| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2005 05:51:27 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by photomayhem:
Not slower from what the camera store told me. I can't believe how fast this lens focuses! |
You were supposed to say "Why yes, it's hideously slow" so I wouldn't want to trade my non-IS version in.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 07:39:55 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by photomayhem:
Not slower from what the camera store told me. I can't believe how fast this lens focuses! |
You were supposed to say "Why yes, it's hideously slow" so I wouldn't want to trade my non-IS version in. |
So sorry, but the IS version is just as fast. The IS doesn't affect the speed of focusing at all. In addition, the IS version has an 8-blade, circular aperture, and so should have slightly better bokeh, though I've never directly compared the two versions. The IS version is weather sealed, I am not sure about the non-IS version, offhand I don't think it is.
The IS on the 70-200 is the most modern version, and is switchable between 2-axis for normal shooting and single-axos for panning. I am quite glad I have the IS, and have not regretted the extra $$$.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 07:55:26 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
...The IS version is weather sealed, I am not sure about the non-IS version, offhand I don't think it is... |
The non-IS version, also, is weather and dust resistant (source: Canon).
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 08:08:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by kirbic:
...The IS version is weather sealed, I am not sure about the non-IS version, offhand I don't think it is... |
The non-IS version, also, is weather and dust resistant (source: Canon). |
but i don't think its weather sealed. I doesn't have the rubber gasket. I have the old hard case version. :)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 11:53:35 AM · #30 |
| I was testing this lens out at a night time soccer game under typical park flood lights and this is not the lens for that. In fact, I'm not sure if a 1.8 or 1.4 lens would even be good enough to stop action. It doesn't really matter though since I was just starting my testing of the lenses performance. I don't have any pics to post yet but I'm sure I will by this weekend. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 12:56:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by photomayhem:
I was testing this lens out at a night time soccer game under typical park flood lights and this is not the lens for that. |
At what ISO? |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 01:50:11 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by nova:
Originally posted by photomayhem:
I was testing this lens out at a night time soccer game under typical park flood lights and this is not the lens for that. |
At what ISO? |
I tried from 100 up through 800 and of course it was very grainy at higher ISO's. I think the 400 ISO at about 1/125th got decent photos but of course no stopped motion. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 02:44:30 PM · #33 |
This shot was taken with my 70-200 2.8L (non-IS) with the Canon 2x teleconverter. The length melted away the chainlink fence in the foreground.
400mm
F/5.6
1/1000
ISO 1600
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 02:47:42 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bran-O-Rama:
This shot was taken with my 70-200 2.8L (non-IS) with the Canon 2x teleconverter. The length melted away the chainlink fence in the foreground.
400mm
F/5.6
1/1000
ISO 1600 |
Holy crap!!! ISO 1600??? How dark was it outside? This shot is amazing when you look at the quality of the picture along with the EXIF data!!! Please let me know how the tiger was lit!!! thanks! |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 03:51:24 PM · #35 |
| ISO 1600 on a 20D isn't the same as a 10D. The grain would be way more visible on the 10D. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 04:11:44 PM · #36 |
| What is your mag. factor, 1.6 or 1.3? Why would you need a long lens for weddings? As for the f2.8 v f4, you could shoot at 200 instead of 100. There is a lot of difference in the weight of the lens also. If you are going to have it in your hands for a few hours, you will be very happy with the f4. Both are great lens. If you are hand holding, you might wnat to think about the IS lens. As the day wears on, unless you are a weight lifter, lighter is better or IS is better. |
|
|
|
02/09/2005 04:19:21 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
What is your mag. factor, 1.6 or 1.3? Why would you need a long lens for weddings? As for the f2.8 v f4, you could shoot at 200 instead of 100. There is a lot of difference in the weight of the lens also. If you are going to have it in your hands for a few hours, you will be very happy with the f4. Both are great lens. If you are hand holding, you might wnat to think about the IS lens. As the day wears on, unless you are a weight lifter, lighter is better or IS is better. |
Interesting point, I have the f4 and with the grip, the cam becomes quite heavy after a few hours though not as heavy as the 2.8IS would be. Maybe you'd need the IS after (say) 2 hours of lugging it about?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2005 04:31:01 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Why would you need a long lens for weddings? |
Personally I use my zoom lens at weddings quite a bit (esp. during ceremonies either with natural light or a strong flash) so I understand the need. It's also a great lens for portraits using the focal length around 112 (70 x 1.6 crop). Dandy for getting in close for candids, too, when you don't want to be intrusive. Just over all useful.
Edit: oh yea, about the weight, it's heavy but when I'm working (ie concentrating) I don't notice it. Besides, during a long event like a wedding you'd switch it up with different lenses throughout the day.
Message edited by author 2005-02-09 16:32:10. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 11:43:55 AM EDT.
