Thanks mrladewid! The monopod suggestion is a great idea. It would have definitely helped my night shots to have one but I knew I wouldn't want the hassle of taking a tripod. You're probably right about not needing a longer lens too, I just felt I should have used it because I brought it with me.
mrladewig wrote:
Tina, you captured some very nice images. The Sacre Cour shot in particular is outstanding!
In regards to those who asked about different equipment:
I've been to Paris twice. I think you would have a VERY difficult time deploying a tripod in the museums or churches. Its very crowded. For the most part, they also do not allow flash.
I've preferred to carry a monopod on my trips. I use a Manfrotto digi series with a QR head for monopods (3027?). It fits inside a 22" rolling suitcase when the head is removed and can be used as a walking stick. The tripods that I've found capable of doing this have been very flimsy and too short for me (ie. Giottos 4 section aluminum version).
I've also found no times when I would have needed a longer lens in Paris. I've taken a 17-40L, 50 1.2 and Tokina 28-70 f2.8 on a Rebel XT. I've never needed anything outside these lenses and I would say that all of my shots could have been accomplished in the 17-50 or 17-55 ranges. I'm sure that you could get some abstract pattern shots with the longer lens, but the architectural details on the buildings would look odd from the ground and there isn't much wildlife visible unless you count pigeons. The 50 1.4 worked really well inside museums most of the time and I was almost always able to get all of a painting or sculpture in one frame without any people blocking. Shooting at f2 and ISO400 or 800 usually worked very well. I do miss the proper 50mm FOV at times though. I guess I'll just have to break down and go FF digital one of these days....Show more →
Thanks for posting these shots! I'm trying to decide between the various 17-5x f/2.8 options, and it's helpful to see the Tamron perform so well (with credit due to the photographer, no doubt).
Thanks capulet! I know many people wanted to see samples of this lens so that's why I posted.
capulet wrote:
Thanks for posting these shots! I'm trying to decide between the various 17-5x f/2.8 options, and it's helpful to see the Tamron perform so well (with credit due to the photographer, no doubt).
Hi Scott,
I just wanted to show some samples because many people have wanted to see this lens in action. I'm still in the learning phases and I'm sure you could do just as well...it's hard to take a bad picture in Paris.
nads wrote:
I'm not sure what I learned about the Tamron 17-50 except that in your hand it is capable of much more than I could do with it.
What a great set of shots. Looks to have better IQ than my 17-40, and the f/2.8 really shines on the closeup shots... Great work with catching those wispy clouds...
great shots xtina! i'm in the process of finding one of these lenses myself. the composition and colors are superb. i have one question--did you do any post-processing of these pictures?
The light and the specific kind of Southern type sky in some photos, i. e. Sacre Coeur and the Eiffel Tower, appear a bit unusual to me - as far as West-European Paris is concerned. Has the sky been attached as background in PS??
ashwinrao1 wrote:
What a great set of shots. Looks to have better IQ than my 17-40, and the f/2.8 really shines on the closeup shots... Great work with catching those wispy clouds...
Thanks Stevie! There wasn't anything particularly bad about the lens, I wish it was a little bit longer. Also, sometimes I get out of focus shots of people in lowlight, but that just might be my fault.
steviepooped wrote:
Thank you for sharing! Was there anything that you didn't like about the lens?
Thanks tubescreamerx!
Yes, I do some post-processing on all my shots like levels, curves and sharpening and straightening out tilted horizons. Some have more and some have less but I think the colors straight out of the camera were pretty great, especially compared to the kit lens.
tubescreamerx wrote:
great shots xtina! i'm in the process of finding one of these lenses myself. the composition and colors are superb. i have one question--did you do any post-processing of these pictures?
Hi W. Schneider,
No, the sky was exactly like it looked. I did not add clouds or even change them. I probably just used curves to make the skies a little darker. I got lucky with the clouds and they were not like that the whole time.
W. Schneider wrote:
The light and the specific kind of Southern type sky in some photos, i. e. Sacre Coeur and the Eiffel Tower, appear a bit unusual to me - as far as West-European Paris is concerned. Has the sky been attached as background in PS??
