While I was visiting my family in Phoenix last month, we went to the Grand Canyon. We actually stayed a night in Flagstaff (about 120 miles north of Phoenix), so I was only at the canyon for a few hours on one day. This was the first time I'd been there with a digital SLR, and I took a lot of redundant pictures. I've tried to pare it down to a few of the best.
--------------------------------------
An old-fashioned scene along Highway 64
The canyon is visible in the distance along Highway 64
The next 8 pictures are from Mather Point
The next 17 were taken along the path outside the lodge
This one was taken from another viewpoint looking back toward the lodge and the beginning of the trail into the canyon. Look for the hikers...
Mt. Humphreys, Arizona's highest point, along I-40 almost back to Flagstaff
The Sedona area seen along I-17 heading back to Phoenix
The Grand Canyon is probably the most amazing thing I've ever seen. Back when I visited years ago, photography wasn't even a glimmer in my eye so I didn't have a camera with me with which to capture it. I'd love to go back and shoot the hell of the place. Unfortunately, even as great as these shots are, they can't begin to approach what it feels like to stand at the rim and look out at the canyon. The sense of scale and distance is unbelievable.
Great set, though, Upward. Were some of these taken with the 17-40L, by any chance? I'm thinking of getting one in a month or two.
Wow, fantastic! The winter light with the sun in the south really gives some dimension to the South Rim-- every time I've been has been in the summer, with flat, noon-time light. Still, like Hydrogen mentioned, I bet you've now experienced the frustration of trying to photgraph that thing! Your pics are stunning, but there's nothing like seeing it with your own eyes. It's a shame the visitor's area on the South Rim is like Disneyland these days, but I still feel like every American should see it, at least once. Great pics! Thanks.
__________________
"Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work." -Chuck Close
the pictures of the canyon were great. too bad so many people were there. tourists ruin the fun of being in nature to me. anyway, also liked the pictures of the crows. high five.
__________________ Originally Posted by TREPYE "...all you do is kiss this Freedom Tower's ass all the time..." Originally Posted by kznyc2k " but you just have a really, really huge boner for this tower, D..."
Great set, though, Upward. Were some of these taken with the 17-40L, by any chance? I'm thinking of getting one in a month or two.
Yes, several of these were taken with the 17-40. Most of the rest were taken with the 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS). The first three and the second-to-last were taken with the 50mm f/1.4
You have a camera with a 1.6x crop, right?
The 17-40 is a nice lens, but unless you are worried about compatibility with full-frame cameras, you should look at the EF-S 10-22mm. The difference between 10 and 17mm is enormous. I went with the 17-40 (for slightly less money at the time) mostly because the 10-22 would have left me with no lens in the 22-50mm range, which is too useful to be without. If you already have something like a 28-xx zoom (or especially an 18-xx zoom), go for the 10-22. Otherwise, the 17-40 is a great lens if 28mm equivalent is wide enough.
Impressive photos as always, Chris. Looks like a nice crisp day.
Those hikers walking down the snow-covered trail into the Canyon are fucking insane in my book. One bad step or slip and you can tumble over the edge to your death. No way in hell could you get me on a snow-covered, slippery trail like that.
I have almost the same angle shot with my gear last summer. Although mine was taken with the 16-35 mm L, with my full-frame sensor, this is about as wide as the 10-22 mm wide angle lens would be on 1.6x crop cameras.
Yes, several of these were taken with the 17-40. Most of the rest were taken with the 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS). The first three and the second-to-last were taken with the 50mm f/1.4
You have a camera with a 1.6x crop, right?
The 17-40 is a nice lens, but unless you are worried about compatibility with full-frame cameras, you should look at the EF-S 10-22mm. The difference between 10 and 17mm is enormous. I went with the 17-40 (for slightly less money at the time) mostly because the 10-22 would have left me with no lens in the 22-50mm range, which is too useful to be without. If you already have something like a 28-xx zoom (or especially an 18-xx zoom), go for the 10-22. Otherwise, the 17-40 is a great lens if 28mm equivalent is wide enough.
It looks like we have similar tastes in glass. I also have the 70-200mm. I was considering the 10-22, which is a great lens, until I decided to get a 5D in a year or so. But, judging by your shots and others I've seen, I'm sure the 17-40 won't disappoint.
Oh yeah, if you're planning to get a 5D, then definitely go for the 17-40.
One of the things that made me chose the 17-40 is compatibility with full-frame. I hope to eventually own a full-frame digital SLR, and I also have an EOS film body. I've used the 17-40 for some wide-angle stuff on film, but not much, because film is expensive and you get much less creative control unless you have access to a darkroom (which I don't).
Prev
Linear Mode
