Question:
I put up the pic on: http://www.frii.com/~goldens/BWO.html I didn’t optimize it at all. If you have a dialup, it will take a while to load (it took me awhile to upload). Willi
Response:
I put up the pic on: http://www.frii.com/~goldens/BWO.html I didn’t optimize it at all. If you have a dialup, it will take a while to load (it took me awhile to upload). Willi
Got ‘em all in about 5 seconds. (you got the water, I got the link) Very low water, eh? Interesting how that seems to affect different streams in different ways. Fished Bronte with the asadi man and the catching sucked but the Credit with the same low water, was full of fish a couple of days earlier. Peter Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html
Response:
Very low water, eh? Interesting how that seems to affect different streams in different ways. Fished Bronte with the asadi man and the catching sucked but the Credit with the same low water, was full of fish a couple of days earlier. All Summer, I’m sure that was the case. Maybe fishing at night would have worked. The temps were so high this Summer, the water felt warm and I was sure there were significant kills. Didn’t fish it all Summer but would periodically go for walks and never saw a fish. The cooler water of Fall brought the bugs and also the fish. Willi
Response:
I put up the pic on: http://www.frii.com/~goldens/BWO.html
Challenging water, Willi. Those pics. are enough to get the pulse up a bit. Steve
Response:
I knew that the flows were low in Colorado’s streams this year, but I was still surprised by your pictures. How much lower is the water on your stream than during a normal October? Nice shots though. Here in southern California I just heard that starting on Friday approximately 90% of the National Forest land will be put off-limits until we receive *significant* rainfall. It’s been a tough season all over. Cheers, Bill I put up the pic on: http://www.frii.com/~goldens/BWO.html
—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
I put up the pic on: http://www.frii.com/~goldens/BWO.html
my god, that is *low* water (and slow)! i can’t believe you can lay out line and not spook every fish in the creek. it’s as if you fish a different world than we do… yfitons wayno
Response:
I put up the pic on:
Good pics Willi – very nice brown. It’s amazing those fish are in such low slow water – and you’re catching them. I guess if the river is rich enough, then the trout have no choice but to be there, and feed, no matter how low the water is.
Response:
I put up the pic on: http://www.frii.com/~goldens/BWO.html my god, that is *low* water (and slow)! i can’t believe you can lay out line and not spook every fish in the creek. That is the trick. That’s where the cloudy cover helps. In those situations, I can generally get close enough that I’m casting only a few feet of fly line. On sunny days the Dorber line helps. It is a four weight but is slightly thinner than a Cortland three. Although it doesn’t float as well as a Cortland, its thinner profile suits most light line situations better for me. This water has been a good teacher for me. it’s as if you fish a different world than we do… It’s a different world than the majority of waters in the Rockies and it’s the reason why I usually have this water to myself. Flows are at about half of normal for this time of year. Because this stretch of river has frequent drawdowns and releases for irrigation needs and for the filling of reservoirs, fluctuations are common. The fish have adapted well to frequent low water conditions. Low water flows for several years that correspond with spawning times result in fewer but bigger fish. When I first started fishing this part of the river, the population was low, but an average fish was close to 20 inches. Until this year, the past few years have had decent flows during spawning times and the population of fish is good with a variety of age classes. The fish average about four inches more than the more popular just a few miles upstream. Willi
Response:
I put up the pic on: Good pics Willi – very nice brown. It’s amazing those fish are in such low slow water – and you’re catching them. I guess if the river is rich enough, then the trout have no choice but to be there, and feed, no matter how low the water is.
One of the things that this river has taught me is that many fish, often better fish, prefer to feed in shallow water, sometimes very shallow water, during a hatch or other periods of insect activity. I think that it must make for more efficient feeding. willi
Response:
Question:
When shooting with my rangefinder camera, I find I use my lenses in the order 35, 24, 50, 15, 90. When I go out for a photo session for a day or a trip, I usually only carry two lenses (sometimes three) … The kits I’ve carried that proved very comfortable were 15/35/90 and 24/50. I’m beginning to believe that my ideal kit for this camera might be 21/35/75. With SLRs, I tend to go with longer lenses. I currently have three lenses 22-55 zoom, 50 and 100mm, and would like a fast 135 or a fast 180 as well. I find I never use the zoom as it is only an f/4 and too slow, plus it’s not terribly sharp. For completeness sake, I probably want a fast ultrawide as well, around a 20mm. Again, when going on a trip, I carry at most two-three lenses, but use the 50 the vast majority of the time; my last all round SLR kit was a 20/50/105 or 70-300 setup that was amazingly flexible and comfortable to use. With the kit you have listed, I would find the 28 and 35 a little too close together, would probably go with a 20-24mm instead. The 80-200 is a wonderful lens, it’s just way too bulky for me to want to carry much! Godfrey === CrisKeath sez: it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
Response:
I tend to rely on primes (24/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5, 135/2.8) as I like the small size and speed of those lenses – I am uncomfortable with the weight and bulk of the heavy 2.8 zooms. I have the new Tamron 28-200mm XR for convenience n bright light, and am (so far) astounded by its results. If I were to change anything, I’d trade in my 35mm f/2.8 on the f/2 and the 135mm on a 180mm f/2.8. I like your outfit and would be satisfied (although I personally find the 80-200mm too heavy) with it if I changed the 28mm to a 24mm. Big difference in perspective. Your F100 is sweet. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. Skip the 26…go for at least a 24mm. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc How about a 50 1.4 or 50 1.8?? MWNN Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 –
http://www.uncensored-news.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With NINE Servers In California And Texas – The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Response:
Minuses: The 28 and 35 are probably too close together; 80-200 is imho too heavy to hike with. If you want 3 lenses, what about the 28/2.8, 50/1.8, and 80-200/2.8? That would be a very nice stable of lenses. You could shoot good portraits with the 80-200 but personally i’d never take it on a hike. (don’t let cheap price of 50/1.8 fool you—it’s great) Dudefish alternative: if you want to cover a lot of ground, save a lot of money, and have one lens capable of making lots of very respectable images, why not just get the AF-D 28-105/3.5-4.5? This may be a worth looking into, esp. if your interest is more casual than professional. btw, F100=very nice.
80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200.
35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
Response:
80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose
You may wish to get this lens’ little brother, the 70-210mm constant f/4. It rates very highly especially for costing well under $300. It is much smaller and lighter also. If you decide to get a Nikon 50mm I would get the 1.8 instead of the 1.4. It’s cheaper and by many accounts, better overall than the 1.4 except for the slight edge in terms of "speed." I have a 1.4 and while I’ve been fairly happy with it, many reviews I have read pointed out the general superiority of the 1.8. Just make sure to get one with a metal mount! Amy
Response:
Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc.
I’d substitute a 24mm or wider lens for the 28mm. I think you’ll find the 35mm to be very useful indeed…the 28mm isn’t that much wider. With a 24 you start getting into interesting territory perspective-wise. My main SLR kit is small: 21/60/180. (The 60mm is a macro lens but also works great for general picture-taking and even portraits.) Two other lens sets I like are 21/50/135 and 15/35/90. I use these with rangefinder cameras. -Dave-
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
I too have the F100 and the N70 as a backup/2nd body. I use the Tokina Pro 17/3.5, 28-70/2.6-2.8, 80-200, and Nikkor 50/1.8. I will probably be adding the 300/f4 AF-S to that list. For hiking this would be quite a heavy load. The 50/1.8 is an awesome lens, and try an ultra wide lens, it is truly fun…. JR
Response:
I’m in the exact same boat, and could have written the original post myself! My thoughts were the F100 with the 24-85 f2.8-4 IF D-AF and the 80-200 f2.8 Ed D IF. Any comments on choice and / or the quality of these two lenses before I take the plunge? Also, I’ve got a pretty recent Vivitar 283 (doesn’t everyone?) and don’t know how it might integrate into an F100 system? Trigger voltage is one thing – I understand later serial #s are okay? But what about metering modes and such? Thanks, Wayne
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc I too have the F100 and the N70 as a backup/2nd body. I use the Tokina Pro 17/3.5, 28-70/2.6-2.8, 80-200, and Nikkor 50/1.8. I will probably be adding the 300/f4 AF-S to that list. For hiking this would be quite a heavy load. The 50/1.8 is an awesome lens, and try an ultra wide lens, it is truly fun…. JR
Response:
I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m in the exact same boat, and could have written the original post myself! My thoughts were the F100 with the 24-85 f2.8-4 IF D-AF and the 80-200 f2.8 Ed D IF. Any comments on choice and / or the quality of these two lenses before I take the plunge? Also, I’ve got a pretty recent Vivitar 283 (doesn’t everyone?) and don’t know how it might integrate into an F100 system? Trigger voltage is one thing – I understand later serial #s are okay? But what about metering modes and such? Thanks, Wayne it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc I too have the F100 and the N70 as a backup/2nd body. I use the Tokina Pro 17/3.5, 28-70/2.6-2.8, 80-200, and Nikkor 50/1.8. I will probably be adding the 300/f4 AF-S to that list. For hiking this would be quite a heavy load. The 50/1.8 is an awesome lens, and try an ultra wide lens, it is truly fun…. JR
Response:
I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave
… … I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality. Charles — * Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation * * UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W * * 131 Bishop’s Forest Drive , Waltham , Ma. USA 02452 * * (781) 647 2269 FAX (781) 647 3665 Cellular (617) 504 3379 *
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave … … I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality. Charles — * Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation * * UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W * * 131 Bishop’s Forest Drive , Waltham , Ma. USA 02452 * * (781) 647 2269 FAX (781) 647 3665 Cellular (617) 504 3379 *
Sounds like what I carry, 17-35 f2.8-4 Sigma, 28-135 IS Canon, 100-400 IS, 100 f2 and 50 f1.8, although generally not all at once. Skip — Shadowcatcher Imagery http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave … … I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality. Charles
Charles, You really like big lenses. Very nice but big. I find the 1.4TC to be unnoticeable in image quality when used and the 2.0 gives just a touch of softness to the 70-200mm 4.0L which otherwise is crisp as hell. I actually used to own the 28-70mm 2.8L and sold it to purchase the 28-135mm IS just to get away from the weight also the 70mm top end was always too short. Stopped down they are very similar in image quality. I have scoured the photo market for a camera and lens combination that will give me a L or better look without a crick in my neck. The Contax G2 and lenses seems to do the trick. Played with a G1 last week and really liked it. No real usable zoom but it is optically great and light. Canon just came out with the 16-35mm 2.8L which is somewhat bigger and heavier than the 17-35. I was hoping for a 17-35mm 4.0L to match my 70-200. I do mostly scenic and am stopped down most of the time. Dave
Response:
<<If you decide to get a Nikon 50mm I would get the 1.8 instead of the 1.4. It’s cheaper and by many accounts, better overall than the 1.4 except for the slight edge in terms of "speed." I have a 1.4 and while I’ve been fairly happy with it, many reviews I have read pointed out the general superiority of the 1.8. Just make sure to get one with a metal mount! Amy I have both the f1.4 and f1.8. The difference is slight and not noticeable under most conditions. The f1.8 is sharper at f1.8 than the f1.4 is at that opening, but by the time both are at f2.8 and certainly by f4, they are essentially equal from mid to out there distances. Up close, the f1.8 has the edge until f5.6. OTOH, the f1.4 is a little brighter and easier to focus on manual. I think the f1.4 is made better, or at least my version seems to be. I use them almost interchangeably. Allen Zak
Response:
When I go off into the hills with my 4X4 I take three lens with me, the 17-35mm, 24-120mm, and the 135-400mm. Since it’s open daylight, I don’t really need a battery of fast lenses, but the 17-35mm is my favorite lens for scenic’s (among other things). In my trail bag, I take a N90s, the 24-120 and the 135-400 with three filters, a warming filter, polarizer, and a UV; and a MC30 shutter release cable. I have a sold light weight fly fishing wadding staff that I have placed a Giotto MH-1003 ball head on and I use that for my walking staff and monopod. I don’t use my steel Gitzo monopod when on the trail. It’s too heavy. The 135-400 serves me well for creature pictures and the 24-120 handles the rest of my needs. But for vistas, I like the 17-35 stopped down to f11 at 20 or 24mm’s, mounted on a tripod (the 17-35mm and the tripod stay with the 4X4). Nick – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
Response:
When I hike I carry an Elan II, a 28-135IS, a Sigma 17-35 2.8, and a cheapo 75-300 if I feel like carrying it. In the bag on a serious day I add a 70-200 2.8L and an EOS-3. It comes down to home much you want to carry. What stinks is invariably whenever I don’t carry a camera or a specific lens, a picture comes along and i am stuck muttering, "Damn, wish I brought along the…" Y’all know the feeling.
Response:
I don’t have any lenses in my bag. Two years ago I bought a really nice camera body to start me off on my picture taking. Hopefully, in a few years I will be able to afford a nice lens. Until then I am practicing pointing the camera, pushing the shutter button smoothly and taking notes on thing I see that might make a good picture. - the photo guy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave … … I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality. Charles Charles, You really like big lenses. Very nice but big. I find the 1.4TC to be unnoticeable in image quality when used and the 2.0 gives just a touch of softness to the 70-200mm 4.0L which otherwise is crisp as hell. I actually used to own the 28-70mm 2.8L and sold it to purchase the 28-135mm IS just to get away from the weight also the 70mm top end was always too short. Stopped down they are very similar in image quality. I have scoured the photo market for a camera and lens combination that will give me a L or better look without a crick in my neck. The Contax G2 and lenses seems to do the trick. Played with a G1 last week and really liked it. No real usable zoom but it is optically great and light. Canon just came out with the 16-35mm 2.8L which is somewhat bigger and heavier than the 17-35. I was hoping for a 17-35mm 4.0L to match my 70-200. I do mostly scenic and am stopped down most of the time. Dave
Response:
When I hike I carry an Elan II, a 28-135IS, a Sigma 17-35 2.8, and a cheapo 75-300 if I feel like carrying it. In the bag on a serious day I add a 70-200 2.8L and an EOS-3. It comes down to home much you want to carry. What stinks is invariably whenever I don’t carry a camera or a specific lens, a picture comes along and i am stuck muttering, "Damn, wish I brought along the…" Y’all know the feeling.
I’ve had that feeling. Especially when I see a fantastic vista and reflect upon not bringing a second camera that has transparency film. There is _nothing_ like seeing something so grand as such scenes projected upon a large projection screen in your home, except seeing the real thing. Prints or digitals on a monitor don’t come close to reproducing the feeling one gets when viewing projections. Nick
Response:
I don’t have any lenses in my bag. Two years ago I bought a really nice camera body to start me off on my picture taking. Hopefully, in a few years I will be able to afford a nice lens. Until then I am practicing pointing the camera, pushing the shutter button smoothly and taking notes on thing I see that might make a good picture. – the photo guy.
PG, you are not taking this thing seriously. Glue a piece of kitchen foil across the lens mounting ring on your body, make a small hole in it with a needle, and you can have a lens for free, you will *never* need to waste any more money. If you put it on a couple of concentric cardboard tubes you can have a zoom lens of pretty well any effective focal length you like, with *no change in quality* (how about that, a zoom that’s *exactly* as good optically as a fixed focal length lens). And you will have no problem with bo-ke, as all the scene will be in focus, every time (well, kind of). — David Littlewood
Response:
writes – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality.
Hmm, at the risk of this sounding like a clone club, I usually have a 17-35 f/2.8L, a 28-135 f/4-5.6 IS and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. If only I could leave it there, but no, I usually have to add a Sigma 14mm, a TS-E 24 f/3.5, and a 35 f/1.4 (if doing interiors) plus a 1.4x TC and maybe a spare body. Before I replaced some earlier lenses with these heavier ones, I would regularly have a Mamiya 6 outfit (body plus 3 lenses) in the same bag. No wonder I have spent so much on chiropractors in the last year or so! Think I need a spare body too (usually known as my wife). — David Littlewood
Response:
I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and
… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality. Charles, You really like big lenses. Very nice but big. I find the 1.4TC to be unnoticeable in image quality when used and the 2.0 gives just a touch of softness to the 70-200mm 4.0L which otherwise is crisp as hell. I actually used to own the 28-70mm 2.8L and sold it to purchase the 28-135mm IS just to get away from the weight also the 70mm top end was always too short. Stopped down they are very similar in image quality. I have scoured the photo market for a camera and lens combination that will give me a L or better look without a crick in my neck. The Contax G2 and lenses seems to do the trick. Played with a G1 last week and really liked it. No real usable zoom but it is optically great and light. Canon just came out with the 16-35mm 2.8L which is somewhat bigger and heavier than the 17-35. I was hoping for a 17-35mm 4.0L to match my 70-200. I do mostly scenic and am stopped down most of the time. Dave
It is true that my gear weighs a lot and I probably should get a Canon 1.4TC. I wonder if it would fit on the 85 1.2L… Charles — * Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation * * UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W * * 131 Bishop’s Forest Drive , Waltham , Ma. USA 02452 * * (781) 647 2269 FAX (781) 647 3665 Cellular (617) 504 3379 *
Response:
There certainly are a lot of us with the 17-35 f2.8L. It is one of my favourite lenses. How about you guys? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes I have a 17-35mm 2.8 on the wide end, a 28-135mm IS for the middle and a 70-200 4.0L at the long with a 1.4 and 2.0TC and an EOS-3. I normally only carry one lens at a time depending on what I am shooting, but the others will be in my trunk if I find I need them and one will be on my wife’s Elan 7 so we can swap. I am seriously thinking of replacing the 17-35(which is my favorite nature / travel lens with a Contax G2 with some collection of 16mm through 45mm lenses. This will put much less strain on my neck by days end. Dave I also carry the 17-28 2.8L and the 28-135 IS (even though I don’t like the lens), but where you have the 70-200 4.0L and some TCs, I have an 85 1.2L and a 100-400 4-5.6L. I don’t have any TCs and am nervous about getting one as I worry that I’ll be too disappointed in the optical quality. Hmm, at the risk of this sounding like a clone club, I usually have a 17-35 f/2.8L, a 28-135 f/4-5.6 IS and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. If only I could leave it there, but no, I usually have to add a Sigma 14mm, a TS-E 24 f/3.5, and a 35 f/1.4 (if doing interiors) plus a 1.4x TC and maybe a spare body. Before I replaced some earlier lenses with these heavier ones, I would regularly have a Mamiya 6 outfit (body plus 3 lenses) in the same bag. No wonder I have spent so much on chiropractors in the last year or so! Think I need a spare body too (usually known as my wife). — David Littlewood
– * Charles Richmond Integrated International Systems Corporation * * UNIX Internals, I18N, L10N, X, Realtime Imaging, and Custom S/W * * 131 Bishop’s Forest Drive , Waltham , Ma. USA 02452 * * (781) 647 2269 FAX (781) 647 3665 Cellular (617) 504 3379 *
Response:
it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. [...] 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
I carry a 24mm 2.8f, 105mm 2.8f micro for my fixed lenses, and the cheap-but-light 28-80mm 4.0-5.6f zoom and the 70-300mm zoom. A couple extension rings and a 1.4x TC and some filters get me where I want to go. The F100 is a great body. Enjoy. Greg
Response:
it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
I take a 24, a 50 and a 100 for all that. And two bodies. One for b&w; one for slide. Just for the odd occasion I add a 2x converter. And a 12 mm macro tube. There are of course (macro) zoom lenses covering 24 to 100mm. For shooting negative they are fine. Not for slides imho. A zoom is more versatile, but not a lot. More important: look ahead: see your photo opportunity coming and have your complete camera ready. All set at the right speed, opening and distance. There is a *lot* more in one’s bag beside lenses. Keep the total weight as low as possible. If you can carry more, take more film! Here’s what’s in my bag: http://www.xs4all.nl/~wiskerke/artikelen/bag1.html – lots of small items 
— http://www.wiskerke.com
Response:
Great choice on the F100. This summer my standard hiking setup was the AF-S 80-200, AI-S 105 micro, AI 50mm f1.4, AI-S 20mm f2.8 and a Kenko Pro 1.4X. I use the LowPro Mini-Treker to carry all this, often with a Slik 804CF and SB-28.. For vacation travel, I bring the 24-120 and AI 50mm f1.4. For candids I like the AF-S 28-70 f2.8. Mark – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – it’s been awhile since I’ve done photography but I’ve decided I want to take it up as a hobby again. After much research, I’ve decided to go with the F100. My shooting habits right now will be of 3 things-nature (when I go hiking) and candid shots of the kids playing or group shots. Photo gurus- what do you think of my selection or would you modify it. All suggestions and feedback welcome 80-200 AFD 2.8 – A little heavy but it’s a alot more versatile when you’re hiking and don’t want to stop and change lenses or have the space to compose 28mm f2.8- A good overall landscape lens to complement the 80-200. 35mm f2- General prime that will be on the F100 for those candid group shots of the kids…playing, birthdays, etc
Response:
Two pentax cameras ZX30 & ZX7 35-80mm zoom. This lens gets a lot of flack in this group but I love its ability to compose family shots. 28mm f28 for landscape. 100-300mm for nature & wildlife. 50mm f1.7 for low light. 500mm f8 mirror lens. A new toy I just bought to play with. It was cheap and it really has a reach. Quality is not really expected but still an unknown.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t have any lenses in my bag. Two years ago I bought a really nice camera body to start me off on my picture taking. Hopefully, in a few years I will be able to afford a nice lens. Until then I am practicing pointing the camera, pushing the shutter button smoothly and taking notes on thing I see that might make a good picture. – the photo guy. PG, you are not taking this thing seriously. Glue a piece of kitchen foil across the lens mounting ring on your body, make a small hole in it with a needle, and you can have a lens for free, you will *never* need to waste any more money. If you put it on a couple of concentric cardboard tubes you can have a zoom lens of pretty well any effective focal length you like, with *no change in quality* (how about that, a zoom that’s *exactly* as good optically as a fixed focal length lens). And you will have no problem with bo-ke, as all the scene will be in focus, every time (well, kind of). — David Littlewood
Why practice w/ the camera at all – Einstein once said that "imagination is more important than knowledge", imagination’s also a better film than Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, Konica, Imation/3M, etc. put together and it has better bokeh and is cheaper than any pinhole/zoom lens – and get this… "you never run out of film to you run out of thoughts" (I said this and I imagined myself saying it too, therefore I have a free picture w/o any camera, film, flashcards or IBM micro-drives being used) 
… Descartes, Earl of Broken Watches… "I think therefore I am, I imagine therefore I’m late (even if I imagine I’m early)" Lewis I’ve set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience. Thanks. Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION": http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Response:
Question:
Thanks, I may give it a shot sometime soon. In a sit-on-top kayak, staying dry is not much of an option<g. I would expect to stay in pretty close to shore and away from other boats though. I’m not sure since I have never kayaked…but I have used a lake canoe out there. It is advisable of course to use it in areas where you can avoid heavy boat traffice <obviously. But to answer your question simply…yes…it would probably be a godsend for you. Make sure you have enough room to keep stuff dry 
Tight lines,
– Charlie…
Response:
I’m not sure since I have never kayaked…but I have used a lake canoe out there. It is advisable of course to use it in areas where you can avoid heavy boat traffice <obviously. But to answer your question simply…yes…it would probably be a godsend for you. Make sure you have enough room to keep stuff dry Tight lines, — Nicholas J. Slodki
:Nicholas, : :Would a sea kayak be any good down there. I just bought a sit-on-top :and have been thinking about trying it around that area (I’m in :Atlanta). Thanks. : : :Bryan, : :I’ve lived in that area many times before and visit constantly. : :What I suggest is an outfit from 7-10 wt., WF Intermediate or sinktip type :II, and a reel with a min. of 220 yards of 20lb. backing. : :If you head over toward panama city or are able to get back in the marshes :in Choctawhatchee and St. Andrews Bays, you’re in for a treat. They haven’t :had much rain down there until this last week and the water should be :relatively clear and the bottom stable. Redfish and Seatrout will be moving :into the back harbors and inlets at this time of year as winter is :approaching. On the jetties at the pass entrances, spanish mackerel, reds, :pomano in the surf and flats, jacks, possibly some blues, specks and small :sharks should be everywhere. : :Leaders should be no less 7′ and tapered to a min. of 10lb. class tippet. :Shock tippets would be good for the spanish…about a foot of 30lb. :albrighted to the tippet. : 
oppers are a must on the flats in the early mornings or evenings for reds, :specks and jacks. Some dredging flies <McCrab, clousers, Puffs no larger :than a size 1 hook are good during the day. Also deceivers in red/yellow, :white/yellow, white/black are excellent. For the spanish macks, glass :minnows in a fast retrieve are way good. : :Make sure you bring a good pair of wading shoes that protect your feet from :shell debris and stingrays (yes, they’re everywhere too lol), a hat, and a :good pair of sunglasses. : :Hope this was helpful to you. : :– :Charlie…
Response:
Bryan, I’ve lived in that area many times before and visit constantly. What I suggest is an outfit from 7-10 wt., WF Intermediate or sinktip type II, and a reel with a min. of 220 yards of 20lb. backing. If you head over toward panama city or are able to get back in the marshes in Choctawhatchee and St. Andrews Bays, you’re in for a treat. They haven’t had much rain down there until this last week and the water should be relatively clear and the bottom stable. Redfish and Seatrout will be moving into the back harbors and inlets at this time of year as winter is approaching. On the jetties at the pass entrances, spanish mackerel, reds, pomano in the surf and flats, jacks, possibly some blues, specks and small sharks should be everywhere. Leaders should be no less 7′ and tapered to a min. of 10lb. class tippet. Shock tippets would be good for the spanish…about a foot of 30lb. albrighted to the tippet. Poppers are a must on the flats in the early mornings or evenings for reds, specks and jacks. Some dredging flies <McCrab, clousers, Puffs no larger than a size 1 hook are good during the day. Also deceivers in red/yellow, white/yellow, white/black are excellent. For the spanish macks, glass minnows in a fast retrieve are way good. Make sure you bring a good pair of wading shoes that protect your feet from shell debris and stingrays (yes, they’re everywhere too lol), a hat, and a good pair of sunglasses. Hope this was helpful to you. — Nicholas J. Slodki
:I am looking for anyone who may have some tips to share for fly fishing near :the Sandestin Resort in Florida. I am planning to go mid October. Any :information on areas and tackle would be very helpful to a new initiate. : : :
Response:
Nicholas, Would a sea kayak be any good down there. I just bought a sit-on-top and have been thinking about trying it around that area (I’m in Atlanta). Thanks. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bryan, I’ve lived in that area many times before and visit constantly. What I suggest is an outfit from 7-10 wt., WF Intermediate or sinktip type II, and a reel with a min. of 220 yards of 20lb. backing. If you head over toward panama city or are able to get back in the marshes in Choctawhatchee and St. Andrews Bays, you’re in for a treat. They haven’t had much rain down there until this last week and the water should be relatively clear and the bottom stable. Redfish and Seatrout will be moving into the back harbors and inlets at this time of year as winter is approaching. On the jetties at the pass entrances, spanish mackerel, reds, pomano in the surf and flats, jacks, possibly some blues, specks and small sharks should be everywhere. Leaders should be no less 7′ and tapered to a min. of 10lb. class tippet. Shock tippets would be good for the spanish…about a foot of 30lb. albrighted to the tippet. Poppers are a must on the flats in the early mornings or evenings for reds, specks and jacks. Some dredging flies <McCrab, clousers, Puffs no larger than a size 1 hook are good during the day. Also deceivers in red/yellow, white/yellow, white/black are excellent. For the spanish macks, glass minnows in a fast retrieve are way good. Make sure you bring a good pair of wading shoes that protect your feet from shell debris and stingrays (yes, they’re everywhere too lol), a hat, and a good pair of sunglasses. Hope this was helpful to you.
– Charlie…
Response:
I am looking for anyone who may have some tips to share for fly fishing near the Sandestin Resort in Florida. I am planning to go mid October. Any information on areas and tackle would be very helpful to a new initiate.
Response:
