This is Photography

[mrsleeve]

You always deliver will.... fantastic

[BlackbirdM3]

Over the weekend a fire started near me. As of now, its almost a 90K acre fire and they are just starting to get some containment on it. Its produced some interesting sunsets.


I wish I had been 30 yards closer for this guy. The lighting was epic against a very dark sky as the sun went down sunday evening.

The smoke was creating some very interesting color in the valley.


Looking west from my back yard.




Will

[Max S]

Hood ornament on an Auburn Speedster

Film-car from "Remington Steele".
Spotted at a local Cars & Coffee.


Camera: Canon EOS 700D (sold as Rebel T5i in America)
Lens: 24mm (effectively 38, with the zoom-factor)
Exposure: 1/640 sec.
F/: 2.8
ISO: 100
Post-Production: Rotated by ~8 Degrees

Max

[Wschnitz]

God the 24-105 F4 is such a better idea but I cant stand that its $1400.

I should just spend $200 and rent the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F4 for a weekend and try them both out.

The struggle is knowing ill probably buy a wide prime eventually anyway, so the low end not being super necessary for me.

_SRC1156 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
_SRC1148 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
_SRC1215-2 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
_SRC1213 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr

[Wschnitz]

I'm honestly hoping that Sony starts to discount glass now that everyone seems to be switching to their mirrorless systems. Even if the glass is in some cases a cut above Canon or Nikon equivalent offerings.

It'd be nice to pick up the 100-400 for like $2k Even.

[mrsleeve]

^

Yuppers when I found the real need for that long reach, the 150-600 had only been around a few months and was hard to get a hold of. Also at the time the cannon 100-400 was long in the tooth, and the rumors were getting strong of the MKII coming along soon, but nothing was out, so 100-400 MKI was still commanding about the same price for about the same performance with out the extra reach, but arguably a sharper lens. My 150-600 has been acceptable once mine got the film ware update for the A/F, but I do admit I would like something a bit "better"

[BlackbirdM3]

^
I dont disagree with your assessment of the 150-600, they are not that bad, but they are not that good either. For me it fills the roll I need it to when I need that much reach, I know what its good at and try to keep in with those limits

I'm guessing you also bought it before there were any affordable alternatives on the market as well. I'll admit, I was looking long and hard at it 3 years ago, but then the Nikon 200-500 was released, for about the same price point, and it was a far better lens.

Will

[mrsleeve]

^
I dont disagree with your assessment of the 150-600, they are not that bad, but they are not that good either. For me it fills the roll I need it to when I need that much reach, I know what its good at and try to keep in with those limits

[BlackbirdM3]

Unfortunately for me the 150-600 Tamron/Sigma isnt out yet for Sony. And Im not paying 2500 for a 100-400 even if it is godlike.

But at 70-200 for sub 1K at fixed F4 to me that would be a good start. Especially since the 24-105 seems hard to get.

Part of my Idea is to start at my local tracks around college and home here in Washington and ask to take pictures during HPDE/smaller name track events. That way they are more likely to be like, sure kid have at it, and it gives me some experience doing motorsport, which is going to be lots of panning practice.

Then If I really get into it I can always grab the 100-400 later on. But I cant justify the 24-105 at $1400 to be honest. Even if its one of the sharper sony lenses.

I wouldn't buy the Sigma/Tamron lens, well, ever. Its not a very good lens. Its not sharp, its even heavier than my 200-500, and its slow (F6.3). Hey, Sony just released a 400mm F2.8... Its only about $12K...

If you find a club that does autocross, go shoot them. That was where I really cut my teeth learning how to pan, and you can do it with a small lens because you will be fairly close to the action (flag station.) Lots of action, and if you catch a punted cone, even better.

Will

[kickinindian]

these are a couple from my backyard so to speak, just getting back into photography after a long hiatus.

[Wschnitz]

Unfortunately for me the 150-600 Tamron/Sigma isnt out yet for Sony. And Im not paying 2500 for a 100-400 even if it is godlike.

But at 70-200 for sub 1K at fixed F4 to me that would be a good start. Especially since the 24-105 seems hard to get.

Part of my Idea is to start at my local tracks around college and home here in Washington and ask to take pictures during HPDE/smaller name track events. That way they are more likely to be like, sure kid have at it, and it gives me some experience doing motorsport, which is going to be lots of panning practice.

Then If I really get into it I can always grab the 100-400 later on. But I cant justify the 24-105 at $1400 to be honest. Even if its one of the sharper sony lenses.

[mrsleeve]

How do you like the 24-105 F4?

I honestly cant decide between it and the 70-200 F4. The fact that I can pick up a 70-200 F4 on CL for $1k or less makes it a compelling argument for me If I want to shoot motorsport.

For most of what you have been doing a 24-105 will serve you very well, I shot with a 24-105L f4 on my 6D about 97% of the time. For general every use and for most landscape and "street shooting" its a hard zoom range to beat but yes at F4 is a little slow for when the light is a bit scarce. 70-200 2.8 is fantastic for weddings, birds at your feeder, and with as sharp as good 70-200s are with gorgeous bokeh make awesome portrait lenses or for things you can get relatively close too but with out getting/wanting to be involved.

Will makes good points with if your going to be shooting moving shit at distance, I lean into my 150-600 for long shots of birds, wild life, planes, cars etc..... And end then still end up cropping down a bunch at times

[BlackbirdM3]

How do you like the 24-105 F4?

I honestly cant decide between it and the 70-200 F4. The fact that I can pick up a 70-200 F4 on CL for $1k or less makes it a compelling argument for me If I want to shoot motorsport.

Here is a compelling argument, it doesn't have enough reach. You will find yourself shooting everything on track at 200mm then cropping the hell out of the shot. My 70-300 wasn't enough for trackside work. The 200-500 opened all kinds of doors for epic shots however.

If you don't have media credentials and have to shoot from the stands, 200mm is even less useful.

Will

[PacificExposure]

How do you like the 24-105 F4?

I honestly cant decide between it and the 70-200 F4. The fact that I can pick up a 70-200 F4 on CL for $1k or less makes it a compelling argument for me If I want to shoot motorsport.

It really is a fantastic lens. I have a great selection of primes, Batis 18 and 28, zeiss 55 and 85 and I always leave the 24-105 on the body and it hasn’t come off in some time. So sharp and versatile. Not quite long enough or fast enough for some purposes, but covers 90% of my needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wschnitz]

How do you like the 24-105 F4?

I honestly cant decide between it and the 70-200 F4. The fact that I can pick up a 70-200 F4 on CL for $1k or less makes it a compelling argument for me If I want to shoot motorsport.