geoffL
old hand
Reged: 15/06/2007
Posts: 773
Loc: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
|
|
I'm currently using a 5D and have a 24-105 F4L IS, 100mm f2.8 canon macro and a 70-200mm F4L.
For some general people and portrait shots I'm finding the 100mm macro and 105 end of the 24-105 a little limiting as I'd like to get a closer at times. Also, recently when using doing some shots in less good light F4 was a little limiting and I'd like to have been able to open up a little more.
Obviously I have the 70-200 but the light issue is still there at times and without IS it becomes even more of an issue with wokring at longer lengths.
So - a possible (but expensive!) answer appears to be the 70-200 F2.8 IS lens. this would give me a good ranges of lengths for what I need, more light if needed, and IS.
Any thoughts or expriences with this lens? I would also look at other makes but although Sigma do a 70-200 2.8 they don't appear to do an IS model.
Another though lurking in the back of my mind it this... I tend to be very convervative about upping the ISO as I don't want to bring noise in. The 5D is pretty good but at 800 more noise is appearing. So - the other consideration is to wait for the 'new' 5D which I'm assuming will have noise levels more like the D3. I can then whack the ISO higher and solve some of my issues? Still need to find some cash of course.....
Any thoughts/opinions?
--------------------
Geoff Love
Take a look at my other pictures at:
www.geofflove.co.uk
|
nimbus
enthusiast
Reged: 29/08/2007
Posts: 316
|
|
135mm f2 L?
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6400
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
So - a possible (but expensive!) answer appears to be the 70-200 F2.8 IS lens. this would give me a good ranges of lengths for what I need, more light if needed, and IS.
Unless you were shooting mainly in the studio I'd say that an f:2.8 zoom was the best way forward for portraiture and the 70-200 focal length is ideal. Modern day zoom performance is more than enough for just about all bar those who should be shooting on MF or those who are more interested in pixel peeping than the shot itself.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7979
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
Modern day zoom performance is more than enough for just about all bar those who should be shooting on MF or those who are more interested in pixel peeping than the shot itself.
Aye right! But since we're only talking about 70-200mm zooms here fair enough....they seem to be very good.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
geoffL
old hand
Reged: 15/06/2007
Posts: 773
Loc: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
|
|
Thanks for replies - does anyone else make a 70-200 2.8 zoom with IS or is it Canon or nothing?
--------------------
Geoff Love
Take a look at my other pictures at:
www.geofflove.co.uk
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38335
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Wait a few weeks and there might be a Sigma...
I'm not convinced that an extra stop is worth the extra money, TBH - will it make that much difference to you?
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 5278
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
does anyone else make a 70-200 2.8 zoom with IS or is it Canon or nothing?
I think Nikon may ... but as it won't fit your camera it's a moot point.
Fact of the matter is, the Canon 70-200mm L IS zoom in either f/4 or f/2.8 variants is so good that it would be hard for an independent to match it. The only problem with the f/4 is that it's not f/2.8 and the only problem with the f/2.8 is that it's a big heavy lump. Choose your own poison. 
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
135mm f2 L?
That's the way I go - switch to a good fast prime and zoom with the feet in the time-honoured manner. Plenty of possibilities in the Canon stable, and mostly much, much cheaper than a top-flight 70-200/2.8 with all the gizmos.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
   
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7979
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
135mm f2 L?
That's the way I go - switch to a good fast prime and zoom with the feet in the time-honoured manner. Plenty of possibilities in the Canon stable, and mostly much, much cheaper than a top-flight 70-200/2.8 with all the gizmos.
But that's so uncool  You should be able to drive somewhere in your shiny Chelsea tractor, open the window(optional!) and take blinding shots with hardly any thought or effort....and if the shot doesn't look exactly as you want it just chuck it at something like this and it'll sort it for you. Easy 
Not that I've got anything against 70-200's as such as my old boy uses his to pay the bills....tongue firmly in cheek there  I'd probably opt for a faster prime too tho.
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38335
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I agree about the 135, FWIW. As I implied earlier, I'm not sure that 1 stop is that great a benefit - 2 stops would be much more useful, surely? And you could probably get an 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2 as well for the price of a 70-200 f2.8 IS.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6400
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
I'm not convinced that an extra stop is worth the extra money, TBH - will it make that much difference to you?
For portraiture? I'd say it would be worth, not so much for the better ability in low light but for the shallower depth of field achievable with f/2.8
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38335
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Yes, but there's more advantage with a stop more so you can really see the difference, I think.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
The 85/1.8 is actually the one I originally had in mind - quite cheap, fast aperture (okay, it's not the f/1.2, but that will cost a small fortune), compact, light, and if it's anything like Nikon's equivalent, probably more than good enough even wide open. IS, however good it might be at stopping camera movement, will never stop subject movement, so a usable fast aperture will always give you some options that IS won't.
Incidentally, since the (currently non-stabilized) Sigma was mentioned, I have an earlier version of this, and whilst I love it (it's one of my most used and liked lenses) it definitely suffers from spherical aberration wide open, and really needs to be stopped down at least two thirds of a stop to get crisp images. Really I prefer to use it at f/4, from which point the performance is very good indeed. As far as I can see from test reports that sort of behaviour is actually fairly typical of this lens type, so even if the OP were to pay out for the Canon he might not get as much benefit as he's hoping for.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
Edited by huwevans (04/09/2008 14:37)
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 5278
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
there's more advantage with a stop more so you can really see the difference, I think.
It's an argument for the 70-200 f/2.8 vs the 70-200 f/4 - but the depth of field of a 135mm f/2 will be very similar indeed to that of a 200mm f/2.8 so the only real advantage of the prime lens will be the more convenient working distance. (Unless you have a body odour problem or something similar which makes it inconvenient to approach your sitter...)
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38335
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Well I'm finding it a little hard to imagine anyone doing an extensive amount of portraiture at 200mm, TBH, so was assuming the majority of it was at an intermediate setting.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7979
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
there's more advantage with a stop more so you can really see the difference, I think.
It's an argument for the 70-200 f/2.8 vs the 70-200 f/4 - but the depth of field of a 135mm f/2 will be very similar indeed to that of a 200mm f/2.8 so the only real advantage of the prime lens will be the more convenient working distance. (Unless you have a body odour problem or something similar which makes it inconvenient to approach your sitter...)
Same image magnification???? To get the same (shallow) DoF with a 70-200/2.8 as a 135/2 you'd need to shoot at a higher magnification which would mean you could fit less in and would have a slower shutter speed (or higher ISO depending on which compromise you chose).
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
geoffL
old hand
Reged: 15/06/2007
Posts: 773
Loc: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
|
|
Hmmmm interesting comments. The 70-200 2.8 IS would be an advantage compared to my current 70-200 F4 as in addition to a stop of aperture the IS would also, at least theoretically add another 2-3 stops. Overall therefore I could gain 3-4 stops.
The 135 is a possibility - and clearly cheaper too. I would gain on stops but lose on IS and zoom flexibility.
Another way I guess is to go with upgrading my 70-200 F4 to the IS version but this only feels like half the job.
The 85mm on the 5D is really too short for my needs. I already have the Canon 105mm 2.8 macro and would therefore be looking to go longer than this.....
Helpful to hear some thoughts though.... money will no doubt be a big factor so at least I have some ideas to work with while I save up! Thanks to all.
--------------------
Geoff Love
Take a look at my other pictures at:
www.geofflove.co.uk
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38335
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
IS will stop camera movement, but not subject movement. A tripod is a cheaper option to stop the camera movement...
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7979
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Quote:
IS will stop camera movement, but not subject movement. A tripod is a cheaper option to stop the camera movement...
But perhaps not the more portable option.
Says he that has never used IS in anger because I forget it's there
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 6400
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
Well I'm finding it a little hard to imagine anyone doing an extensive amount of portraiture at 200mm.
Well, according to lightroom I have 5210 portraits taken on my 200mm f:2. 
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
