Mustang Air to Air: The Sequel
/forum/topic/600984/3516

1       2       3              3516      
3517
       3518              4530       4531       end

stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4082
Country: United States

Leo Hursh wrote:
ELinder wrote:
Right, any recommendations for hotels in Ft.Worth for Fri-Sun?

I was afraid you'd say 24-70. I've been trying to avoid that obvious $ choice since getting the D4.

Erich


I'm sure you know this, but don't forget that the 17-55 is equivalent to 25-82 on a full frame.


Something doesn't sound right. I thought you couldn't mount an EF-S lens on an EF-mount body...?



cbrandt
Registered: Aug 03, 2006
Total Posts: 1486
Country: United States

WHOA Leo ......... aren't you thinking about the crop camera ....... ??

and .............. your gonna get that hood shadow ..... need to start at 26mm

but I could be wrong Below is a lens mismatch ....... I grabbed the wrong camera body

This is the 17-55mm on the D700 full frame ..







JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 19256
Country: United States

You can't have 51's without a Six Zim. And yes, that one has been at Lance, waiting for us.



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4082
Country: United States

Chris Luvara wrote:
stevez wrote:
Chris Luvara wrote:
A few Reno shots..



Wow, Chris! Looks like you took some great access and milked it for all it's worth. Which pylon were you standing at?




Thanks.

I was at Pylon 5. It's a lottery pylon and it's one of the normal spots so you have to take the opportunity when you're name is drawn. It has the best light of the whole course.

Chris


Sweet! Beautiful light and great results, Chris.



Leo Hursh
Registered: Jul 18, 2004
Total Posts: 1651
Country: United States

I should have worded it a bit better...

I believe that Erich is shooting Nikon gear and said he has the 17-55 mounted on a D7100. It would have a similar field of view to a 25-82 (35mm terms). While it might be preferable to shoot a 24-70 on the D4, he already has a similar focal range with his existing gear. That being said, if it was me, I would try to use the best gear I could afford for this type of shoot as I may only get one chance to do it.



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4775
Country: United States

stevez wrote:
Leo Hursh wrote:
ELinder wrote:
Right, any recommendations for hotels in Ft.Worth for Fri-Sun?

I was afraid you'd say 24-70. I've been trying to avoid that obvious $ choice since getting the D4.

Erich


I'm sure you know this, but don't forget that the 17-55 is equivalent to 25-82 on a full frame.


Something doesn't sound right. I thought you couldn't mount an EF-S lens on an EF-mount body...?


I won't confirm "can't" but I know you shouldn't. Mirror <---> Back Of Lens is a real possibility.



gerov
Registered: Nov 29, 2004
Total Posts: 9030
Country: United States

Unfortunately, I haven't been anywhere near an airfield lately, but I did catch this fellow on Saturday morning while my kids were competing in 1/2 mile and mile open water swims in the Chesapeake Bay. My favorite bird of the warm blooded variety



Leo Hursh
Registered: Jul 18, 2004
Total Posts: 1651
Country: United States

FlyingPhotog wrote:
stevez wrote:
Leo Hursh wrote:
ELinder wrote:
Right, any recommendations for hotels in Ft.Worth for Fri-Sun?

I was afraid you'd say 24-70. I've been trying to avoid that obvious $ choice since getting the D4.

Erich


I'm sure you know this, but don't forget that the 17-55 is equivalent to 25-82 on a full frame.


Something doesn't sound right. I thought you couldn't mount an EF-S lens on an EF-mount body...?


I won't confirm "can't" but I know you shouldn't. Mirror <---> Back Of Lens is a real possibility.


Uh, guys, EF-S and EF lenses are Canon mount. Erich is shooting Nikon, which "can" mount DX lenses on FX bodies. However, there is no real benefit to doing so.



Leo Hursh
Registered: Jul 18, 2004
Total Posts: 1651
Country: United States

Cracking shots on the last number of pages y'all!!!



Angry
Registered: Nov 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1216
Country: Australia

Go4Long wrote:
I sat there and deliberated, even maneuvered my schedule and budget so that I could justify going. I REALLY want to go...I'm just saddened by all the teams cancellations.

If the teams were still flying I definitely would have hit Abbotsford and Alliance this year (f-22 was supposed to be at Abbotsford), but the lineups and even the static displays at both shows rely so heavily on the US military that justifying the expense for me is tough.

I've heard some rumors circulating about some European content at some of the North American shows next season...that could make things interesting...



Sorry to hear you wont make it.
Looked forward to catching up.

I dont think next year is going to be an option for me.

Al



Angry
Registered: Nov 08, 2011
Total Posts: 1216
Country: Australia

JWilsonphoto wrote:
I don't know what that is in the foreground on the road, but I know what it would have been if I'd been flying that 51.......



And lots of it.....lol

Al



ELinder
Registered: Feb 14, 2010
Total Posts: 1070
Country: United States

Leo Hursh wrote:
I should have worded it a bit better...

I believe that Erich is shooting Nikon gear and said he has the 17-55 mounted on a D7100. It would have a similar field of view to a 25-82 (35mm terms). While it might be preferable to shoot a 24-70 on the D4, he already has a similar focal range with his existing gear. That being said, if it was me, I would try to use the best gear I could afford for this type of shoot as I may only get one chance to do it.


Leo, you've got it correct. The DX 17-55 on the D7100 is the focal length I'm looking for and is one of the sharpest lenses I own. My only hesitation is the lack of VR. As you say, this may be my only chance at this, so I want to use the best gear I can. If I mount the 70-200VR on the D7100 it gets too long I think at effective 105-300mm. Then I still need to find something for the wide end for the D4. The 24-70 would be plenty sharp, but again the lack of VR makes me wonder about it. I don't have the magic steady hands that so many around here have.

Erich



Go4Long
Registered: Sep 04, 2005
Total Posts: 2012
Country: Canada

stevez wrote:
I don't have any experience shooting the 400 f/2.8, either with or without the 1.4x; all I can tell you is that the 500 f/4 is a hell of a lens and that I don't recall seeing anyone using the 400 f/2.8 at an airshow. Maybe the front-weighted balance (big objective glass) is awkward for hand-holding?


Way to hurt my feelings Steve1
Mine was the Nikon, but it still counts.

The 400mm 2.8, regardless of manufacturer, is rediculously sharp, but as Steve1 mentioned it's a little awkward to handhold. I made it through the days of the few air shows I shot with it by resting it on my knee, or on the ground between passes...on full frame I still found myself looking for more reach as well.



Go4Long
Registered: Sep 04, 2005
Total Posts: 2012
Country: Canada

Leo Hursh wrote:
FlyingPhotog wrote:
stevez wrote:
Leo Hursh wrote:
ELinder wrote:
Right, any recommendations for hotels in Ft.Worth for Fri-Sun?

I was afraid you'd say 24-70. I've been trying to avoid that obvious $ choice since getting the D4.

Erich


I'm sure you know this, but don't forget that the 17-55 is equivalent to 25-82 on a full frame.


Something doesn't sound right. I thought you couldn't mount an EF-S lens on an EF-mount body...?


I won't confirm "can't" but I know you shouldn't. Mirror <---> Back Of Lens is a real possibility.


Uh, guys, EF-S and EF lenses are Canon mount. Erich is shooting Nikon, which "can" mount DX lenses on FX bodies. However, there is no real benefit to doing so.


There's a big disadvantage in fact. Most newer cameras will automatically enter crop mode when mounted to a crop lens (cutting your megapixels in half in most cases), and the ones that don't you will just end up with dark circles around the outside of the image.

But no, there is no physical reason why you CAN'T mount a crop lens on a full frame body.



alawadhi
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Total Posts: 418
Country: Bahrain

Go4Long wrote:
stevez wrote:
I don't have any experience shooting the 400 f/2.8, either with or without the 1.4x; all I can tell you is that the 500 f/4 is a hell of a lens and that I don't recall seeing anyone using the 400 f/2.8 at an airshow. Maybe the front-weighted balance (big objective glass) is awkward for hand-holding?


Way to hurt my feelings Steve1
Mine was the Nikon, but it still counts.

The 400mm 2.8, regardless of manufacturer, is rediculously sharp, but as Steve1 mentioned it's a little awkward to handhold. I made it through the days of the few air shows I shot with it by resting it on my knee, or on the ground between passes...on full frame I still found myself looking for more reach as well.


Thank you Steve and Go4Long...
I just made my mind based on the cost, either 500mm or a 100-400, what do you say?



dehowie
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Total Posts: 1234
Country: Australia

Hi level of skill to get a P-51 down on that dirt road in perfect order.
Great work..



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 19256
Country: United States

I've been on a pretty intensive quest for two Mustangs, a TF and a P51D. There are only 18 true TF models left in the world. Right at the moment, the only 51 I'm interested in is Double Trouble Too out in Virginia. This is the fulfillment of a life long dream, so I have no intention of rushing it. Lot's to consider, a lot to learn. Additionally, it's sobering to search through the serial numbers on the Warbird Registry, look deeper into the history of each of those aircraft from delivery to the military to the present day. One finds the words "crashed" and "fatality" repeatedly along side the names of owners with the same dream I have entertained, sobering, yes indeed.

There has never been a doubt that we'd put a Six back in the hangar at some point. Although, any Mustang pilot will tell you that the 51 makes a great trainer if you want to learn to fly a Texan, and not all of that is tongue in cheek. Chuck Gardner has been kind enough to allow me to buy him lunch next week, at which point I will wear him out with my quest for Mustang knowledge. Thanks in advance Chuck!



Tim Adams
Registered: Jan 01, 2004
Total Posts: 2887
Country: United States

Back in IL tonight. Here are a couple departure shots from early this morning, and a Mustang that stays hidden away in a hanger in Reno. It has not flown in many years, annual is supposedly done every year though.

And is BW also.



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4082
Country: United States

Leo Hursh wrote:
FlyingPhotog wrote:
stevez wrote:
Leo Hursh wrote:
ELinder wrote:
Right, any recommendations for hotels in Ft.Worth for Fri-Sun?

I was afraid you'd say 24-70. I've been trying to avoid that obvious $ choice since getting the D4.

Erich


I'm sure you know this, but don't forget that the 17-55 is equivalent to 25-82 on a full frame.


Something doesn't sound right. I thought you couldn't mount an EF-S lens on an EF-mount body...?


I won't confirm "can't" but I know you shouldn't. Mirror <---> Back Of Lens is a real possibility.


Uh, guys, EF-S and EF lenses are Canon mount. Erich is shooting Nikon, which "can" mount DX lenses on FX bodies. However, there is no real benefit to doing so.


Oh, geez, you're right. I've got one leg in the Nikon camp and another in the Canon camp and another in the Oly micro-4/3 camp, and it's got me so turned around I can barely tell my arse from my elbow, if you'll pardon the fine old phrase. That, and I had been thinking about Al's equipment questions over on the Canon side. Don't mind me, I'll just go and drool in the corner over there...



stevezzzz
Registered: Aug 01, 2010
Total Posts: 4082
Country: United States

Go4Long wrote:
stevez wrote:
I don't have any experience shooting the 400 f/2.8, either with or without the 1.4x; all I can tell you is that the 500 f/4 is a hell of a lens and that I don't recall seeing anyone using the 400 f/2.8 at an airshow. Maybe the front-weighted balance (big objective glass) is awkward for hand-holding?


Way to hurt my feelings Steve1
Mine was the Nikon, but it still counts.

The 400mm 2.8, regardless of manufacturer, is rediculously sharp, but as Steve1 mentioned it's a little awkward to handhold. I made it through the days of the few air shows I shot with it by resting it on my knee, or on the ground between passes...on full frame I still found myself looking for more reach as well.


Apologies, Steve2. You'll note that I'm still drooling in my corner, as penance.



1       2       3              3516      
3517
       3518              4530       4531       end