I have photographed museums all over the world, including the Louvre. Use the fastest 50-100mm prime you have. Shoot a stop or two down from wide open to facilitate sharpness; obviously the slower the shutter speed you can handhold without sacrificing sharpness will allow a lower ISO with higher image quality. Take several test shots at every location to figure out best white balance settings for color accuracy then you are good to go. Use continuous shooting and hold the shutter down to take at least 3 images of each painting to help ensure you have at least one tack sharp. And leave sufficient “room” around the 4 edges of the painting so that in post you will be able to level and adjust horizontal and vertical planes. Ideal setup for me was typically a 50 or 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 set to 1.8 or 2.0, respectively, which allowed for a reasonable shutter speed and an ISO in the 200-800 range depending on the museum lighting.
billnikon wrote:
I sell ALL of my equipment myself and keep about 40-75% more than giving it away to some other company.
I sell here, on Fred Merinda and lastly on Ebay. Here and on Fred I pay no fees or a nominal fee, Ebay will charge me around 12% so I use them last.
Do not give your money away, sell it yourself and hold on to your hard earned money. It will come in handy when you get the itch for something shiny and new.
National Camera Exchange: https://www.natcam.com
I have bought and sold numerous camera bodies and lenses through them over the years; the prices they offer are competitive with the best and they offer fantastic service.
mwsilvers wrote:
Given the timing of the Plena release, some rumors have suggested it may be a high end manual focus lens to go with the new Nikon Zf. Currently the only lens being shown with that camera is the Nikkor Z 40mm f/2, an inexpensive all plastic lens with no weather sealing that sells for $296 in the modern body and $306 in the retro look. It is an excellent lens at that price point but the new Zf deserves better.
Agree the Zf deserves better. While I like the retro look of the 40mm f/2 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses, what appears to be an aperture ring on them which looks very much like the classic AI-S lenses is fake. Shame on Nikon. The new lens which is teased looks too big for the Zf, particularly if it was manual focus. We are all guessing, but mine is that it’s the 105 or 135 defocus control — most likely the latter from the size.
rehess wrote:
The new lenses are ‘superior’ in a clinical sense, but the old class has real “character”, which some of us appreciate.
Agree 110%; that was my point.
With respect to clinical sharpness today’s best lenses will out perform virtually all film era lenses wide open across the entire image frame, and will continue to be sharper in the corners even as you stop down; however, for all practical purposes sharpness of some the best legacy glass “catches up” or gets more than close enough in the center and mid frame as you stop down. But, while sharpness is important, clinical laboratory wall chart test sharpness is not the be all end all. Other important lens attributes like rendering, color signature, bokeh etc. are subjective and for many favor legacy glass. To me it’s the end game that drives the answer: if you are shooting commercial product images or doing real estate / architectural photography, or want high resolution images for large landscape prints, legacy glass would not be my first choice. On the other hand, for certain other applications such as portraits legacy glass can be fantastic on digital.
All the brand squabbling is really silly and quite a distraction. Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras and lenses are all capable of producing fantastic images. What matters to the OP is weight. Sensor size is becoming less of an issue with the rise in APS-C quality, but FF obviously makes a difference for subject isolation if that matters to the OP.
Been to and photographed Yosemite 4 times. In addition to the lenses you mention, a 70-200 or similar would be very useful as there are many telephoto landscape opportunities.
Just returned from a week on the Amalfi coast 3 days ago. Stayed in beautiful little town called Praiano halfway between Amalfi and Positano. For me, Positano was best photographed from the water, or from neighboring hillside at dusk. And IMHO, Amalfi is nicer town with many nice images waiting to be taken, and certainly it’s smaller with fewer crowds of tourists. Enjoy!
PHRubin wrote:
I would think that a technique requiring a motionless subject and motionless camera would have minimum application.
Perhaps other than the obvious application to landscape photography . . .
As noted in an earlier replied, if you favor landscapes then:
1. Valley of Fire
2. Valley of Fire
3. Valley of Fire
Yes on differences between Leica lenses and other lenses on Sony and Canon bodies. Not on every shot—for example a well lit scene shot at f8 you might not notice a big difference; perhaps subtle color differences. But photos shot wide open or close to it IMHO usually render differently (nicer) with Leica lenses; often it’s better subject separation. Especially b&w.
I have used many Leica M and R lenses (mostly M) on Sony and Canon bodies. I used either the Novoflex adapter or the last generation Techart autofocus adapter. The Techart worked very well, particularly in good light or with fast lens opened up. Techart recently released a new version of its adapter which is supposed to be even better. Many of my best shots have come on Leica M glass adapted to a mirrorless body.
PoppieJ wrote:
Or maybe just a typo
I have photographed Joshua tree on 4 different trips. IMHO, if you are limiting yourself to one lens, as previously noted, a 24-105mm is ideal for a good balance of focal length and image quality. Your 24-70mm will likely cover about 75% of what most folks would like to capture, however, with such a dramatic, picturesque landscape as Joshua Tree, I am at a loss as to why any photographer wouldn’t choose to bear the extra weight of taking both lenses. It could be that the lens you don’t take would have rewarded you with an image of a lifetime.
You might want to check out either zenfolio.com (photography specific) or squarespace.com (sales generally, but can certainly be used for photography sales).
Good luck!
+1 for the early recommendation to shoot in color and convert via Nik’s Silver Efex. Another, even better option IMHO, is shooting in color then using the Exposure X7 photo editor, which includes over 100 various black and white film emulation presets having incredibly accurate tonal and grain characteristics. All the classic B&W films (and even more color, but your question focused on B&W). Free 30 day trial; can’t go wrong.