The best photos that I've seen
Mar 28, 2021 11:47:56 #
foathog wrote:
Tell me which prime lens will replace my Canon 100-400 II??
You will never get my Canon 100-400 ll away from me!
Mar 28, 2021 11:49:16 #
lamiaceae wrote:
You surely mean historically. Photos by famous ph... (show quote)
No. I mean currently. After everything that I've seen, I'll stick with what I originally said. As good as everybody's posted photos were....the photos by Abi, taken with primes, excel. You can talk about the relative merits of zooms, but until you really compare the two you won't see the difference. Obviously, Abi is shooting with a camera with optimal auto-focus. My guess is that she's also probably shooting with the lenses wide open. To see a really exceptional photograph, go to Abi Warner Photography in Facebook and scroll down at least as far as the singing robin. I think you'll see what I'm talking about. Without permission I do not feel free to repost it here.
Mar 28, 2021 11:52:50 #
Their good but I can't see much of a difference to merit prime vs a good zoom. There are so many more factors than just the lens.
Mar 28, 2021 11:54:51 #
foathog wrote:
Tell me which prime lens will replace my Canon 100-400 II??
EF 300 f/2.8L IS II. Alone and using either the 1.4x and 2x, both sharper than the 100-400L II as well as providing access to all AF points on older EOS bodies where the 1.4x extended 100-400 allows just the center point, if your camera can AF at all at f/8. Used prices on the v II are starting to get near the 100-400L II new, a shocking development given the quality differences between the two. If you have the money and arm strength, the EF 400 f/2.8L IS II / III is still a tangible step up further.
The 100-400L II is no slouch. It got more use in my kit in 2020 than it has in the past few years. Here's some gull work from May 2020 at 400mm.
Ring-billed gull by Paul Sager, on Flickr
Mar 28, 2021 11:58:38 #
Mar 28, 2021 11:59:10 #
Mar 28, 2021 12:35:53 #
starlifter wrote:
If I could afford primes or want to carry around a load of lenses' I might consider it I have 1 prime (a Tamron 45mm) and hardly use it.I wonder how many shots you might miss because you didn;t have the right reach or were too close.
I have a Nikkor 50mm 1.8. Hardly use it. But I really use all the time my Tamron 17-50 2.8. Don’t need to change lenses very often.
Mar 28, 2021 12:50:45 #
I agree with you. I have a Samyang 14mm 2.8m, but I have my Sigma Art lens 24-105 f/4 on my Canon 5DSR all the time.
Mar 28, 2021 13:08:50 #
maxlieberman
Loc: 19027
Likewise, I rarely use my Nikkor nifty fifty, but I do keep a zoom that has 50mm within its range on my D7500.
Mar 28, 2021 13:19:40 #
SteveR wrote:
Tell that to Nat Geo when you submit photos taken with less than the best equipment.
As far as I can remember it’s not the quality of equipment that merits the photo’s selection but rather it’s own quality. There have been many photos used by Nat Geo that have come from many different types of camera/lens combinations regardless of what the cost etc. I know for a fact that some very good pics came from some pretty unremarkable equipment. Abi is a remarkable nature photographer as anyone can see from her work. But she has at her disposal some of the best equipment available for this type of photography and the ability to use it. That’s something that a majority of us Hoggers could probably never have to worry about.😢 But regardless she’s damn good.
LittleRed (Ron)
P.S. - perhaps you could help me in becoming a better photographer by floating me a no-interest loan so I can obtain some of that “best equipment” that you say is necessary. All I need is $22,800 to cover the camera and lens from Adorama. 😄😁😆😉😉
Mar 28, 2021 13:21:34 #
Timmers
Loc: San Antonio Texas.
SteveR wrote:
have all been shot with prime lenses. There are a few photographers that I know who take great photos who I wish shot with primes.
You may have discovered why E. Leitz does not make zoom lenses, and why most of the offerings from Carl Zeiss are almost all non-zoom lenses.
Mar 28, 2021 13:23:27 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
I guess if I use my $2,900.00 wide an angle lens on my 5DIV I will get some great pictures. But can improve them if I had a 1D.
Mar 28, 2021 13:43:43 #
TriX wrote:
I will just add that I’m using fast primes more and more and my zooms less and less. It’s not just the IQ, it’s usually the speed and size/weight that drives it. Example: I attended a private christening inside a church several weeks ago and a 23mm f2 wide open on my “little” crop Fuji was perfect for the small group shots. I really needed the speed of the f2 and the small size to be unobtrusive (and convenient).
Hundreds of thousands of excellent wedding albums were shot entirely with a 135 on a graphic or an 80 on a 6x6 .... with flash.
Mar 28, 2021 13:45:36 #
SteveR wrote:
Bill, I wish you had checked the download box for ... (show quote)
I went to her website and found some very nice images. Any could have been taken with a prime or zoom lens. I'm not sure owning an 800mm lens indicates that you are a professional photographer. I haven't sold a picture, nor tried to, in over 50 years and take many of my mediocre shots with a Nikkor 800mm F/5.6.
Avoiding Facebook, here is the her website:
https://abiwarnerphotography.com/about-abi/
---
Mar 28, 2021 13:46:35 #
What's that catch phrase for Wedding Photographers?
F/1.2 and have the bride in focus.
F/1.2 and have the bride in focus.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.