Trojan Peak

Mt. Whitney, Lone Peak and Mt Williamson get all the glory but what about Trojan Peak? I think it's pretty nice.

I don't have the optics for this kind of shot so I had to sharpen the heck out of this in post. Canon's 2x tele converter isn't so great, I get better results with it at focal ranges near the middle of the zoom and wider apertures on my 70-200 but then I lose depth of field. Anyone have a 70-200 2.8 and a 100-400 5.6 canon lens? Do you have a preference for sharpness between the two?

Any of you LF & MFer's shooting long lens landscapes? What kind of lenses do you use for them? I guess you don't have to worry about the depth of field do you?

Steve,
Beautiful image. I really don't shoot long lenses. My longest MF is 150mm and LF was 300mm. I've toyed with the idea of getting a 200mm for the MF. Best Regards.

Looks plenty sharp to me. But then again it might not hold up well to larger prints. I know a lot of guys, pros included, use the 100-400L. Although those serious about the sharpness detail opt for the 400L prime.

Here is a good review on LL of both: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

Derek

Seems plenty sharp to me, is that the AH in the FG? Telephoto's by their nature have tendency to compress distances hence the loos of DOF. At least thats been my experience shooting telephoto especially in this area. By the way where is Trojan peak in relation to the others, Steve?

Paul

Michael, I wish I could translate the focal lengths you're talking about. Know of a place where I could figure that out for future reference. Thanks for the info.

Derek, 100-400 seems good enough but I always here how it lacks a little. Thanks for the review link

Paul, you can get away with a little too much via web sharpening. You're right on the location, Trojan Peak is just southwest of of Mt. Williamson.

I really like this shot. Telephoto landscapes often suffer from a lack of foreground, but you did a great job here! Are those stars in the sky near the right edge? So you use a 2x with which lens? In my experience sharpness really suffers when using a TC with a zoom.

Hey Steve,

I love the new perspective and layers in this shot. It does have a strange look from all the sharpening though.

FYI I rented the 100-400L from http://www.lensrentals.com. It was about as sharp as my 70-200f4L (very respectable). If I was in the market to buy a long landscape lens I would look no further.

I used to have a 100-400. I found it to be decent in terms of sharpness. Not as good as the 70-200 4.0 or 2.8 (owned both). I really disliked the push-pull zoom. I found it awkward to zoom and it pulls in a lot of dust into the elements. I sold it years ago and have not missed it all. When I need length, I use the 70-200 4. and 1.6 converter. Nice combo that holds up well.

My longest LF lens equates to about 137mm in 35mm. LF is not made for long images. I use the digital if I need lens length.

What a beautiful mountain! I like the layers and the varied textures in this, Steve.

Like, Harley, the longest lens I use for 4x5 is a 300mm which equates to about 137mm in 35mm FF format. Really long lenses for LF are most often used on the bigger negs (8x10 and up). A few are designed for 4x5, like the 450mm and 360T**, 500T and 600T, but these require some serious bellows extension to focus at infinity.

**"T" stands for Telephoto. These are a special lens/lens group configuration that allows for less bellows extension in order to focus at infinity.

--P

Not to cast aspersions at my good friend Preston, but I believe a 300mm in LF translates to about a 91 (300/3.3). A 450mm is roughly a 137mm in 35mm.

Harley,

I am truly living up to my moniker, "BDOF". You're correct, of course.

--P

well.....I didn't realize there was a Trojan Pk. next time I'm down that way I'm sure I'll be scanning the peaks to find it! I'd love to have a 100-400 too.

Cory
Sierra Impressions

I have the 100-400. It's a decent compromise between versatility and sharpness. Like Harley said, the push/pull is kind of weird and you need to be careful if it's dusty. I shoot the 4x5 95% of the time so I just leave the 100-400 on my old 40d body. It's nice to not have to switch lenses if there is some cool wildlife around.

The 100-400 stopped down to f/11-f/14 is pretty darn good IMO, at least, mine is. Definitely better than the 70-200 + 2x.

Yea I like that mountain too!

Great textures, color, and lines. I've never seen this shot of the Hills.
Well done, Steve.