Tweet
May be in the wrong spot but I don't think it matters. A big Tamron would have been in order here. A wetland in QLD
-
Better a full bottle in front of me
than a full frontal lobotomy.
Hans -
G'day Hans
Yep mate ..... sometimes we all need a 50000mm Tammy to get a half-decent pic of those pesky birds hiding in the bull-rushes!!
On the other hand, one of the beauties of today's pretty decent zooms is the ability to go wide when it's needed to show others how nice the scenery actually is
In this case, you have done well
Phil__________________
> Motorhome travels outback eastern Australia much of each year
> recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/ -
Thanks Phil
Looks like we are the only two left at the moment
I am very tempted to sell the 70-200 and 100-400 and get the new RF100-500 lens. That would just give me the 24-105 and the 100-500 to cart about.
Another problem is finding interesting things when you see the picture on a large screen when it is too late to do anything about it.
Cheers HansBetter a full bottle in front of me
than a full frontal lobotomy.
HansComment
-
G'day Hans
...... or another possible option would be the 150 to 600 Siggy ??
For me - back in film camera days, after swapping and "upgrading" thru several brands, I had a similar kit ... 20mm prime + 28-105 + 100-300 + 1000mm prime + a rarely used 2x converter used mainly with the 100-300
I found that the 100-300 was my everyday 'go to' lens as most of my visuals were 'out-there' rather than up close needing a wider lens. I got sick of carting around 2- camera cases of stuff around and was happy to look for alternatives - but there were none back then
Early 2003 I started (again) to look into digital and discovered the fixed-lens superzooms - and as I could not afford a dSLR + new AF lenses, I went that way - firstly to a 35-450 job now the Panny cameras with their 24-600 Full-Frame equiv all in one ...... as GJ has also acquired. Sure- they have a small(er) sensor but the lens is superb, and on rare occasions if I swap from "L" mpx to "M" mpx I can stretch the lens out to 900mm FF equiv
Bottom line - I know where you're coming from with the "need for speed"
Keep smiling + posting pics and I'll try to do the same !!
Phil__________________
> Motorhome travels outback eastern Australia much of each year
> recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/Comment
-
I did some analytical analysis of my data a while back and had a script which indicated that my mean focal length was around the 50mm mark. I have a 50mm prime which I have used less than once a year and wouldn't be missed. I would miss the 2.8 70-200 because it is the fastest lens and I tend to throw it on in low light conditions. I have an F(?) 1.2 55 mm on an old Canon camera which I would use more if I could adapt it at a reasonable cost. But with the sensors and electronics improving all the time you don't miss a lot even in low light.
Endevour River Cooktown
Better a full bottle in front of me
than a full frontal lobotomy.
HansComment
-
Yeah matey - I know what you mean
In my box of old stuff I have an F1,2 x 50mm Super Takumar from my old Pentax days ~ I used to play with it on the Panny G2 with a suitable adapter - but as a fully manual lens after all the years of lovely auto this 'n that, it soon lost its flavour (and not on the bedpost overnight)
As I have mentioned in other posts, the Panny FZ300 has an F2,8 constant aperture lens right thru its entire 24mm to 600mm FFequiv range
I use it regularly at F2,8 in heaps of lo-light locations and it's great
Phil__________________
> Motorhome travels outback eastern Australia much of each year
> recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/Comment
-
You are quite right about needing a long lens for those shots Hans, but sometimes no matter what you have on hand it's not going to do the job. I agree with Phil that the Siggy 150-600 is a good choice, but on your full frame Canon it will not have the same reach that it has on my APC 7DII.Comment
-
I'm a bit late to the party here.
Looks like a great wetland area Hans, but the bigger the area, the further away the birds are, and as John said - no matter how big the lens, it often still isn't big enough.
Comment
Comment