Better lens than 17-40

Started Dec 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP peter doncaster Regular Member • Posts: 214
Re: Better lens than 17-40

Hi. Your photos are good, the night shot, nice. You might convince me to try a prime. peter

Hi. I must admit the thought of having separate primes is really a problem to me . I have never tried them, but know taking lenses off outdoors is asking for trouble I think.

I spent a week hiking across North Cascades National Park this summer. I brought a 5D v3, a 24 mm f/1.4 v2, a tripod, and a spare battery (which I didn't need).

If your aim is landscape photography, 24 mm is a very useful focal length. In this week of traveling across varied terrain, from a high mountain pass among the glaciers to a low river valley, through dark woods, open meadows, and ultimately to a 50 mile lake, 24 mm was all I ever felt a need for. Even when I reached a town on the far side of the trail, 24 mm continued to be the ideal lens. Your mileage may be different from mine, of course, people see things differently, but I think photographers overstate the need for so much variety of focal lengths.

Here are a few photos from the trip.

Cascade Valley

Stehekin River

Lake Chelan

NPS Lodge at Stehekin

You can see more here: http://pacificnorthwet.wordpress.com/

 peter doncaster's gear list:peter doncaster's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow