georgms wrote:
Some pictures taken today:

urnfield for the poor on the communal cemetery - taken with the 16/3.5



This is a superb shot! The sunstar is AMAZING! I just picked up a Samyang 14mm 2.8, but I may change my mind.. I just don't know if a fish-eye will work for me as a main UWA landscape lens... hmmm..

Dustin Gent wrote:

This is a superb shot! The sunstar is AMAZING! I just picked up a Samyang 14mm 2.8, but I may change my mind.. I just don't know if a fish-eye will work for me as a main UWA landscape lens... hmmm..

it's always the lens you don't have you think you need

pburke wrote:
it's always the lens you don't have you think you need

So true, Peter!

georgms wrote:
pburke wrote:
it's always the lens you don't have you think you need

So true, Peter!


Ha! Always looking for that lens that I think I need . . .

On the other hand it's that kind of tinkering with my lens set that has led me to some fantastic lenses that otherwise I would not have tried if I was afraid of trying out something new.

John

Dustin, thank you.
Regarding the fisheye vs "conventional" UWA-lens - sometimes an image will look more natural when shot with a fisheye, in many cases a rectilinear lens is the one to grab.
The mighty and as a zoom unrivaled 14-24/2.8 was my go-to-lens for the last 4 years, but lately I've felt I would shoot every picture the same way when using the 14-24.
Time to re-discover the joys of using a quality fisheye-lens or to play more with stitched panos.
The 20/3.5 or 24/2.8 should make a nice companion to your 14mm. Both lenses are fairly compact and will take a Cokin-P "slim" filter holder (or an over-built wide-angle filter) without vignetting.
The 20/3.5 is known for it's nice way to deal with backlight - the 24/2.8 is more prone to flare.

georgms wrote:
John - awesome images from your back-country-trip! Love the snow textures and the very last shot - are the tracks yours? Amazing landscape you live in - I'm in awe.

Thanks Georg - No, those tracks on the distant road are not ours. We decided to stay on the side of the valley the road started out on - it was a long way around the valley and to that road. There were some snowboarders camped in the snow on our way in (looked cold and damp!) and we think it was theirs from the day before.

Down low there was no new snow and it was kind of icy, but up higher, as you can see in some of the images, there was a foot or two of fresh snow which was way nicer to ski on.

Don't know how long I have Nikki for, but hopefully I'll get back up in the mountains with her.

- John

John, I'm waiting for more fantastic mountain-shots with Nikki and the promised city-images too ;-)
A question: how do you carry the 16/3.5 and other really small lenses - I'm looking for a suitable small soft pouch.
The Op-Tech fold-over pouches are available in fairly small sizes - maybe they are worth a try.

georgms wrote:
John, I'm waiting for more fantastic mountain-shots with Nikki and the promised city-images too ;-)
A question: how do you carry the 16/3.5 and other really small lenses - I'm looking for a suitable small soft pouch.
The Op-Tech fold-over pouches are available in fairly small sizes - maybe they are worth a try.

I use the Op-Tech snoot boots - size depending on the lens size. I have many of the "mini" size for my small lenses.

http://optechusa.com/snoot-boot.html

These have the draw string, neoprene padding, and clip. This past weekend I put three lenses each in their own snoot boot into a very thin waterproof utility bag in my backpack.

Many times I clip the snoot boot with lens onto my backpack chest straps - one on each strap. This allows me to have access to 3 lenses - two in the snoot boots clipped to my straps and one on the camera. Usually 16/3.5, 50/1.8G, and 105/2.5 AIS or 90/3.5 CV are what I have in these snoot boots.
It can look a little funny - like I have hand grenades strapped to my chest, but it's practical. I did not do this for this weekend's ski trip as I am not the best skier and did not want to fall in the snow on my gear and get it all snowy and wet.

I also use the larger snoot boots for my 70-200/4 AFS and 400/5.6 ED AI (though the largest boot only covers 3/4 the length of this lens). I'm not a great fan of dedicated photo backpacks as they tend to be terrible backpacks, so I use a dedicated backpack and snoot boot clip-ons and/or store inside the backpack my lenses and camera.

I also have a LowePro #3 lens sleeve that is 10 years old or so - it's just big enough to enclose my 70-200/2.8 AFS or 80-200/2.8AFS, but alas, like many other of my favorite things, LowePro had to "improve" the design and no longer makes this model (the newer replacement sleeves are too bulky and not nearly as practical). I've been looking for these old LowePro sleeves on e-bay, etc. but have yet to find any.

John

Thanks, John!
It's much harder to find good pouches for tiny lenses than for large lenses today ;-(
I will give the snoot boots and maybe the new fold-over pouches a try.

georgms wrote:
Thanks, John!
It's much harder to find good pouches for tiny lenses than for large lenses today ;-(
I will give the snoot boots and maybe the new fold-over pouches a try.


Glad to help. I've seen those fold-over pouches, which seem great for storage inside something else, but they can't really be attached to anything else and keep the top from accidentally coming open, so they don't really work for me, but may for someone else.

I seem to be the king of run-on sentences . . .

jhinkey wrote:
georgms wrote:
Thanks, John!
It's much harder to find good pouches for tiny lenses than for large lenses today ;-(
I will give the snoot boots and maybe the new fold-over pouches a try.


Glad to help. I've seen those fold-over pouches, which seem great for storage inside something else, but they can't really be attached to anything else and keep the top from accidentally coming open, so they don't really work for me, but may for someone else.

I seem to be the king of run-on sentences . . .

Most camera-bags that will hold a fairly long lens like the 70-200/2.8 are pretty tall, so I have to staple small lenses.
Belt-attached pouches don't work for me - I'm way to slim for those belt-systems.
I'm not into hiking or similar activities (hats off to you!) and just need something to protect lenses in a camera-bag.
Thanks again for your help - and for pointing me to the fabulous 16/3.5!

georgms wrote:
jhinkey wrote:
georgms wrote:
Thanks, John!
It's much harder to find good pouches for tiny lenses than for large lenses today ;-(
I will give the snoot boots and maybe the new fold-over pouches a try.


Glad to help. I've seen those fold-over pouches, which seem great for storage inside something else, but they can't really be attached to anything else and keep the top from accidentally coming open, so they don't really work for me, but may for someone else.

I seem to be the king of run-on sentences . . .

Most camera-bags that will hold a fairly long lens like the 70-200/2.8 are pretty tall, so I have to staple small lenses.
Belt-attached pouches don't work for me - I'm way to slim for those belt-systems.
I'm not into hiking or similar activities (hats off to you!) and just need something to protect lenses in a camera-bag.
Thanks again for your help - and for pointing me to the fabulous 16/3.5!


You have done that 16/3.5 justice for sure. It is not an easy lens to use creatively, but you have shown us that it is capable of producing fantastic images in the right hands.

John

For those of you that have experience with the 28-45 4.5, how did you like the performance? Might pull the trigger on one in the next day or so..

MDoc9523 wrote:
For anyone (Reagan) considering the 300mm 4.5 EDIF, I can only say that I love mine. It is super sharp and light weight enough to shoot BIF. I went out today to keep in practice following my friendly fowls. The lens is definately worth the money to me



Beautiful Ray!

MDoc9523 wrote:
Tony your portraits are simply wonderful especially this one

In case anyone needs a 20 3.5

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1185302


Reagan

Lieutenant Z wrote:
and for the ladies here is the long-awaited Z's selfportrait (85HC again) :




Philippe, fine wine yes, but I did not know you liked fine cigars also. Nice self-portrait.
Scott

jhinkey wrote:
Nikki went back-country skiing this morning. The weather more than cooperated.

More to come.

John


Beautiful John. Nice work with Nikki.
Scott

georgms wrote:


cool fella - PC 85/2.8D on a D700



Very nice George.

We had a bit of a storm this past weekend. These were taken at the start of the storm. Thanks for looking.
Scott