem to be able to resize my picture for posting. This is my last attemt. Anyway, nice work guys.<br>

<strong>Rene</strong>, I think your effect is amazing.<br>

<strong>Jose</strong>, you really have an "eye" for moments.<br>

<strong>Dieter:</strong> Really beautifull landscape. Can I "borrow" your lens? they keep been out of stock!</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for your reply Dave! It took sometime for your pictures to appear but now there is no problem</p>

<p>Amazing shot Hamish! Lets hope to see Dave's soon. I also read photozone's review and was a turn off. I'm in between this lens or the Tokina 11-16 for the same kind of landscape photo. Dave, what do you think about sharpness compared to your Sigma? 10-20? Any thought about using ND filters?</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Hector</p>

<p>Thanks again guys, and Mark incredible pictures! Those taken in the snow resemble the landscape here in Tromsø. The problem is that my skiing is really bad... Dan, do you recommend the polarizer for my 18-135 or for another lens? I have read they are not so good with ultra wide angles. I was checking the gitzo prices and they are really high. The choices are so many! On the other hand the Kirk BH-3 head seems more affordable while useful for my 300 f4. By the way, the lower Manhattan picture in your website is truly amazing!</p>

<p>And yes Mark, I would have liked to see your pictures if you can post!</p>

<p>Thanks Oskar and Mark for your comments. The ultra wide comes to my mind specially in the first picture, where I wanted to show the hiking path, the view, but would have also liked to show the sky. I would try to do multiple focusing points to increase overall sharpness. I have never tried it!</p>

<p>Regards<br>

Hector</p>

<p>Thanks guys for your advices and photo comments. The article Akira recommended indeed is very good altough my hiking hasn't got that extreme. During the summer when I hike in Norway, light is not really a problem in good weather since the midnight sun stays up for about 2 months. My pictures above where taken between 19:00-21:45. It seems it becomes a question of lenses and again is the Tokina vs the Sigma... I was checking photozones review on the nikon 10-24 and altough it seems a good lense, the price is too high up compared to your recommendations. Guess I will wait to hear reviews of the new sigma that should be out soon... For 400 dollars I might as well get the older version or the tokina which is more sharpen (I have read).</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Hector</p>

<p>And the last one...</p><div></div>

<p>Another one same camera. I should have gotten less sky...</p><div></div>

<p>Hello Photoneters!<br>

As I have learned many things by reading the posts in this website, I wanted to ask for your expertise once more: I have started to enjoy walking up to scarp mountains around where I live, where the sights are amazing. I want to capture the views and have been thinking of an ultra wide angle for such purpose.<br>

The kit lens that came with my D80 is the 18-135 mm lens which sometimes I think is not wide enough. A while ago I was thinking of purchasing the Tokina 11-16 to go together with my 18-135 but after reading this <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00TodW">thread</a> I learned ultra wide lenses are not for ideal for "fitting everything in". Then I started to think about learning to shoot panoramas but I assume you need a tripod which can add very much weight, and/ or tilt lenses which are supposed to be very expensive. I have a Manfrotto 055xprob and by no means will I try to hike on a mountain with it on my back. What I'm trying to ask is, which lenses are you using/will recommend? And which tripod and backpack? I include some pictures so you can see the type of landscape I'm taking about. I think a zoom is better since sometime there is just not enough more space for an extra step.<br>

My current lineup is: nikon 18-135, 105 vr and 300 f4 (the last one recommended by you in another thread). My budget will be at around 1000 USD (but do not tell my wife...). The 300 f4 stays home unless I'm looking for birds. Weight is important!<br>

Many thanks<br>

Hector</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Susan, that was very kind of you. I'm about to open a thread to learn which equipment people are using to take landscape photos, so I can improve. Your bee is quite impressive! I really like the orange background.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

Hector</p>

<p>Hello guys<br>

I have been away from some Wednesdays now, but finally I'm back happy of sharing pictures with you. This one was taken at 21:30 on "Store blåman", a mountain near Tromsø, Norway at the other completele opposite to where Nick Doronin is . Hope you like it. By the way, good work everybody. My favorites are Jose Rivera's, Lil's and specially Aguinaldo's.</p>

<p>Hector</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks a lot Mary!</p>

<p>Guys, could you recommed a website where bean bags can be purchased? I have seen them only in pictures and have no idea of which one is a good one. Thanks</p>