Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 97
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Question A longer lens ...

    Well, after checking out the telescope idea ... I am seriously considering it.

    Name:  Celestron-8SE-numbered.jpg
Views: 112
Size:  135.3 KB


    I did the math, with the astrophotography aspect, a complete starter kit (optics and power) and a GPS alignment add-on, and it comes in right around $1550.

    That's a 2032mm f/10 lens! Some serious scoping out of that eagle.

    Take something like this ...
    Name:  _DSC3195-reduced.jpg
Views: 97
Size:  326.5 KB

    Get it more to around this size ... (simulation)
    Name:  _DSC3195-4x-rotate.jpg
Views: 105
Size:  333.7 KB

    Yeah, telescopes also flip everything on its head! LOL

    Without moving That is "monster-reach" over the 200-500mm. A lot more lens ... 31-lbs worth ... with tripod. It is still lighter than that 33-lb SIGMA 200-500mm f/2.8!

    Name:  sigma200500mm-big-001.jpg
Views: 108
Size:  16.5 KB
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-29-2009 at 06:24 AM.
    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. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    but the Sigma looks way sexier!
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    At $24,000 ... that's a lot of sex, Elisha
    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. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    602
    At $24,000, that's a new car. Or, lets see for that you could buy:


    Camera
    A900 body .................................................. ...... $2,700
    Spare A900 body ............................................... $2,700
    Sub-total .................................................. ....... $5,400

    High quality lens line up:
    16-35mm f/2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* ..$1,900
    24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* .............$1,600
    Sony AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM ................$1,800
    300mm f/2.8 APO G SSM Autofocus ....................... $6,300
    Sigma Telephoto 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO ............... $5,000
    Subtotal .................................................. .........$16,600

    Grand total .................................................. ......$22,000

    That leaves room a macro prime or two.
    Darin Wessel
    α 900
    Zooms: Tamron SP AF70-200mm f2.8 Di LD Macro; Sigma 28-90mm D macro, Konica-Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6
    Primes: Minolta 28mm f2.8; Sony 50mm f1.4
    Minolta RC-1000 remote commander

    Film:
    Calumet Cambo CC400 4x5 View Camera
    YashikaMat 6x6 TLR (other accessories)
    Minolta Maxxum 7000 w/ Minolta 35-80mm f/4-5.6 & Minolta 2800 flash
    Minolta Maxxum 5000i & Vivitar 728 AFM flash
    What's next???

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    That does it. I'm definitely not buying that Sigma.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Wink Giving your photography a serious lift ....

    Well, you would have to be an "Olympic Contender" to just lug it around by your self. It would be a terrific lens for indoor sports, but that camera is going nowhere, fast, on the back of that puppy.

    Anyway, the telescope can serve two roles ... a tremendous long distance lens for the camera and just an observational, somewhat portable look at the stars, planetoids ... and that incoming asteroid!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-30-2009 at 06:58 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

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Twisted focus ...

    Okay ... focusing in ... I am dismissing the powerful flash/bang and the new camera for the time being. Leaving the 85mm f/1.4, the fisheye (thinking about a MF 8mm f/3.5, not the AF 4.5mm f/2.8) and the telescope.

    Here is my leaning on this, so far ... the telescope package w/GPS ($1547) and the 8mm fisheye ($349) Lots of glass ... and some growth into areas I have NEVER been before! Add some excitement to this coming FALL.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-31-2009 at 10:53 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. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    $349 is a lot of loot just for a gimmick.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    I've had telescopes...pain in the butt...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Talking Moon Shot!

    Quote Originally Posted by SONYNUT View Post
    I've had telescopes...pain in the butt...
    Yeah, I know what you mean, considering what I have gone through in the past with my old tube telescope. But there is nothing MORE rewarding than to get it all set up for that flash-in-the-pan event (meteor storm or spacecraft blur). LOL Man, don't make me think about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peekayoh View Post
    $349 is a lot of loot just for a gimmick.
    As far as the 8mm f/3.5 goes, considering people are paying almost $1000 for the alternative fisheyes ...it seems to be an honest-to-jake bargain.

    I think you guys are just hung up on the camera body. And that is not a bad thing ... just something I'm not feeling all that pressured to have to get. It truly is a natural progression, just not very exciting, considering the substantial increase in overall cost (vertical grip {cheapest @ 'SONY Style' Hong Kong ($295)}, no trigger flash, and each image's file size) and that I have most of the focal lengths covered in glass, a couple novelty lenses are not really that much to take as a "walk on the wild side." As Sean noted: I have had the telescope on my "wish list" like forever. Too many opportunities come up where I am just fuming at not having one available to get those occasional 'celestial' shots.

    I also have flash units out the ying-yang ... so the Metz is just being redundant, at this point. I would definitely find some use for it, but it would not have the dramatic impact on my photography that other things might. Should I start doing any real work with this whole set up ... it will be a first purchase.

    The only alternative is the CZ 85mm f/1.4 ... and it is hard to turn my back on it. I did a focal length evaluation of my shots, recently, with a free software tool.

    Name:  lens-use.jpg
Views: 71
Size:  123.4 KB

    The analysis revealed that I am usually shooting in the 10-50mm range ... with a lot of long lens 200-500 stuff (mostly 500mm). That leaves the 70-200mm almost looking like a virtual desert. It is not like I do not own a 70-200mmm f/2.8 zoom ... it it rarely gets pulled for being just too long or too short. So ... where does that leave my use of an 85mm? (The 80mm stuff on this chart were 90mm MACRO shots I recently did in Wisconsin.) It is weird, but before I sold all my Canon stuff, the last two lenses I bought were the Canon EF 35mm f/2 and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. The 85mm f./1,8 was the first one I sold, barely used! So, the experience tells me that the 85mm is an expensive add on ... not a "base lens" for me. One of the most expensive I would own. I honestly believe the telescope would get more use!

    It is a personal reflection. I suppose if I shot more portrait stuff ... but, I don't. I shoot the moon!

    Name:  Moonshot-Red-Rocks-(crop2).jpg
Views: 68
Size:  418.9 KB
    Last edited by DonSchap; 08-01-2009 at 04:01 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
  •