Photographers? Official

**Doc Holliday** · 17 Dec 2010, 02:08 PM

For what it's worth, I don't like adapters.

**ElCapichan** · 17 Dec 2010, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Josh

Yeah, I mean, if it's really there it is slight enough that 99% of the heads out there aren't ever going to notice.

Exactly. The lens is so amazing at 70-200 (something I can use for sports and bigger concerts, as well as closer wildlife), and then with the 2x (I'm going to wait for the 2x III) I get a 140-400 that should be near identical to the 100-400. At print size, it is almost impossible to tell a difference anyways.

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

For what it's worth, I don't like adapters.

I'd rather not use one, but the 300, 500, and 600 primes are just way too expensive for me even to consider right now. I wish I could just get the 500 and 1.4x (supposedly one of the best tele combos ever), but that is well over 6 grand. For way less than half that, I can get an amazing 70-200 and add a 2x to get a pretty damn good 140-400. Again, it all comes down to printing. You can find flaws looking at 100%, but if it doesn't show up during printing, then who cares? It may drop from a 2.8 to 5.6, but that is what the 100-400 is at 400 anyways.

**ElCapichan** · 18 Dec 2010, 07:58 PM

Just a few test shots from the zoo today with the 70-200/2x combo.

I love it. Being able to get away with handholding a 400mm lens and shooting as low as 1/60 of a second is just awesome. I'll admit, you are not going to get nearly as sharp as if you were using a monopod or tripod, but the handheld shots still look amazing, and it is just nice knowing that you have that option.

Will be using just the 70-200 by itself at a high school basketball game tonight and see how it works there. The zoom might be overkill there, so I may revert back to my 24-70, but I at least want to try the 70-200 at a sporting event. Oh, and the Predators ended up not practicing Thursday, but they are supposed to tomorrow. I am going to call beforehand, but if they are practicing, I plan on using the 70-200 there. Sadly, the glass looks like crap, but I believe there are a few areas I may be able to shoot through.

**ElCapichan** · 19 Dec 2010, 04:10 PM

My favorite image from last night, but sadly it is a little soft. I got some other really great shots as well (http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_un...7625632564264/). The 70-200 is a godsend for sports, and the 2.8 is great for those high school gym lights.

Click for full size

**Rhydant** · 30 Dec 2010, 10:40 PM

I don't like talking about photography, which is weird because I'm studying it. I think it's because I'm too over-critical and I'm affraid that I'll offend people. Is it ok if I do that here?

I took a trip to Las Vegas in October with one of my classes. I didn't feel like cruising around with everyone to get the same goddamn picture of the same goddamn sunset so I set off on my own. If you didn't know it, most of these could be from anywhere.

The monochromes were shot on Agfa Pan F-Plus 50, the few on the end (fence, lights, sunset reflection) are Kodak Ektar 100, the rest shot on a Nikon D40. Fire away.

**ElCapichan** · 01 Jan 2011, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Rhydant

I don't like talking about photography, which is weird because I'm studying it. I think it's because I'm too over-critical and I'm affraid that I'll offend people. Is it ok if I do that here?

Those are really nice. Great job on the B&W. I have a hard on for B&W right now.

Don't worry about being critical here. I'm sure you know, photography can be very subjective, and while there are certain rules to follow to make a good picture, there is also personal style and preference.

While i can get a little protective of my photos from critiquing, I have had a lot of photos I thought were perfect that I would go back and work on because of people's comments. A lot of this is because people aren't seeing the product from beginning to end, so when you work on a photo and think it is improved (and it probably is a big improvement from the beginning), other people are seeing it for the first time and can better see the room for improvements.

I will only be able to shoot some high school games and concert coming up here for the first couple of months of the year, but I plan on going to Palm Springs at the end of March for the Palm Springs Photo Festival. Probably sign up for a portfolio review and check out a few seminars, but the main attraction will be being so close to Joshua Tree. Last time I was there, I hadn't found my love of photography. Should be a great time to go there and get some great photos. I need to expand my landscape portfolio, particularly my B&W landscape.

EDIT: Finally got around to working on a few more Grand Canyon shots (only took me about a year). Let me know what you think. My own critiques would be I should have used a tripod (no excuse, but I was running around trying to beat the light). Let me know what you think.

**Dyne** · 02 Jan 2011, 12:34 AM

I don't have much to say other than they look like postcards. I think that bothers me.

**Josh** · 02 Jan 2011, 12:50 AM

You know how I feel about your processing... Good composition though!

**ElCapichan** · 02 Jan 2011, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dyne

I don't have much to say other than they look like postcards. I think that bothers me.

I was only able to spend some time around the main rim section. Wish I had more time to do some real hiking down into the canyon. Also all the trails were closed due to the snow. I need to go back during the summer.

Actually, that isn't such a bad thing. Actually a compliment.. While they may not be the one of a kind landscape shots I wish I could have gotten, they are sellable, especially for stock sites.