Very nice photos, and congratulations on your new camera. You got the right lens for it, too
Thanks, Ray! But it does seem a shame that the many thousands of transparencies in file cabinets behind me have such diminished value these days. My NY agent and a lot of magazines I work with will no longer take 35mm slides or 6x7 or 6x17 transparencies. Too much expense and work to scan them I guess.
Thinking about the Canon 100-400, and/or a 500 f4. Over the decades I used my Canon FD 500 f4.5 a lot, much more than a beautiful FD 300 f2.8 I have gathering dust now as well, and I think I'd use the new digital 500 often, and even make some money with it. Expensive propositions, but I need them to compete in the commercial world. My last remaining teenager at home should maybe think of college scholarships!
Going back out in a bit to see if I can't find that adult owl again. Had her sitting atop a road sign right next to my truck earlier this morning when I had my Brittanys out running. I need to get a shot of her close up and sitting on a tree branch. Also hunting images of very young ruffed grouse. Always something to "hunt" for.
I would not mind having the EF 300 or 500mm L Right now I have the following:
Originally Posted by Jim McCann
-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (a very nice little lens)
-EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
-EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (perhaps my favorite lens along the next one)
-EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
Lenses I will be buying:
-Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for landscapes and such (I lost my Tokina 12-24 f/4 recently, with a Hoya CPL attached)
-EF 70-200 f/4L USM (no IS, and costs just a little over $600.00).
I have no idea where I left the Tokina behind, and since I need another super wide lens the Tokina above will be next purchase when B&H re-stocks its shelves. This version of lens for Canon is selling so much that also Adorama sold out. While it costs $599.00 at B&H, some shops in NY are asking from $649.00 to a little over $700.00!
The 70-200 above will be mostly for dog races around North Pole and Fairbanks, or just as an all around lens for wildlife close-by.
While the 400 prime is a real fast-focusing and sharp lens, the 200 prime does a better job at low light (early morning and evening). But with enough light (something we have plenty of during the summer), the 400 is just superb right there with the 200. If you look at some moose pictures (not the baby moose) I have posted in the past three or four days, I took those just at sundown on a cloudy day with the 200 prime. I also took a lot of photos of the same moose (an entire 4GB card) with the 400, but had to use 400 to 640 ISO to keep the shutter from 160 to 200 fps. Sometimes the 400 prime is too long for moose in the ponds by the roads, and I have to use the 200.
Instead of the 100-400, I prefer the two lenses above because most of the time these offer just a little more subject sharpness or crispness, and also because these don't cost as much. For example, the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM costs around $700.00 or a little bit less than that. The EF 400mm f/5.6L USM costs around $1,100. Add IS to these lenses, and their weight goes up as well as their price, so I just use a tripod when I have to (if using low shutter speeds).
One of these days when we have the time we will have to meet somewhere around Fairbanks. I will send a PM you way today or tomorrow (got to split some firewood right now)
In my photographic past, of all the FD lenses I have and used (95% L lenses with the 24 f1.4L my "normal" lens) I only owned one zoom, a Canon 35-105. The zoom went with me as sort of an emergency grab shot sort of deal. I published penty of photos taken with that lens, but I was the type of guy who had to see absolute sharpness, and mostly used my primes and "zoomed with my feet." One of my heavy Gitzo tripods stands behind me in my home office right now, and it shows the wear marks of being all over Alaska -the high Arctic down to lower Alaska Peninsula and everywhere in between - for many years; along rivers, high up in the mountains, you name it. I always used a tripod, but now'days it's everything hand held for most folks. I am doing the same, and I'm using mostly 400 ISO, which is all new ground for me.
One of my fine Brittany pointing dogs, Rusty, out for a run! The 70-200 f2.8 again.
Jim, you can transfer the transperancies yourself on to digital format, usin' yer new cam... no need to "scan" them...
Now that's news to me!
Thanks for the idea, but I don't think that method of scanning is going to provide me with digital images suitable for publication. I could buy a pro scanner at great expense, and the magazines and such that I deal with could (and some still do) go through the time, effort and expense of making good scans, but it doesn't seem to work that way.
When you have the time, check the Media Lab at UAF. They may have some real nice high resolution scanners.
Originally Posted by Jim McCann