u/Dheorl

I often see on here and elsewhere that the difference between totality and a 99% eclipse is “night and day”.

Having now seen a total eclipse at a fairly regular height above the horizon, and one at sunset, I can genuinely say IMO the difference in the experience is as great as the difference between total and deep partial.

If anyone gets the chance to view one at sunset, I thoroughly recommend it, and would go out of my way to try and be pretty much as late in the path as possible.

I’m bringing my mother to Menorca to watch the eclipse, and would really love to try and get somewhere a little scenic to watch it. Unfortunately she’s a little old/disabled and renting a car isn’t an option.

I’m hoping early evening we should hopefully be able to get a taxi out somewhere? (We’re staying in Ciutadella, please correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption), but I’m worried about getting back.

I know your can prebook on the website, but there are a couple of bits online saying that far from guarentees you a taxi, and I figure around the eclipse that might be more likely? Can anyone confirm how accurate that is?

Will we only have the option of watching it somewhere walking distance from our accommodation, or do you think we’d be ok relying on taxis?

The holy trinity of pro zooms has for a long time been a 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm.

Although this is what I’ve used in the past, it’s always felt like an odd split to me, and with new options coming out I’m guessing I’m not the only one with that opinion. Curious to hear other people’s thoughts on this and what their experiences have been?

The way I see it, 24mm is very much straying into the territory where a shot is obviously wide angle and distortion is a factor that has to be taken into account. If I’m shooting composing for wide angle, having more flexibility around that range in one lens seems to make sense.

35mm has always seemed the first of the usual prime focal lengths that doesn’t feel like a wide angle, so having that as one end of a zoom seems to make sense. Equally IMO you can go past 70mm and not get into a range that feels too unnaturally compressed (85mm has always seemed the longest of the usual primes where that’s the case).

To me then, a 35-85mm prime as the central one, flanked by an X-35mm (currently usually a 16-35mm), and an 85-Xmm lens makes more sense as a trinity.

Currently the closest to that would look something like a 16-35mm, 35-100mm (of which Tamron is the only offering AFAIK), and then you’re looking at either a bit of overlap, or a variable aperture lens at the top.

For people who have tried such combinations, how have you found them. Have you missed not being able to switch to a wide angle perspective without changing lenses, or do you like having a wide angle lens that covers more range instead? Do you like the bit extra length on the normal zoom, or once you get to that sort of range are you usually happy swapping to a 70-200mm?