Greg Campbell wrote:
I recommend you save the \'upgrade\' money and spend it on a trip to someplace like Yellowstone, Antarctica, Utah, or wherever you want to go...
The Landscape photography genre is, more than most, extremely dependent on the photographer. IMO, 90% of the effort required to produce a good image takes place before the shutter is even pressed. Assuming your camera and lens are functional and not outright junk, you\'re good to go. Pixel peepers and gear dweebs seldom make compelling images.
++++++1
what\'s the point of owing gear, if then you can\'t afford to go anywhere else, or are afraid to take anywhere, for fear of getting some shell blemish in it?
17-40 is more than enough for most landscapes - just go out and enjoy being out there - you can go visit quite a few nice places, for a week or so, just using the 16-35 mk2 upgrade money
- seems that the field is mostly divided between UWA and WA
sometimes is the ef15mm or the 17-40 for UWA
TS-e 24 II and Zeiss MP50 (yes, not a WA) in other instances
Greg Campbell wrote:
I recommend you save the \'upgrade\' money and spend it on a trip to someplace like Yellowstone, Antarctica, Utah, or wherever you want to go...
The Landscape photography genre is, more than most, extremely dependent on the photographer. IMO, 90% of the effort required to produce a good image takes place before the shutter is even pressed. Assuming your camera and lens are functional and not outright junk, you\'re good to go. Pixel peepers and gear dweebs seldom make compelling images.
++++++1
what\'s the point of owing gear, if then you can\'t afford to go anywhere else, or are afraid to take anywhere, for fear of getting some shell blemish in it?
17-40 is more than enough for most landscapes - just go out and enjoy being out there - you can go visit quite a few nice places, for a week or so, just using the 16-35 mk2 upgrade money
Jan 16, 2013 at 03:04 PM
Previous versions of Bacalhau's message #11274974 « What is your favorite Landscape lens ? »
