Set on landscape, but all done manual in raw. I was under the impression that landscape vs. portrait vs. etc do not work while shooting in raw. Am I wrong?

The most prominent subject is the dome, named Elephant Head, just south of Tucson, but my intent was a panorama, with one shot of the range as well as something in the foregone to generate some additional depth. My intent was for everything to be sharp, from front to infinity. No specific subject, just to capture the view.

Welcome, from a fellow Mojave Desert Rat! You will enjoy this and learn a lot.

Yep, guessing I expect too much. There are alternatives however!

These are absolutely wonderful. Your choice of B&W is right on. I've been looking at this lens, but agree with others, the lens is only as good as the operator, and you definitely know what your doing. Again, great work.

You know what, those little birds are more difficult to capture than the big ones. Good work!

Great shots. What are the two rivers. Looks like great trout fishing opportunities.

I don't know what your time frame is, but if you are coming from Portland, you may want to consider going thru St. George and take the southern route thru Kanab to Page, and then turn south. That drive is spectacular along the S. rime of the Grand Staircase. Zion and Bryce are slight detours on this route as well. And don't forget Kodachrome state park, plus the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument. From that area, you can access the N. rim of Grand Canyon, much fewer tourists. Then what's more, you can visit Antelope Canyon in Page, and Big Bend on the Colorado River. From there, you can go down to Flagstaff and take the canyon drive down into the Sedona area. Great photo oportunities along this route. Here are few photos I took along this route this last fall.

between Kanab and Page

(Download)

Sedona area

(Download)

S. of Sedona

(Download)

B&W

Me too.

Thanks for that comment. I'm going to dig out my old Bogen tripod I used with my Linhof 4x5. Weighs a ton, but should be worth it. I knew I kept that for something!

Must have been a typo. There have been two lenses in the discussion, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L II and the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 DG. I have both lenses. In one of the posts, I provided two shots taken at the same time, one with the 24mm and one with the 50 mm. I thought the distant detail was better in the 50mm than the 24 was better, most likely only due to the additional magnification. So, I concluded that if I want to try to capture the detail in the distance better, perhaps I should consider doing panoramas, putting a series of photos together in photoshop.

If you would like to share a couple of shots taken with your 24mm f/2.8, I would love to see them and it would be a good learning experience. I am new to this lens and camera and the more data the better. I'm 65 years old now and want to go on those photo expeditions I always dreamed of when I was much younger and want to know my equipment as best I can.

Thanks for your reply.

Thank you for your persistence.

My original post had to do specifically about the quality of the lens. Upon additional review of other images generated with this lens, I concluded, with the right operator, acceptable landscapes with sufficient detail @infinity can be captured. The image of the gear only confirms that indeed the lens is sharp, and in conjunction with the D6 can produce good images even at ISO 2000. This confirms of the hype on this camera and lens I have read. My conclusion however is that the lens has limits as far as capturing detail at long distances (like the distant mountain in the landscapes provided). And that is probably a characteristic of any 24 mm, but some will do better than others. Alternatively, the lens might be more successful at closer images, like the gear, but not for capturing detail on a clear day of mountains a couple of miles away without applying some significant post processing, which can degrade the image. Would it be better, alternatively, to apply a longer lens (50mm) under certain circumstances, to do a panorama with multiple exposures to capture the far detail. I'm thinking yes. Bottom line, I'm really glad I purchased this lens, but I need to understand its limitations for my objectives as far as distant landscapes are concerned. Closer applications, I am sure will be wonderful (light visiting Antelope Canyon in Page AZ), but when I really want to reach out and grab that detail far, far away, but have a broad landscape, use of a longer lens with multiple exposures on a solid tripod to generate a panorama might be more successful. This is all regardless of techniques of PP. I will however follow up on your recommendations on learning more about the Canon software as well as Lightroom. I need all the tools I can get.

Sometimes you reach out seeking answers to a question, and thru the process figure out the answer with out ever having a definitive answer, and then figure out that perhaps the question you asked was not the right one to begin with. I thought the then lens might be faulty, but no, its just fine and I just need to learn how to use it better for particular applications. Thanks for listening to my rant. It has been helpful to me and I hope I didn't bore you too much. But I learned something!, which is the whole objective for me on this forum.

Thanks again.

The camera is great. The 100/400 also. Save you scheckles for compatible glass for the additional reach with autofocus

This is what I mean by object shots. A low light situation, 24 mm lens, F/2.8, 1/80, Iso 2000 mm, hand held. The lens performs very well here and also I think is a good example of the Canon d6's low light capabilities. 64 sharpening, 40 detail in camera raw.

My conclusion, I'm probably asking for it to do too much for detail in distant objects in landscapes. If I really want that level of detail, I need to learn how to do panoramas with a little longer lens, say 50mm.

Thanks again.

(Download)