Thanks for sharing - nice shots Gilbo65! Among other things I loved the colors (the sky) in the images. Did you use a CPL for the lens or was the color enhanced in post?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior.If you've got a tight studio, I'd strongly suggest don't get either the 135 or an 85. Both good lenses, but you need some flexibility. If money is tight, seriously consider a pre-owned 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Make no mistake. This is class-glass. The flexibility a zoom brings to the table cannot be underestimated. Especially one as optically strong as any of Canon's 70-200 offerings.
Want an 85 1.2 but can't really afford it. The 1.8 might be a good compromise based on price, smaller reach for tighter spaces, I kind of think 440 might be much when the 50 1.8 is $100.
Interesting article, thanks for the link!
The Mt Rainier shot could benefit from the "Lumosity Blend" technique Kieth goes over at NL to make the mountain stand out without boosting the sky or overly altering the color.
If you don't mind me posting an edit of your image I can show an example.
I usually carry this lens, attached to a gripped body, with the lens facing backwards between my left arm and torso. The camera body then rests against my arm and torso. I've seen a pro do this, and copied the technique. It's surprisingly comfortable once you get used to it. I usually keep hold of the neck strap with my right hand just in case.
Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish, you lose a steady customer.LOL So true.