Brian Murphy

One mighty fine and stunning capture. Great work and thanks for sharing.

34 minutes ago, tom_hamilton1 said:

Nice photo Brian! That looks like it would be worth walking around the truck and getting some detail shots.

Thank you, I just posted one from the other side.

Nice photo Brian! That looks like it would be worth walking around the truck and getting some detail shots.

Canon R5 adapter Tamron 15-30 2.8

 

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1408923[/ATTACH]

I don't know where this is but I can imagine myself either trying to photograph the area or in a row boat working the the weed bed edges for panfish.

Hello everyone,

I want to get an L bracket for my 6dmkii. Does anyone have any recommendations? I am going to get an Arca Swiss conversion kit for my ballhead to accommodate the bracket.

Happy New Year and Be safe.

Brian

[ATTACH=full]1361893[/ATTACH]

 

Autumn colors in Freehold

Beautiful, good eye Mick.

A question on FL is not very meaningful, unless you mention - what Camera Format?

 

If you are only using the APS-C format camera, which you mentioned a few months ago, then I expect that there are more than most "Landscape Photographers" who have access to wider than 24mm for use on an APS-C Format Camera.

 

Not that every "Landscape" shot needs wider than 24mm on APS-C: but if you only have APS-C I really do think that if "Landscape" is your passion, then sooner rather than later you'll come across a shot that screams out to you "W I D E R".

 

***

 

On "Full Frame" -

 

I do not consider myself a "Landscape Photographer" but I do carry a camera mostly everywhere I go, and (when permitted) I do like to get out to places - a 24 to 105/4L IS is my standard 'go everywhere lens' on a 5D Series Camera (aka Full Frame) and I use 24mm often -

 

 

 

and, for me, as a non landscape photographer, and who has a 16 to 35, I continued to see things which made me buy a 14mm (for use on Full Frame) -

 

and I think now, I want to buy, and to master, even wider.

 

***

UWA seems to be addictive to some people.

 

I've used 16mm for a long time, simply because I have had 16 to 35 for a long time, but the more I got fascinated with UWA for some types of landscapes, the more shots I began to see, simply fitted an UWA shot.

 

For me UWA Landscape stuff was a progression, a sideways progression and also a challenge, outside of my norm, which is Portraiture.

 

WW

Are these at 24mm?

Wide angle can be overdone, but I still love 'em. Don't forget that with many landscapes you can stitch both horizontally and vertically, giving you almost unlimited coverage on a budget of zero.

Another good point.

Landscape is not just wide angle. The tendency is to want to get it "all in the picture" but this can just make everything too 'teeny' to see. Ultra-wide lenses can just show lots of foreground - such as in the following 'classic' example, in addition to those already posted:

[ATTACH=full]1343888[/ATTACH]

Canon EOS 20D (APS-C format) at 10mm (~16mm full-frame equivalent).

 

I will confess, however, that I do like wide-angle lenses and my old Nikkor 20mm lens was always one of my favorites. Although not so extreme as a fascination with fish-eye lenses, UWA lens can be overdone.

 

For most purposes, 24mm on a 35mm-format, or 16~17mm on APS-C is wide enough, and -if shot carefully- will avoid the exaggeration of "too-wide".

Good point about landscape being more than just wide angle. I think wide angle is probably the first thing learners like me think about.

I don't currently use a lens wider than 24mm (FF equivalent), but my Canon 5D kit was a 17-40L, 50mm, and 70-200L (plus 1.4x), and I used the 17-40mm for most of my images. Just using a super WA lens to capture a wider view, without putting something interesting in the foreground, generally results in an uninteresting photo. If you find you are looking for a wider lens than 24mm, then of course indulge yourself. My experience with the 17-40L was good, but the extreme corners where not sharp at any aperture at 17mm. Lens was better in the extreme corners at around 19-20mm. Given my experience with that lens on a 12.8mp FF camera, I would probable go for the 16-35L F4 IS.

Thanks Ken, My 24-105F4L has heavy vignetting at 24mm and wide open. I am sure other lenses may have the same issue. That is one of my reasons for interest in a wider zoom..

Thanks for mentioning the 6DMkII.

 

I have found many uses for the 16mm to 35mm range: not necessarily for 'Landscapes'. If you also have an APS-C Camera, then, you might find as I have found, that a 16 to 35 zoom gets a lot of use, both on your 6Dii and the APS-C Format.

 

My view is any new lens purchase should accommodate its intended individual use - AND - fit in with logic to the existing lens cache, I am not that keen on duplication.

 

You've probably thought through the value, of IS against value of the extra stop of lens speed, for your intended purposes: I have the 16 to 35/2.8, but, when I bought it, there was no IS available at the Wide Angle/UWA, neither in Primes, nor Zooms. Over the last (approx) 20 years, since I/we cut over to Canon (and moved to Digital Format), I have come to appreciate that IS is usually always as useful often more useful than one extra stop of Lens Speed and this is especially so in Zooms because the (nowadays quality) Zoom, is such a flexible lens. And more so now because of the advances in quality, at High ISO speeds.

 

I have a friend (credited with wins and accolades in Landscape B&W Photography) who lives in the UK; he has had the 11 to 24/4L for a while now and he simply thinks it is the ants pants for what he does - and he does it very well. But is a big difference parting with (approx) USD $3000 compared to about $1000 for the 16 to 35/4L IS, I'd want to be sure that I'd get $2000 worth of value for money - OR - that I simply just had that extra cash as splashing about money, and I don't often splash. I mention that because it would 'fit' with your 24 to 105/4L IS nicely: but I guess you've already considered it?

 

Looking at your portfolio here, its Telephoto and animal centric: being so it's a bit difficult to give any views based upon what type of Landscape work floats your boat, but that stated, and without knowing the remainder of your existing Lens Cache - if any Photographer has in their kit nothing wider than 24mm, then as a general comment a 16 to 35 (or 17 to 40) will certainly add a new dimension to their work and their learning.

 

Good luck with your choice.

 

WW

Thank you for your feedback. Most of my shots have been of animals and mostly birds. I need to learn more about animal photography but I want to learn landscape as well. I am interested in the 16-35 F4 due to the price range and I have read{ watched youtube}that it is quite sharp. I definitely cannot afford the 3k for a lens.

Canon 90D Sigma 150-600 C

The Oriole is beautiful.

Here is a

for wildlife. I think it scares me. According to that reviewer DSLR shooting will stand on tiptoes and stretch to hopefully get a great shot with spray & pray, since AF seems to get pushed to its limits and works a bit better in live view. If working that way is your thing, maybe uprgrade. To me buying such a camera (for a 150-600!) seems a huge compromise or "relationship with planned emotional obsolescence", since it should be frustrating enough to keep us dreaming of a MILC with animal eye AF.

I'm wondering: Why do you need a crop body at all (or at least: "behind that long zoom")? The 6D II has the same AF module as the 80D, right? Your lens doesn't resolve much. Do you see an advantage when you use the T5i instead of cops from the 6DII? If that one is barely noticeable (while pixel peeping), I'd dig out a wide zoom for the T5i and keep my wallet shut.

The majority of a 90D's 32MP should be just data junk hogging up your PC (as long as they aren't needed for pixel binning during denoising. - IDK when you are shooting.)

You raised some good points especially with the file size. But this is why I ask opinions of people in the know. I do like the crop sensor reach. i had to giggle at the comment about standing on tiptoes to get a photo. Nope not me. Thanks for your input.

I am considering a camera upgrade from my Canon Rebel T5i, to a 7DMKII or 90D. Is there really a big difference in image quality from my rebel to the other two cameras? The autofocus on the T5i is not the best but I have survived with it. The other advantage with the other two cameras would be the frames per second. The lens I use most of the time is the Sigma 150-600C. My full frame camera is th 6dII and it serves my needs.

Please let me know what you think.

Please be safe during this corona crisis.

Brian

You can post illustrative photos anywhere. Best results will often come from posting in the Forum category your image fits - Nature, Street & doc, No words, Seeking Critique, etc. Some Forums have specific rules which you should review prior to posting.

Thank you, what about photo dimensions?

I have not posted photos in a long time. What size photos are allowed in forums and in the categories?

My memory fails me today.