drjoder

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Should have said "First Light on Longs Peak, Colorado". Oops.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Hey Ray, I have that lens and I, too, debated about whether or not to get the f/2.8 version.</p> <p>I finally went with the f/4 for several reasons: 1) I don't do a lot of low light, hand-held photography--if it is low light, it's probably pre-dawn or sunrise on a landscape and I'm on the tripod, 2) I haul my stuff up mountains, so the size and weight was a huge factor (my D800 body and other lenses are heavy enough), 3) the quality was reputed to be good, 4) cost.</p> <p>All-in-all, I am quite happy with my decision--image quality has been excellent. I have a buddy who shoots Canon and I see him carrying around his 70-200 f/2.8 and I am always glad I don't have to schlepp that size of a brick around.</p> <p>BTW, I don't really think the f/4 needs a tripod collar. I have never used one and it sits just fine on my D800 on a Gitzo Mountaineer tripod/Arca Swiss ball head. Maybe someone else who has used one can chime in here.</p> <p>As for using the lens while traveling in urban areas and for street photography, my personal opinion is that it is too big. I am moving away from using DSLRs in the city at all (except maybe for static subjects, architecture, etc.). I have a Fuji X100s I like a lot and my wife uses a Sony RX100M2 she loves. I am now thinking the iPhone6 will be my street machine--especially for candids when you can't use a normal camera without tipping off your subject.</p> <p>Anyway, just my 2 cents--your needs will surely be different. Good luck! </p> <p> </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Don't know if it will help, but have you seen this? http://photographersindex.com/price-adv-calc.htm

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Anis, I agree with Doug. You'll likely be past prime time. Lower down, on the plains for example, you'll probably still find lots of color. You might try this website for more information: <a href="http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vf10&ns=1">http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vf10&ns=1</a></p> <p>Good luck!<br> DJ, Boulder, CO</p>

<p>And the AFTER...</p><div></div>

<p>Depending on your artistic vision, post-processing could be where 5-10% of the image is made...or it could be where 80-90% of the image is made. I'm probably at about 80% in camera, 20% post.<br> I tend to convert to B&W, so I also go through Google/Nik Silver Efex Pro as part of post-processing--after some minor adjustments to sharpening, contrast, shadows, clarity, vibrance, etc. in Adobe Camera Raw. Here is one example, BEFORE...</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Hey Jim,<br> Maria has that camera...Just take her with you under the water and have her snap the shutter! Just thought I'd say "hi"! Hopefully, see you at the Thursday meeting.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>