[at-l] Slides

[bullard@northnet.org (James Bullard)]

At 09:26 PM 2/3/01 -0500, tom wrote:
>mtn0613@mail.newnanutilities.org wrote:
> >
> > Hi James, me again, thanks again for the info on the Zing case, I did buy
> > one and really like it.
> > If you don't mind I would like to pick your brain for some suggestions on
> > lenses. The one I bought with my Rebel 2000 is the Sigma Zoom 28-105
> > 1:3.8-5.6 UC-III. I like the lens, but on a recent outing I found its
> > limitations as far as distance, that what I saw in the view finder and what
> > developed where two different things.
>
>I find this statement odd. Are you really saying your pics didn't match
>up to what you saw in the finder?

Tom has a good point here. You have to pay attention to the whole 
viewfinder. There is a tendency to pay attention only to the part you want 
a photo of. That's why there are so many photos of folks with trees 
(electric poles or whatever) apparently sprouting from the top of their 
heads. Try this: with your arm stretched out in front of you and your 
fingers spread as wide as you can look at your thumb. Now without moving 
your eyes ask yourself if you can see your little finger sharply. The 
answer is NO! We see only about a 3 degree angle sharply. We "think" we see 
everything sharply because we are constantly scanning with our eyes and the 
persistence of the image in our brain tells us it's all sharp. The tendency 
when looking through a camera viewfinder is to just look at what we are 
shooting. If you don't consciously scan the whole image in your viewfinder 
you'll get surprises when the photos come back.

>(I know, I'm not James ...:) )
>
> > I was shooting 3 hikers on the
> > approach trail leaving the shelter, in hopes of sending them a copy via
> > e-mail as pre-arranged, when I got the slides and CD back they where so
> > small in the frame that it was not worth sending it to them. The focal
> > length was at its max, the distance to the subject was about 200 yards, so
> > my question is what lens would you recommend to bring them in?
>
>Uh, just how small were they? Figure 200mm would double their size from
>the long end of your zoom...would that be big enough?
>
>The cheapest zoom is your legs.
>
> > I have been
> > looking at the Sigma 100-300 mm, would this do it or should I just invest
> > in 2X multiplier, if such thing is available for AF type lenses?
>
>It is, but how often can you hand-hold a 210 f/11? . . . clip . . .

Another good point. If you really feel you need a longer lens be sure to 
use a hiking pole or staff that can double as a monopod when shooting at 
longer focal lengths. It doesn't even need a tripod screw. A strap or 
length of Velcro to hold it to the staff will do. I've shot 1/4 second 
exposures with the assistance of trees but they aren't always where you'd 
like them to be. A bit of folded clothing on a big rock works too. I notice 
that Ken Wadness did not list a tripod but his only lens was a 28-135mm 
zoom. I like the one lens solutions. They fit the KISS principle.

Saunterer AKA James (or is it the other way round?)