One of those shots everyone should take at least once. This from a different perpective than usually seen at Bryce, but pretty much the same subjects. There is really not a lot of compositional options when shooting the Bryce Canyon 'hoodoos' but I still I had to get at least one shot of my own from here. 5D, 70-200. Thanks for comments.
Next time I head that way, I gotta grab a shot too. I have to say that the light and shadows here are something I'm sure you are quite pleased with...I know I would be...
This is really choice work, Marc. Do you use the f4? For some reason I didn't quite see this section when I was out there, but then again - it wasn't for long. Your processing on this is perfect..
I sure wish I had a scanner to scan the images I took of Bryce with my F4 a couple years ago......quite stunning Marc......!!!!! ~insert raising my glass to you here~
It snowed 7 1/2 inches the night before I was going to do sunrise at Bryce. Due to the snow I watched the pink clouds over Bryce from Ruby's Inn waiting for the snow plows to plow the driveway..... This is an awesome sunrise shot and I will have to go back again and try again.... but I have snow on my Bryce shots ( )
Ned, I do use the f/4. The f/2.8 is WAY too big and bulky and I would rarely or never use the 2.8. I love the lens. The sharpest, most solid thing in my bag (when it even gets to my bag - I'm still in love with wide angles).
Marc,
That is a nice capture. The subtle colors really work. As for shooting with an f4 lens, The quality throught isn't usually as good. Usually when you go to an f2.8 zoom lens, your talking pro glass. It is bulkier but I tell you when you have such a high resolution camera, you really need the best glass possible. I used to have a 24-85 f3.5 nikkor zoom. It was OK with my 6 mpxl d100. When I got my D2x, the lens just wasn't up to snuff. I then got the 28-70 2.8 afs and did tests at all f stops and a bunch of focal lengths. The f2.8 just blew away the f3.5 24-85 afs. As a matter fact,the f2.6-2.8 Tokina was also alot sharper than the f3.5 Nikkor.
Erik, in general your assesment certainly holds true, however, in the case of the f/4 vs. f/2.8 Canon 70-200's, it's been proven over and over again that the quality extremely comparable. These are probably the two most compared lenses on the market today IMO. The Fred Miranda site has hundreds of reviews of each.
I've use the f2.8 and the f4.0 and there is very little difference unless you truly need f2.8. The benifit of having something that I can easily hike with vs a lens that almost weighs as much as the rest of my bag is huge. I would not have survived the hike to Fairy Falls yesterday if I had f2.8 in my bag.
I got used to the brighter view of the 2.8 lenses and my eyesight ain't what it used to be! It's heavy but oh my gosh, one of my favorites! I saved about $600 by not buying one with IS
Discussion
12 repliesReally sweet.
That is a nice capture. The subtle colors really work. As for shooting with an f4 lens, The quality throught isn't usually as good. Usually when you go to an f2.8 zoom lens, your talking pro glass. It is bulkier but I tell you when you have such a high resolution camera, you really need the best glass possible. I used to have a 24-85 f3.5 nikkor zoom. It was OK with my 6 mpxl d100. When I got my D2x, the lens just wasn't up to snuff. I then got the 28-70 2.8 afs and did tests at all f stops and a bunch of focal lengths. The f2.8 just blew away the f3.5 24-85 afs. As a matter fact,the f2.6-2.8 Tokina was also alot sharper than the f3.5 Nikkor.
Plus it's 600.00+ cheaper