?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Gear.

I'm often asked what gear I use... so here's most of it:

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
hypostatization
Oct. 1st, 2004 08:40 pm (UTC)
taken with the elph?
d0se
Oct. 2nd, 2004 01:14 pm (UTC)
question: are the photos you post in here taken with a digicam???
blaneyphoto
Oct. 4th, 2004 01:01 pm (UTC)
Its a mix. Some are with my various film cameras, some with my good digital gear and others with my small, old point and shoot digital.
(Deleted comment)
blaneyphoto
Oct. 4th, 2004 01:00 pm (UTC)
Re: can you help?
I'm sure I can help you out! I don't know if you've seen any of my headshot samples, so take a look here: http://www.gallergy.com/blaneyphoto/

If those look ok, send me an email (blaneyphoto@comcast.net) and we can make arrangements.


thanks for getting in touch!

nathan
(Deleted comment)
blaneyphoto
Oct. 24th, 2004 03:59 pm (UTC)
Well, I didn't buy it all at once! But anyway, it pays for itself so its no big deal...
(Deleted comment)
blaneyphoto
Oct. 24th, 2004 04:08 pm (UTC)
You don't need a lot of lenses - just the right lenses. Unfortunately, that's different for everyone! As for Macro's, I can't say enough good things about the Sigma 105mm f/2.8. Its really fantastic and very affordable. I understand that thier 50mm is also great. A very cheap, but very usable lens is the 50mm f/1.8 - $60.00. I use mine all the time. I'd be reluctant to go with a lens that covered as much range as 90-300. I think you'll lose alot of quality in your shots. My advice would be a couple shorter ones, or perhaps the 70-200 f/4...
(Deleted comment)
blaneyphoto
Nov. 2nd, 2004 06:15 pm (UTC)
lenses
Well, with the f/1.8 vs. f/1.4, you're looking at a $200 price increase for the f/1.4. Its a faster, more well constructed lens, but not better quality glass. You could buy several 1.8's for the cost of the 1.4 - and it probably won't make a real difference.
Zoom vs. Primes? For the most part, yes, you do trade some quality for the ability to zoom. BUT - if you invest the money in Canon's "L" series lenses, you're going to have a hard time complaining! Almost every PJ and Sports Photog has the 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS. Even the f/4 version is pretty darn good!
To some degree, it boils down to how much gear you want to carry. You can do an awful lot with a 24-70mm and 70-200mm. And, there are simply those situations where you cannot physically move closer! The ONLY way to get the close up is with a zoom - unless you want to carry a 85mm, 105mm, 200, 300, etc...
(Deleted comment)
blaneyphoto
Nov. 3rd, 2004 07:53 am (UTC)
Re: lenses
The 28-90 will probably be Ok outdoors, but its slow (f/4.5-5.6) and the glass quality is on the low end. A better (and inexpensive) option is the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 - Its an all around better choice. If you can afford it, the 24-70 f/2.8 is the way to go...
For the portraits, etc the 85mm f/1.8 is good and pretty affordable. Macro? I love my sigma 105mm f/2.8 and its under $300.00!

I'd also check out the forums at dpreview.com. Lots of info!
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )