DeltaSigma wrote: fjablo wroteZ7 with the DX 55-200 VR ii. Debating whether I should invest in a 24-200 for hiking... the 55-200 is actually very good, but having FX and even more flexibility would be nice sometimes..
Chris Dees (from MFNG forum) uses a 24-200. He seems to like it for travel.
Where were these taken?
Colin
Thanks for the hint Colin. Many seem happy with it and reviews are also "solid". I'm just skeptical after my experience with the Fuji 16-80mm f4 - many are happy with that lens too, but I just hated it...
The pictures were taken near Spitzingsee. Typical weekend hiking area for people living in and around Munich
fjablo wrote: DeltaSigma wrotefjablo wroteZ7 with the DX 55-200 VR ii. Debating whether I should invest in a 24-200 for hiking... the 55-200 is actually very good, but having FX and even more flexibility would be nice sometimes..
Chris Dees (from MFNG forum) uses a 24-200. He seems to like it for travel.
Where were these taken?
ColinThanks for the hint Colin. Many seem happy with it and reviews are also "solid". I'm just skeptical after my experience with the Fuji 16-80mm f4 - many are happy with that lens too, but I just hated it...
The pictures were taken near Spitzingsee. Typical weekend hiking area for people living in and around Munich
It looked familiar.
I used to live in Unterschleissheim so regularly travelled to the nearby mountains in both summer and winter.
Ripolini wrote:
@akul@ the new toy (100-400) arrived
Are you happy with its performance? How does it compare to 300/4 PF?
Thanx.
Riccardo,
Yes. My new toy has arrived. I am quite happy with the performance. Image quality is comparable to 300/4 PF. Both has its strength and weaknesses. 100-400 image quality and versatility, but the weight Is still not insignificant. 300/4 PF image quality and incredible light weight, but it can get too long or too short at times. In my mind, they complement each other, but time will tell. 100-400 is still smaller than 70-200/2.8 + ftz, much smaller and better image quality if I add 1.7 TC on 70-200. So, definitely a good companion for hiking. I still would use 70-200 for shooting performance, etc. Best part is now I am covered for most focal length with native Z lens. 14-30, 24-70/4, 100-400, with 35/1.8, 50/1.2, 85/1.8, I can not ever blame my gear for bad photos. .
Great image. It would be great if you could find a way to resize a bit. In Safari or Chrome, the image does not fit requiring zooming out quite a bit to see the image, and in mobile, it won't zoom out enough to see the image and just looking at the tiny portion of the image.
Posted full res. I'm not great at downsampling uncropped 45ish mp images.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52131698432_594c13cc50_o.pngGreat image. It would be great if you could find a way to resize a bit. In Safari or Chrome, the image does not fit requiring zooming out quite a bit to see the image, and in mobile, it won't zoom out enough to see the image and just looking at the tiny portion of the image.
Luka
Thanks, I agree. Any method I try it always robs the crane of so much detail. I'll try 50% downsample and edit my post.
Posted full res. I'm not great at downsampling uncropped 45ish mp images.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52131698432_594c13cc50_o.pngGreat image. It would be great if you could find a way to resize a bit. In Safari or Chrome, the image does not fit requiring zooming out quite a bit to see the image, and in mobile, it won't zoom out enough to see the image and just looking at the tiny portion of the image.
LukaThanks, I agree. Any method I try it always robs the crane of so much detail. I'll try 50% downsample and edit my post.
Thank you. Now I can see the image easier on my laptop.
