Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 148
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559

    Red face Summer Breeze ....

    Again, another trip to the zoo ... but that temperature just soared into the 90s. A great summer day for humans ... the animals ... take it on the chin!

    Name:  Lions-had-it.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  179.1 KB
    EXIF: TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
    @ 500mm - f/5.6 - 1/350 sec. - ISO-400 - M


    The polar bear, had his cool pool ...and something to snack on ...

    Name:  food-glorious-food.jpg
Views: 102
Size:  193.4 KB
    EXIF: TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
    @ 200mm - f/5.6 - 1/1000 sec. - ISO-400 - M



    And then I find out the Tiger has recently broken his lower left tooth. Man, that's gotta hurt. How does something like that happen, in a zoo?

    Name:  Tigers-tooth.jpg
Views: 109
Size:  253.2 KB
    EXIF: TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD
    @ 330mm - f/5.6 - 1/200 sec. - ISO-400 - M


    Taking a closer look at the tiger's skull ... that's a lot of tooth loss.

    Name:  Tiger-Skull.jpg
Views: 107
Size:  80.2 KB
    EXIF: 135mm - f/1.8 - ISO-100 - 1/1000 sec - Spot Focus - Spot Metering - M - Direct Sun
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-21-2008 at 05:29 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    these latest zoo pics with the giraffe, zebras, lion, and polar bear, are these all with the 200-500mm? they are very sharp! (although, not as sharp as those teeth!)
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559
    Yes, the 200-500mm at various lengths. I made the case for this lens a year ago, when I shot it against Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and found it amazingly similar ... for half the price!

    Anyway, I waited until this summer, when I knew I could use it ... to get one for the SONY. For the past year, since September, I have made due with the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5,6 which really is a good, lightweight nature lens. But, like I have said in the past, unlike many other 500mm lenses ... this baby puts the punch in.

    I have yet to see someone on here post a SIGMA 200-500mm f/2.8 shot. Where are these shots, already?

    But the way, every shot is handheld. I'll go back and toss in the EXIF specifics, for you.

    Here's is the one other shot that was a little overexposed ...

    Name:  Hippo-float.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  199.7 KB
    EXIF: 135mm - f/4 - ISO-400 - 1/250 sec - Spot Focus - Spot Metering - M - Direct Sun


    but, it was taken with the 135mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss, "the light gatherer", into the sun. There are some tough angles on these characters, sometimes. Last time: the darn thing submerged and that was the last time I saw him for over 15 minutes ... I just gave up. I figure if someone can hold their breath, for that long, to avoid the camera ... the heck with 'em! I'm rolling on.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-21-2008 at 05:46 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    I really appreciate taking the time putting in the EXIF info, just for me (but I'm sure someone else could use em). I really wish I could afford a lens like that right now. But 300mm will have to make do. I can't wait to go to the zoo now!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559
    Well, here's the Tiger's profile. It has a slight crop to it, to get rid of negative space, but I think it came out quite well.

    Name:  Tiger-profile.jpg
Views: 100
Size:  195.6 KB
    Original EXIF: 500mm - f/5.6 - 1/350 sec. - ISO-400 - SPot FOcus - SPot Metering - M

    The 300mm shot provides you the tiger laying around ... the 500mmm gets the profile shot. Sure, you can always crop ... but, the images do not get better, but noticeably worse, after a 20% crop, so be careful when you do it. Cropping should be a framing adjustment ... not a method to blow the image up.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-21-2008 at 06:22 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    yeah, most definitely to only frame, quality goes down way too much.

    I actually prefer the full body shot as opposed to the profile, but the more I look at the profile it just shows how awesome that tiger really is! that lens is just great!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559
    I tend to agree ... because w/o the 200-500mm, I just could not have gotten this close ... that is w/o joining Mr. Tigre' for lunch. Uh, no thanks.

    Honestly, at the zoo, shooting the outdoor exhibits, I found no need to remove the 200-500 from the camera. I was shooting stuff the surrounding crowd couldn't even dream of getting. Not that it was my purpose, but it was kind of amusing to have some mom lean over and say, "Just how close can you get with that?" ... and then, show her.

    Indoors, though ... the opportunities were better suited to the 90mm and the 135mm PRIMES. I really have no need for the 17-50mm, that I could fathom ... and the 10-20mm was pointless and not missed in the least.

    I may try the porpoise show, this coming week. The last time I went, I had only a 105mm maximum range with me ... and it was too short. So it will be a three-lens bag, next time. The rest can sit in the truck, waiting for their moment ... in the sun.

    For the moment, these three are the "Zoo lenses."

    90mm f/2.8 . . . . . 200-500mm f/5-6.3 . . . . . 135mm f/1.8

    Name:  Zoo-lenses.jpg
Views: 93
Size:  188.5 KB
    EXIF: A700 w/ SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6
    @ 15mm - f/8 - 1/60 sec - ISO-400 - Ext flash (Manual 1:1) - M


    I know you would think the Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 would be enough, but it is just not bright enough, indoors, without flash assistance. A lot of animals will not put up with that, after the first shot, hence the wider PRIMES. Oh sure, the 85mm f/1.4 might be a better choice than the 90mm f/2.8, but what the heck, I can MACRO butterfiles in the Butterfly display. So, maybe next year.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-21-2008 at 10:31 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    About how often did you change lenses on your zoo trip. For the health of the camera (and mainly my sanity to keep my paranoia at bay), I'd like to change it as few times as possible. But I think you did say one time you could probably make do with the 70-300mm. I agree that it's excellent for outdoors, not nearly as good indoors.

    Are you talking about the 90mm Tamron Macro prime lens? I'm thinking of that being my next lens. Although, I can't help but think of an 18-250mm (I believe that's the right model).

    For the fourth of july, I did a parade and 2 shows both with the 17-50. I was really close to one of the shows and to the parade so everything got framed nicely.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559
    In the zoo, the subject is pretty much limited in size and scope. A parade ... the scope widens quite a bit and gets considerably larger. The lensing is completely different. You are usually curbside, with a twenty-foot float only ten to twenty feet away. With the animals, they are (at the largest) about five to fifteen feet in size and usually thirty plus feet away ... or you had better hope so.

    It should always be kept in mind, though, that these lens lengths are multiplied with the APS-C sensor 1.5x ... therefore, that 500mm-shot of Mr. Tigre' was really a 750mm-shot on a Full Frame sensor. I may not have enough lens when the A900 shows up!

    Ah, what the heck ... it's all for fun, anyway.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-21-2008 at 10:29 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,559
    Looking over the wide-angle requirements of the Full Frame, I realized that to truly get a decent ultra-wide angle, rectilinear shot ... the 17-35mmm just is not going to hack it. Again, this lens has been discontinued by TAMRON for the SONY mount ... and the existing K-Ms are now few and far between.

    TAMRON, within the last three months, has also discontinued the SP AF 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical Rectilinear lens ... which many considered a pretty top drawer piece of glass. It renders a very distortion-free looking image and I figure that could be a boon on the upcoming full frame.

    I have spoken to some folks and there is buzz about SONY releasing a wide-angle of some type, in September, to fiill this obvious gap for the Full Frame DSLR, but like everything else in the world of their glass ... it is shrouded in mystery and seemingly $400 beyond the very similar item ... you could have purchased earlier (like three months ago).

    Well, I'm not waiting. Like I stated, when I started this thread, I found a SP AF 14mm f/2.8 and I have decided to purchase it. There's a good chance I can also get the current TAMRON rebate ($100) on the darn thing, too (That, at least, makes its purchase a little more palatable).

    EDIT: After checking with the "real time" ordering folks, this lens is "O-O-S" and they're not sure when they will have it. I told them to cancel it (because that's the kiss of death with discontinued TAMRON lenses ... if it isn't in stock when you order it ... it won't ever be.)
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-23-2008 at 02:13 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •