Your camera body/lens quiver?

[stoepstyle]

Bronica SQ-A with the 80 2.8 PS
Lens flare issue or some sort of development issue at the bottom of the frame, not sure


Contax RX with the Zeiss 50 1.7 T*
A little underexposed but I like it

[leftfield]

I like the sample pics on here, some really good shots.
Sorry about the obnoxious watermarks, linked them straight from my site.

Bodies:
5DII
60D
G10

Lenses
15-85mm My skiing/walk-around crop lens.






17-40mm My walk-around FF lens.




50 1.4 I'm getting more comfortable using this lens.


Tamron 70-300mm It's been a workhorse, great value for the $

[alpinevibes]

On the poor spectrum currently, but it still does the trick:

Nikon D50 - 7 years strong, even with a fall off the car at 55mph
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC v2
Nikon 55-200VR v2

hoping for an overhaul in the next year!

[smmokan]

Great shots Leftfield.


(but get rid of that hideous watermark!)

[leftfield]

Great shots Leftfield.

(but get rid of that hideous watermark!)

Thanks Steve. Duly noted, it was a quick and dirty link from my site. Normally i re-host any photos i post here, i was just too lazy this time.

[smmokan]

Well, I finally pulled the trigger on full frame this weekend, so my quiver now looks drastically different:

Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 50D

Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro

I'll probably pick up a fast prime at some point too, but I'm not sure what I want. Looking at the 35mm f2 or maybe one of the 50mm f/1.4s. I just want to make sure I'll actually use it since I have that range covered by the Tamron, and that's tack sharp.


I'll be selling a few lenses on here later this week; if anyone's interested in a Canon 15-85mm, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, or Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro, let me know. I'll put pictures up in a day or two.

[Edgnar]

I'm in the market for the Canon 15-85. Just sold my Tamron 18-270, so I was planning on buying soon.

[Fuzz]

I'll probably pick up a fast prime at some point too, but I'm not sure what I want. Looking at the 35mm f2 or maybe one of the 50mm f/1.4s. I just want to make sure I'll actually use it since I have that range covered by the Tamron, and that's tack sharp.

I would strongly suggest you rent some lenses before spending the money. A 3-day rental is a pretty inexpensive way of finding out whether a lens is right for your shooting style.

You seem to have an overlap between the Canon 24-105 and the Tamron 28-75 -- any reason why you're keeping both? No idea of the IQ out of the Tamron, but I personally wasn't that impressed with the 24-105. Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastically sharp lens, but I just didn't think it brought out the strengths of a full-frame. The FF look is, in big part, due to the very shallow DoF you can get out of it, but at f/4 the DoF is so large, FF or crop doesn't make that much of a difference.

Have you looked at the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4? Many people over on POTN are quite happy with it. The Canon 50/1.4 seems to be a finicky lens. Many people have had the AF conk out after a while, but mine has been fine after several years of use (and I do abuse my gear). My two biggest complaints about it are that it hunts for focus in low light a lot, and it can be somewhat soft when used wideish open (1.4 - 1.8). Still a great lens for the price.

[smmokan]

Thanks Fuzz. I have the convenient option of borrowing a few of the primes from friends, so I'll do that before making a purchase.

The Tamron 28-75mm lens is in there because I already own it. It'll allow me to shoot at f/2.8 for a while and figure out which focal length I like best, and I'll probably swap it out down the road. It's a super sharp lens though, so it wasn't worth getting rid of just yet. The 24-105mm will be my do-it-all lens for landscape work and using on my 50D for skiing shots; it will essentially replace the 15-85mm lens that I loved so much on my 50D.

That new Sigma is definitely out of my price range for a prime right now. More than likely I'll look at something like the 28 1.8, 35 f2, or 50 1.4. I don't use them much, so I can't justify spending $900 just yet.

[hitek79]

The FF look is, in big part, due to the very shallow DoF you can get out of it, but at f/4 the DoF is so large, FF or crop doesn't make that much of a difference.

Not if you don't want a shallow DOF

[Fuzz]

Not if you don't want a shallow DOF

Right, but I can always shoot an f/1.4 lens at f/4; cannot shoot f/1.4 with an f/4 lens.

[systemoverblow'd]

Right, but I can always shoot an f/1.4 lens at f/4; cannot shoot f/1.4 with an f/4 lens.

True

I love when people get so picky on sharpness they stop down their fast primes a ton. I buy fast primes so I can shoot them that way

[hitek79]

Right, but I can always shoot an f/1.4 lens at f/4; cannot shoot f/1.4 with an f/4 lens.

But you can't zoom a 1.4 lens. I'm just saying you aren't really comparing apples to apples. The 24-105 does have shortcomings, but value wise for a landscape lens, I don't think anything comes close.

[Fuzz]

But you can't zoom a 1.4 lens. I'm just saying you aren't really comparing apples to apples. The 24-105 does have shortcomings, but value wise for a landscape lens, I don't think anything comes close.

I guess I wasn't trying to directly compare the 24-105 against the 28-75 specifically; I was making more of a general statement of the relative utility of an f/4 lens on a crop versus a full-frame body -- for a given focal length, f/4 doesn't play to the strengths of a FF as much as faster lenses...in my personal opinion/experience. When I switched from the 40D to the 5D2, I didn't see that much of a difference with the 24-105; but the 35/1.4 really became like a brand new lens and the full-frame really shone with that (really drove the point home that FF is more than just a crop with wider view) -- again, just my experience. If I were shooting mainly landscapes with large DoF and shooting at f/8, then I don't know if I'd personally see much value in moving to FF.

I'm not knocking the 24-105 -- it is a great lens, super-sharp, and a great value for a walk-around lens (my favorite shots that I took in Moab are with that). I'm just saying that one may not realize the full potential of a FF with an f/4 lens.

[smmokan]

That may be true Fuzz, but there are other factors that play into using the 24-105L lens:

- It's the best option for a walk-around landscape/do-it-all lens available for full frame, and the closest in range to the 15-85mm.
- The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (the other option here) is, a: stupidly expensive, b: stupidly heavy, and c: not long enough for my use.

I'd love to carry around a few super-sharp, fast, expensive primes for landscape work, but that's not my style and it's not what 95% of shooters prefer. I haven't come across too many people that aren't happy with the 24-105mm.

[Fuzz]

there are other factors that play into using the 24-105L lens:

Absolutely...that's why I tried to say (probably not clearly enough), that it was my preference based on my shooting style. For landscape work and a general walkaround, the value of the 24-105 is hard to beat. I know many people love the 24-105. I'm probably in the minority in that it didn't do much for me. I'm in the same boat with the Canon 24-70/2.8 -- had it, sold it, whereas it is also loved by many. I think my vision is somewhat lacking in making proper use of that range. I tend to get by with the 35 and 50 primes.

[smmokan]

Understood.

The other thing that came into play for me specifically, is that I still intend to keep a crop body around during ski season (my 50D), which makes the 24-105mm useful for those shots as well.

[systemoverblow'd]

Welp ***swallows hard*** I just dropped in this weekend on an 85 f/1.2L

[carvemeister]

And in this corner - the Underdogs:

Bodies:
Olympus E-5
Olympus E-3
Olympus OM-D E-M5

4/3 Lenses:
Oly:
12-60
50-200
9-18
8mm Fisheye
50mm Macro
Panny:
25mm f/1.4

u4/3 Lenses:
Oly:
12-50
14-150
Panny:
14mm
20mm
Samyang:
7.5mm Fisheye

Legacy MF for u4/3:
Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.8-4
Olympus 200mm f/4
Contax Zeiss 90mm f/2.8
Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f/1.4
Konica AR 50mm f 1.7
Hoya 135mm f/2.8
C-Mount for u4/3:
Computar 12.5mm f/1.3
Pentax 50mm f/1.4

The E-5 and OM-D are new last spring and I haven't taken either one skiing yet. I'm going to take a chance in 2 weeks by bringing only the OM-D to Colorado and seeing how it works out by going small and light for a change. I feel a bit nervous about leaving the E-5 home, but I'm going to see what happens.

[hafilax]

And in this corner - the Underdogs:

Bodies:
Olympus E-5
Olympus E-3
Olympus OM-D E-M5

4/3 Lenses:
Oly:
12-60
50-200
9-18
8mm Fisheye
50mm Macro
Panny:
25mm f/1.4

u4/3 Lenses:
Oly:
12-50
14-140
Panny:
14mm
20mm
Samyang:
7.5mm Fisheye

Legacy MF for u4/3:
Canon FD 80-200 f/4 L
Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.8-4
Olympus 200mm f/4
Contax Zeiss 90mm f/2.8
Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f/1.4
Konica AR 50mm f 1.7
Hoya 135mm f/2.8
C-Mount for u4/3:
Computar 12.5mm f/1.3
Pentax 50mm f/1.4

The E-5 and OM-D are new last spring and I haven't taken either one skiing yet. I'm going to take a chance in 2 weeks by bringing only the OM-D to Colorado and seeing how it works out by going small and light for a change. I feel a bit nervous about leaving the E-5 home, but I'm going to see what happens.

Hooray, another m4/3 user. Which are your favourite lenses? Which are you taking skiing?

[carvemeister]

Hooray, another m4/3 user. Which are your favourite lenses? Which are you taking skiing?

I just got the 14-150 based on this guy's review here: http://blog.scottrinck.com/reviews/i.../#comment-2938 So, I haven't had much chance to use it. Took a few test shots and it seems very sharp and the size alone is fantastic for a one lens quiver, so I plan to use that 80% of the time while skiing.

I'll take a bunch of lenses with me though and keep two or three in my pack or hip case when I go out. I like the Panny 20 1.7 for all round use, but might be a bit limited for skiing. I love the Samyang (aka Rokinon) fisheye! Last year I took some shots with my OLY 4/3 8mm and loved that lens too, but it's heavy!

I also love the MF Canon 80-200 f/4L for it's complete lack of Purple Fringing or CA, so I'll take that along for some scenics. I also love the 90mm Zeiss 2.8, but who wouldn't? It's very compact, light and easy to focus.

My 2 favorites of ALL the above though would be the 4/3 lenses: 50-200 (outstanding); 25 1.4 Panny (beautiful rendering). Followed close behind by the most useful Oly lens of all time, the 12-60. The 12-60 was my go to lens for skiing up until now, but I'm going to see how the smaller setup works. Scott Rinckenberger seems to make great use out of his setup: http://500PX.COM/SCOTTRINCK

The only lens I really want right now is the u4/3 9-18mm. Can't afford it right now, but that, along with the 14-150 and 7.5 fisheye would make a very compact 3 lens quiver that could go anywhere skiing with almost no weight at all (and obviously with the crop factor - have me covered for a FF equivalent of 15mm to 300mm). p.s. Take it easy on me, FF guys - I understand it's really not the same thing, especially with DOF. I'd have some FF gear too, if I had the cash!

[freak]

sony slt a35

sigma 15-35
sigma 70-300 dg apo

i bought that stuff because i use my camera ~90% for skiing, and i go skitouring all the time, so i tried to find the lightest stuff which has the focal lengths i use most. its also relatively cheap, since my stuff dies all the time i do not like to buy expensive gear. im not too happy with the setup, especially with the iq (colors not too great, not too sharp, every picture needs some editing, etc.). atm the 70-300 is dead (af died) but it still has warranty and is on its way to sigma, guess ill get a new one. might change the whole setup, but dont know how.
i also have several older minolta lenses, im kinda underwhelmed of them. especially on snow i cant even use them close to their maximum aperture or it will be impossible to have white snow (its either green in one part of the picture or magenta in another part). they are ok for black and white though.

i also have a ricoh gxr with the 50mm/2.5 module, which actually has an amazing image quality. better than the sony with simga or minolta lenses by far, jpegs right from the camera are also nearly always perfect. one of the most underrated cameras out there imho.

i also have quite some film stuff, but the only thing i use from time to time is an olympus xa.

freak~[&]

[justr]

Canon 5Dmk2 - work
17mm 3.5 MF Tamron SP
24mm 2.8 Olympus OM
35mm 1.4L
FL 55mm 1.2 adapted to EF mount

Fuji X-E1 - play/backup
Fuji 35mm 1.4

[hafilax]

I just got the 14-140 based on this guy's review here: http://blog.scottrinck.com/reviews/i.../#comment-2938 So, I haven't had much chance to use it. Took a few test shots and it seems very sharp and the size alone is fantastic for a one lens quiver, so I plan to use that 80% of the time while skiing.

I saw another video of his where he pulls out a huge bag to talk about his camera gear and goes through ever decreasing bags until he gets to just the OM-D and the 14-140. It's pretty funny and I link to him whenever anyone claims that micro 4/3 can't do sports photography.

It's tempting to unload the kit lens and the 45-150 I have to get the 14-140 since I always seem to be switching back and forth. I'm a punter with a camera so I can't justify investing a lot of money in it all. The Rokinon fisheye is tempting me though as is the Oly 60 mm macro.

[carvemeister]

^^^ I think the action shots aspect is going to be a bit of a challenge. I briefly tried the OM-D a few weeks ago skiing with my son and did find the blackout on the EVF a bit annoying, but I was still able to follow the action. It's a compromise I'll have to learn to deal with in order to travel light. I will miss my E-5 for that kind of shooting, but with the OM-D, it will be almost unnoticeable in a small bag on my hip and I can have a full range of focal lengths up to my eye in about 10 seconds at any time. I'd also rather get the scenic shots anyhow unless its a big powder day.

Bottom line is I think I'll be getting a lot more shots, the quality will be good enough 98% of the time, and I won't be weighed down or slowed down taking off a pack.

BTW - If you want to check out some pics I took with the OM-D, there's a bunch here with many of those lenses (except the 14-150) which I just uploaded from a cruise we took in December: http://skiswami.smugmug.com/Travel/C...1934&k=dq9SMLw

p.s. I just realized I had been referring to my newest lens as a 14-140. It's actually 14-150 and I edited the info above to correct that.