bastian_bauwens1

November 3, 2010

Hi there,

I am going to head to the Southwest tomorrow and was planning on going to Zion some time in the next 2 weeks. Does anyone know how the fall colors are at the moment? Has anyone been out there?

Colors were pretty disappointing in Oregon this year, so I hope to have more luck in Zion at least.

Thanks and cheers,

Bastian

October 15, 2010

Hi all,

I know that it is impossible to predict the weather, but still, I need to ask for your opinion. :-) I would like to go to Yosemite in winter for a maximum of 10 days, and I will be flying in from Germany, so I cannot react just when a snowstorm has popped up.

I can do the trip between January 2 and February 17. So, if you were to travel to Yosemite to see the park covered in snow, which 10 days in that period would you pick? What time is the best time to *most likely* get some snow?

Looking forward to your suggestions and advice,

Bastian

September 18, 2010

Hi all,

First of all, I posted the same question in the general locations forum, but realized that there is also a Florida forum. So please accept my apologies if this is not in compliance with forum rules.

Well, I have two weeks in December for landscape photography that I can spend anywhere in the United States. I am thinking of Florida, as I've never been there - but I also know nothing about Florida. Can anyone give me an idea which locations to visit (the Keys and the Everglades are a must, of course). Or is December a bad time to go? Please note - I am not interested in wildlife - only scenic vistas etc.

Any suggestions for an itinerary are much appreciated.

Cheers,

Bastian

September 18, 2010

Hi all,

Currently on a long trip through the United States, I am going to have two weeks in December available for visiting another area in the United States for landscape photography. I will have already seen Oregon, Washington, Yellowstone/Grand Teton, Yosemite, Alaska, and the Southwest (mainly Utah and Arizona) by then.

So the question is: Where would you go? If you were in my shoes, where would you spend these days? I will have to be in Denver at the end, but flying somewhere (e.g., Florida) is not a problem.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Cheers,

Bastian

September 14, 2010

Hi Eric,

A bit harsh, I'd say - you can still go to locations that everyone knows (and that everyone goes to) and still get photos that might resemble a unique experience. The attached is from Crater Lake just yesterday morning. I was the only person up there for sunrise. So I think I can call the experience "special to me", but I still went to a location that is well known. Also, I don't agree that "unique" is an objective in its own.

In the end, I think it's the mixture that makes for a good trip. Just running around and taking snapshots isn't something I'd enjoy. I take my time for the places I go to (even if they are well known) to "experience" the atmosphere and wait for the right light. However, I admit that I get bored easily, so after five days of seeing forests, I just need something else. ;-) And I've just had enough waterfalls for now, so I just went to the Oregon coast for a few days.

As said above, memories to me don't necessarily get any better just because they are unique. I don't care what others experience in the same place. If I enjoy the place in which I am, then everything is good. I agree, however, that this means taking some time to explore.

Apart from that, to be honest, I don't think there's anything on this planet that is worth seeing that has not been photographed by someone else already.

Question to you: If you went to Europe for a trip, where would you go? Would you explore tiny towns in Bavaria that no one has ever heard of? Or would you go to London, Paris, Berlin, the Provence and Tuscany?

Cheers,

Bastian

PS: Oregon definitely is beautiful, by the way. :-)<div></div>

September 13, 2010

Hey Eric,

Good suggestion - being a visitor from Germany with limited time only, I must admit that I am trying to concentrate on the "well-known" locations still. The reason is simple - I won't be able to cover everything anyway, so I might as well try to see the most famous locations that I have known for some time and that I always wanted to see. If I lived here, the picture would be quite different, but as it is now, there are thousands of places to see, and I've "only" got 2 months. You need to prioritize somehow - unfortunately. ;-)

Cheers,

Bastian

September 10, 2010

Oh, one thing I forgot: How do I actually get to Hells Canyon? A scenic overlook would be nice, but it seems that it's hard to get there and that not all points are accessible in the same way, so any hint would be appreciated. I cannot seem to figure it out. :-)

Cheers,

Bastian

September 10, 2010

Hi all, Thanks for all the responses - I guess I've at least decided to spend the days here in Oregon. I was planning to do this in October originally, but I might just go down to the Southwest then. No problems in finding more spots to go to. :-) Guess I'll go for the following locations now: - Sahalie Falls / McKenzie Highway - Toketee Falls - Crater Lake (though I'll be back mid October, hoping for snow) - Parts of the coast - Lost Lake (on my way to the Tetons) - Hells Canyon (on my way to the Tetons) And on my way back to Seattle in October, I'll make sure to visit: - Portland Japanese Garden - Silver Falls State Park - Crater Lake Any comments welcome on the choices. By the way, I agree that there are more spectacular/well known places than central Oregon - the landscape here is beautiful, but it is not extraordinary or unique, such as Bryce Canyon, for instance. It still is very scenic, just does not have that "wow factor" that makes it easy even for unskilled photographers to get great shots. On the other hand, good lighting and a good photographer can make a great photo out of almost any location, and I am willing to try. For example, I managed to get a nice shot of Punch Bowl Falls - not a unique location, but extremely beautiful. Maybe that's a compromise everyone can agree to. :-) Thanks for all the help and cheers, Bastian<div>

00XG6g-279109584.jpg.f07aaf3d1420ef662d9c5c90b6ffe940.jpg

</div>

September 9, 2010

Hi all,

I am currently sitting in Redmond, OR, because a trip to Jasper/Banff in the Canadian Rockies has not materialized due to rainy weather up there (was hesitant to go just to see overcast skies). So I was wondering: Can you recommend any locations that I should check out for landscape photography, either here in Oregon or on the way to Grand Teton NP (will be going there in about ten days), e.g., in Idaho. A detour is ok, as long as it's not 1,000 miles. ;-)

I have already covered: Columbia River Gorge, Crater Lake, Proxy Falls, Painted Hills, Smith Rock.

Any tips for how to spend the next ten days are greatly appreciated. Especially if you have ideas for where to stop along the way to Jackson, WY - I am completely blank in that area.

Thanks and cheers,

Bastian

July 27, 2010

Thanks for the comments so far!

Does anyone have an idea where I can get an 82mm ND filter for 5 or 6 stops? The ones at B&H all seem to be sold out, and I don't have much time left till my trip starts.

Regarding all the other suggestions - yes, I am going to use the setup on a tripod, and I am probably going to use Lee 4x6 grad ND filters with a Cokin holder (the larger one, as the Lee holder is sold out, too) in addition to the ND filters. Luckily I am always wearing a Red Sox baseball cap when I am out shooting, so I am well equipped to fight flare. ;-)

Thanks and cheers,

Bastian

July 26, 2010

Hi Howard,

You're right, 1 stop does not make a lot of sense, I must admit.

So you're saying that you'd get rectangle ND filters? I've read in other threads that this is not recommended if you want to add a grad-ND filter on top. That's why I was thinking of going for round filters.

Cheers,

Bastian

July 26, 2010

Hi all,

I need to replace my Cokin ND filters and would like to get some advice on what to buy.

Camera and lenses I am using: Canon 5D Mark II, 16-35 f/2.8 II L, 24-105 f/4 L. Shooting RAW only.

Given that the two lenses have different diameters, I was thinking of getting 82mm filters and then using step-up rings in order to reduce costs a little (and my guess is that I will not be using the 24-30mm range on the 24-105 anyway, as the 16-35 seems to be better).

I also want the option to attach a Lee filter holder in the front in order to add an ND-Grad filter.

My considerations so far:

1. 82mm Singh-Ray Vari-ND filter standard mount

2. 82mm B+W ND filters (1, 2, 3 stops)

3. 82mm Hoya ND filters (1, 2, 3 stops)

My thoughts so far: The Vari-ND is nice, but I am afraid of vignetting due to the thickness, and it costs a lot. The Hoya filters are less expensive than the other options, so I am leaning towards those. But is the quality sufficient? Or does it make sense to invest in B+W

Some advice from people that have used the filters would be helpful. What equipment are you using, and what would you recommend?

Cheers,

Bastian

July 25, 2010

Hi all,

I had some real issues with the color accuracy of Cokin filters (white clouds became pink when grad ND and ND filters were stacked), and

that's why I'd like to get better filters.

I had a look at Singh-Ray and Lee - what I like about Lee is that they offer sets that make the grad ND filters less expensive.

What are your experiences with color accuracy? Are the Lee filters as good as the Singh-Ray filters? Any reason not to go for Lee? And

what are the benefits of Singh-Ray?

Any advice from your experience is greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Bastian

July 25, 2010

@ Dan South: I had a look at the Lee filter system and it does look good. One question though - how about color

accuracy? I have had serious issues with some Cokin filters (whites became pink), and that's why I wanted to move to

Singh-Ray. Are the Lee filters as accurate with color as the Singh-Ray filters? If so, the fact that they are cheaper (at

least if you buy sets) would be a definite asset.

Thanks and cheers,

Bastian

July 16, 2010

First, I truly apologize if anyone got the impression that I am not really interested in evaluating the quality of these lenses. This is not a game to me, but rather an important decision for which I don't have the adequate time to evaluate all aspects in practice by myself.

I think Robin Smith nailed it down - for now I will return the expensive primes and keep one of the zooms - probably the 17-40, as I'd like to use the Singh-Ray P filters with the lens. I can still upgrade to a better prime if I realize during my travel that I need a different lens. Paulo, I really appreciate the hint re. the filters.

I did apply distortion correction to these shots, by the way, as I'd do this normally, too. In the end, the software is part of the process, and if this gives one lens an advantage over another, I think that must be considered. I was also quite impressed by the results after the post processing, as the differences were a lot more significant before.

Also, @ Dan South: Sorry that I did not react to your photos with the TS-E, but I simply did not find the time in the last 2 days. I was lucky enough to catch an early flight yesterday to go out shooting with the lenses myself again. Nevertheless, the shots are nice, and the one that still makes me think I should return the Zeiss but maybe buy a TS-E in the near future is the one with the arch. Perspective correction seems really powerful in such situations. So, if you had an example of a landscape, I would appreciate this even more. I do understand the value of perspective correction for buildings, and I do understand it in principle for landscapes, but I'd like to see a real-world photo where this really made a difference with trees, mountains, or anything similar. Your help is truly appreciated - help me justify buying this lens, because otherwise I'll spend the money for a new bicycle. ;-) And regarding your comment about the wall being in focus - the hyperfocal distance was only 1.72m, and the wall was at least 3 meters away from me. So it would have been possible that the whole wall was in focus, right?

By the way, the solution is 1-D, 2-C, 3-A, 4-E, 5-B. I must say I am quite impressed that John A was able to see the difference in chromatic aberration in the shots. It seems others have a far better/more trained eye than I do.

I hope that I can soon finish the gear selection and then get ready for shooting. All the best and a good weekend to everyone!

Cheers,

Bastian

July 15, 2010

Hi all,

Thanks for all the valuable comments you provided me with. They really helped me think again about which lenses to keep. In order to make the decision, I went out today and took some shots with all the lenses. Back home I converted the images with DxO Optics Pro 6 (all with the same parameters) to TIFFs, imported them into Aperture, applied the same sharpening to all images and exported a 100% crop from the top-right corner as 100%-quality JPEG.

The lenses I used in the test were:

1. Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 II L @ 24mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/60s

2. Canon 17-40mm f/4 L @ 24mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/60s

3. Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS L @ 24mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/60s

4. Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 @ 21mm, f/11, ISO 100, 1/60s

5. Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 II L @ 24mm, f/11, no tilt/shift, ISO 100, 1/60s

Below are the 5 images - can you find out which image belongs to which lens? I'd like to know whether anyone can do it better than I could. If you want to participate, post something like 1-C, 2-A...

Cheers,

Bastian

A:

B:

C:

D:

E:

July 13, 2010

@ Philip Wilson: The filter argument might actually be a killer. I was thinking of upgrading from Cokin to Singh-Ray, and that means probably a few hundred dollars more costs when going for an 82mm lens. That would increase the cost of the 16-35, and that makes the 17-40 a lot more attractive.

@ John A: Great tip! Which online store would deliver to a hotel address? I know that B&H in New York does not do it, so if you can help. With regard to my previous equipment, I was using a D300 with lenses ranging from 12 to 200mm. However, I was mainly using my 17-55mm lens. I was not always satisfied with the quality, though, and that's why I am investigating "better" lenses.

@ Craig Dickson: Thanks for input, I guess I need to give the 17-40 another try.

I'll be returning from my business trip on Thursday and plan to test the lenses again. Based on all your feedback (and some other reviews I found online), I guess that my default option would now actually be to go with the 17-40 and send all the lenses mentioned originally back. If one of the primes or the 16-35 delivers superior results in my tests on Thursday even after post-processing, then I might add one of those to the collection, but only if I see a significant improvement. If not, I'll go with the less costly version given that in the end so many other things will define the final image quality. Also, I'll definitely buy a zoom for the wide end - I simply want the flexibility. The Zeiss and the TS-E seem to be great lenses, but if I cannot find an advantage the way I shoot, there's no reason to spend money. And if John points me towards a suitable online store, I can always make up my mind again while in the U.S.!

Thanks to all your help - it is greatly appreciated!

Cheers from Germany,

Bastian

July 13, 2010

@ G Dan Mitchell: Very good points! If all lenses are comparably sharp, then other points should be considered for the decision. Looking over the pictures I've taken in the past, I realize I never missed a tilt-shift lens, but I did like the opportunity to go really wide from time to time. That would be a good reason to get the zoom. Guess I will just have to return home from my business trip earlier, go out and test the lenses again before I return most of them.

@ Dan South: Fully agree with the benefit of slowing things down a little. That is actually one of the reasons why I am thinking of getting the TS-E 24mm. Do you, by any chance, have any samples available online that demonstrate the perspective correction in landscape images? I'd love to see by how much the perspective improves?

@ Ray: Good point - the only reason is that I want to "treat myself" as a reward for all the hard work in my day job. And I don't want to be on a "probably-once-in-a-lifetime" trip in a few weeks and then realize I don't have the right equipment. So I'd rather invest a little too much and realize later that I never needed the equipment.

Cheers,

Bastian

July 13, 2010

@ G Dan Mitchell: Good advice, thanks a lot!

Actually I am also considering the 17-40L, but I wanted to make it easier for the thread. ;-) Also, given that I would be willing to spend the additional money on the 16-35, I thought that I could as well get the benefit at larger apertures just in case I ever want to make use of it. I am pretty sure there might be times when even I need a larger aperture, be it only for portraits of my wife.

I ruled out the 24mm f/1.4 II because I have seen in tests that the TS-E 24mm seems to be sharper, and so I decided to narrow down the options. More options just make it harder to decide.

By the way, I have seen your website, and it's good to see that zooms do make decent pictures. ;-) Lovely shots over there. But why are you using the 70-200 f/4 without IS? Because of weight during hiking?

Cheers,

Bastian

July 13, 2010

@ Matthijs Claessen: Thanks, would love to do so. Only problem is that I am not a "regular" shooter. Instead I have 4 months of unpaid vacation coming up during which I can shoot all the time, but before there is not much time to try out the equipment (I live in Germany and do photography as a hobby only, but I shoot mainly in U.S. national parks). So I need to make a decision before the trip. Also, I've had a 12-24mm on my Nikon D300 before, which means I know what I'd miss.

July 13, 2010

@ Ray: With all due respect as well - that does not help a lot. ;-)

I do know the difference between primes and zooms. However, so far I have only been shooting with zooms, and given that I am currently switching brands and moving to full frame at the same time, I don't know the equipment that's out there. And given that I have a very demanding day job and photography is only an expensive hobby, I don't have the time to try all lenses extensively in the field. And I have a very long vacation coming up where I would like to have the right equipment with me. Thus, I am asking others for what they would do if they were in my shoes.

So while I know that a prime in general offers better image quality and less versatility than a zoom, the question to me is BY HOW MUCH image quality improves at the expense of versatility, and whether other photographers would prefer versatility over image quality if they were in my situation. If the zoom provides a satisfactory image quality when stopped down (especially after post-processing), there's no reason for a prime. And that's why I am asking.

Add to that the fact that the lenses are indeed expensive, and I guess you understand why I'm looking for advice.

So what would you choose? ;-)

Cheers,

Bastian

July 13, 2010

Hi all,

I have just bought a 5D Mark II (coming back from Nikon) with a 24-105mm f/4 IS L lens and would love to buy additional wide-angle lenses. I am torn between several primes or a really wide zoom.

I am looking at 3 lenses:

1) Zeiss Distagon ZE T* 21mm f/2.8

2) Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II

3) Canon EF16-35 1/2,8L II USM.

I want to buy no more than 2 of these lenses, but 1 lens or no lens would be ok if there is no good reason for getting one.

So let's do a poll - in my situation, which one would you be getting? Please note that this is for landscape photography only (mainly U.S. national parks in the west), so no need for large apertures. I'd like to print the images big (up to 30" x 45") from time to time, but mainly for personal use.

Any feedback is appreciated. Would love to get as many comments as possible, ideally based on experience with these lenses.

Cheers,

Bastian

June 2, 2010

Hey all,

Thanks for the incredible number of responses and the good advice! I wish I did not have a stressful day job, then I could

come here more often. ;-)

@ Peter: Will make sure not to miss a shot if I get the chance. I've heard this advice several times, so there seems to be

some truth to it. :-)

@ Jason: Denali State Park is just next to Denali National Park, is it not? Is the parking lot hard to find or is it just off the

highway/main park road? I'll definitely try the place out.

@ Dan, Jason: I have 6 days at Wonder Lake, so that gives me a chance of seeing the mountain of more than 90%. I

hope that will be enough. If not, I guess I'll have to come back. :-)

@ Bob: Thanks for in-depth advice. What I hear is that it might be worthwhile to spend more than just a short detour in

Denali State Park? Is it worth going there for 1 - 2 days? Also, is beginning of September the right time to be at Wonder

Lake? I understand that visibility of the mountain cannot be predicted, but falls colors should be great around that time,

right?

@ Ross: Would you suggest to go a little earlier (e.g., August 23) to have better weather or at least less variability? Will

also keep in mind all the shooting locations around Wonder Lake. In fact I plan on renting a bike, so getting around won't

be too difficult.

@ Mitch: Thanks, I'll check out the photos, it might be worthwhile to go there indeed.

@ All: How does the shuttle bus system in Denali actually work? I've seen that you can book trips for a certain time, but I

thought that you can get on and off the buses all the time anyhow? If I book a trip early morning, will I be able to stay in

the park the entire day and jump on other shuttles?

Thanks for all the advice - that really makes planning easier!

Cheers,

Bastian

May 24, 2010

Hi all,

I am planning to go to the Southwest USA (esp. Utah, Colorado, Arizona) in November/December. My current plan is to go there from Nov 4 till Dec 19. However, I am still a little unsure whether December is suitable for landscape photography.

So, what are your opinions? Is the Southwest any good for landscape photography in early to mid December? And if so, which locations/parks should I concentrate on? What are the things I need to keep in mind (snowstorms, road closures, etc.)?

Or should I rather enjoy a nice November and then head back to Germany?

Thanks in advance for any help,

Bastian

May 24, 2010

Greetings to all fellow photographers out there!

I am finally planning to go to Alaska this year as part of a 2-months trip through the western part of the US. The main purpose of the trip to Alaska is to get a shot of Denali and Wonder Lake. I'm mainly interested in landscape photography.

Here's my itinerary:

Aug 26: Fly in to Fairbanks, then drive to Denali NP

Aug 27 - 29: Stay at Savage River, shoot at the entrance of the park, take a shuttle bus to Eielson Visitor Center or another location in the park

Aug 30 - Sep 4: Stay at Wonder Lake, wait for the mountain to come out

Sep 5: Drive back to Anchorage and take the flight to Seattle

Some specific questions:

- Any recommendations re. what exactly to do during the first days in the park? What are the best locations to go to with the shuttle buses?

- Is the timing good for Mt. McKinley? Should I stay longer or come a little earlier/later?

- What can I do at Wonder Lake apart from waiting for the mountain to come out? And what are the best photo locations?

- I could maybe spend 2 more days in Alaska (the rest of the time I'll be in Washington, Oregon, Wyoming etc.) - are there any other must-see locations that I should not miss? E.g., what about the northern lights near Fairbanks? And how much time would it take to visit those locations?

- Any other tips, e.g., on clothing, things to bring, places to see, things to do?

Thanks a lot in advance for helping! I hope it's going to be a great trip.

Cheers,

Bastian

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by bastian_bauwens1