I'm envious! I want to see Greece SO bad. Thanks for posting the pics on PBase, and your side notes were awesome.
Willa
--
http://www.PBase.com/willa
Willa
--
http://www.PBase.com/willa
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Greece with the 24-105 L - images link
- Thread starter c.hammett
- Start date
Gautam Majumdar
Forum Pro
Great images Carolyn. The 24-105 has served you very well.
The Church in Santorini as you have labelled, I believe, is actually the Cathedral of St Irene, after whom the island was renamed in the medieval times. Officially, the name of the island has been reverted to Thera.
--
Gautam
The Church in Santorini as you have labelled, I believe, is actually the Cathedral of St Irene, after whom the island was renamed in the medieval times. Officially, the name of the island has been reverted to Thera.
--
Gautam
K
kordics
Guest
Very nice photos Carolyn! Not only Greece, but also all the rest. I hope that I will visit Greece next year. Looking forward ...
Tanti saluti,
Stevan Kordic
http://www.kordic.info
codfish
Senior Member
i'm so pleased that you worked out the polarizer issue. the kaesemann is such a special cp that i think it's better to have come to it from a regular one than to start with it. that way you have a finer appreciation for what it does and you know it's what you want
i think in greece especially it would be a boon to have with you. and good to know that photorescue worked for you! phew!!
--
codfish
Thanks Willa. I don't want to bore people, but I think a sentence or two of commentary might be helpful on some historical site images. This from someone who just can't stop being a teacher !I'm envious! I want to see Greece SO bad. Thanks for posting the
pics on PBase, and your side notes were awesome.
Willa
--
http://www.PBase.com/willa
carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
You are right. I forgot that and will add it to my commentary. I was trying to put a sentence or two on so many images, that I just lost that bit of info! Thanks for the correction!
carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
--Grazie Tanti ! I'll look forward to seeing YOUR imagees !
carlyn
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
Hi Carolyn,
I remember your questions and decision process about a polarizing filter. Did you use it much and how did you like it? Great shots, we'll be there next May. Best, Bob
I remember your questions and decision process about a polarizing filter. Did you use it much and how did you like it? Great shots, we'll be there next May. Best, Bob
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Carolyn,
Great galleries and what a fantastic trip!
I have to ask how you like the 24~105 compared to the 28~135? I just bought the 24~105 too as a replacement for my 28~135 but haven't shot much of value yet. We are travelling to the Pacific Northwest in 2 weeks so I'll be giving it a workout along with a new XTi and 10~22.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
Great galleries and what a fantastic trip!
I have to ask how you like the 24~105 compared to the 28~135? I just bought the 24~105 too as a replacement for my 28~135 but haven't shot much of value yet. We are travelling to the Pacific Northwest in 2 weeks so I'll be giving it a workout along with a new XTi and 10~22.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
Well....initially I couldn't tell THAT much difference in my 24-105 L and the 28-135 IS, but after I accused thle 24-105 L of not being really as sharp as expected, I took it down to my camera store and they shot some tack sharp images with it, so I determined it was the lens user and not the lens at fault !
Since then, I've "learned' the lens better, and found it to be a beautiful and colorful lens. My comparison would be that it is a more "refined" lens than the 28-135 IS. I still love that lens though and think it is seriously overlooked by people wanting a good walk-around lens that isn't as pricey as the 24-105 L.If you look at the link below on my gallery, you will find several pages of shots I took the first few days I had the 24-105 L in the spring. They are all right out of camera and no pp except for resizing for pbase. The ones on pp. 3 and 4 are some of the better ones I think. Since then, I've improved a lot I hope. I am not a landscape person, and I don't particularly like it that way, but for isolates subjects which I enjoy, I think it is great.
Here's the link to my first un-pp images with it.
http://www.pbase.com/chammett/24105l_is_experiments
carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Very nice images!Well....initially I couldn't tell THAT much difference in my 24-105 L
and the 28-135 IS, but after I accused thle 24-105 L of not being
really as sharp as expected, I took it down to my camera store and
they shot some tack sharp images with it, so I determined it was the
lens user and not the lens at fault !
"learned' the lens better, and found it to be a beautiful and
colorful lens. My comparison would be that it is a more "refined"
lens than the 28-135 IS. I still love that lens though and think it
is seriously overlooked by people wanting a good walk-around lens
that isn't as pricey as the 24-105 L.
If you look at the link below on my gallery, you will find several
pages of shots I took the first few days I had the 24-105 L in the
spring. They are all right out of camera and no pp except for
resizing for pbase. The ones on pp. 3 and 4 are some of the better
ones I think. Since then, I've improved a lot I hope. I am not a
landscape person, and I don't particularly like it that way, but for
isolates subjects which I enjoy, I think it is great.
Here's the link to my first un-pp images with it.
http://www.pbase.com/chammett/24105l_is_experiments
carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
Don't be too hard on yourself regarding the sharpness of the lens. I've been evaluating the 70~200f4LIS against my 70~300DO and 100~400LIS and am about ready to pull what little hair I have left out due to AF inconsitencies.
I bought a new XTi body (same AF system as 30D) as an interim camera until the 30D replacement is announced. When evaluating new lenses I've found that I need to take at least 3 shots at each FL and aperture with each manually defocused in between to have a valid image to evaluate. The camera is on a heavy tripod, the mirror is locked, the timer is used, the AF target is high contrast on a large flat surface in bright sunlight. Taking 3 shots at each aperture and manually defocusing the lens between each shot so the AF has to refocus each time leaves one with at best 2 out 3 really sharp, properly focused images and sometimes only 1. I really thought the 30D/XTi AF system would be better than this.
I would wager that at least some of the images you might consider "soft" are probably the result of the camera's AF system shortcomings and not necessarily your technique.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
My PBASE page is new and growing so please be patient.
Bottom line, I did use it 100% of the time on the 24-105 on this trip during the day, and I'm very happy with it ! Thanks for remembering my indecision and constant back and forthing over it
carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
Well,, you are nice to make that observation / suggestion, but I actually am pretty sure that the times I feel the lens isn't THAT sharp are due to ME ! I am inconsistent in my ability to hand hold at low shutter speeds. Sometimes I can handhold at 1/4 sec and get a sharp image and sometimes I can't get one at 1/125 sec ! :-/ I would wager that in a scientific test, the camera would win !Very nice images!Well....initially I couldn't tell THAT much difference in my 24-105 L
and the 28-135 IS, but after I accused thle 24-105 L of not being
really as sharp as expected, I took it down to my camera store and
they shot some tack sharp images with it, so I determined it was the
lens user and not the lens at fault !
"learned' the lens better, and found it to be a beautiful and
colorful lens. My comparison would be that it is a more "refined"
lens than the 28-135 IS. I still love that lens though and think it
is seriously overlooked by people wanting a good walk-around lens
that isn't as pricey as the 24-105 L.
If you look at the link below on my gallery, you will find several
pages of shots I took the first few days I had the 24-105 L in the
spring. They are all right out of camera and no pp except for
resizing for pbase. The ones on pp. 3 and 4 are some of the better
ones I think. Since then, I've improved a lot I hope. I am not a
landscape person, and I don't particularly like it that way, but for
isolates subjects which I enjoy, I think it is great.
Here's the link to my first un-pp images with it.
http://www.pbase.com/chammett/24105l_is_experiments
carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
Don't be too hard on yourself regarding the sharpness of the lens.
I've been evaluating the 70~200f4LIS against my 70~300DO and
100~400LIS and am about ready to pull what little hair I have left
out due to AF inconsitencies.
I bought a new XTi body (same AF system as 30D) as an interim camera
until the 30D replacement is announced. When evaluating new lenses
I've found that I need to take at least 3 shots at each FL and
aperture with each manually defocused in between to have a valid
image to evaluate. The camera is on a heavy tripod, the mirror is
locked, the timer is used, the AF target is high contrast on a large
flat surface in bright sunlight. Taking 3 shots at each aperture and
manually defocusing the lens between each shot so the AF has to
refocus each time leaves one with at best 2 out 3 really sharp,
properly focused images and sometimes only 1. I really thought the
30D/XTi AF system would be better than this.
I would wager that at least some of the images you might consider
"soft" are probably the result of the camera's AF system shortcomings
and not necessarily your technique.
Bob
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett
'elegance is simplicity'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum