| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2004 01:02:33 PM · #101 |
Thanks for the link to Adorama, JTF, I just went window shopping, and I think I am going to hit them hard next week. Prices aren't half bad. How's the service?
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I have the F4 version of the 70-200 and it's almost impossible to use inside without very good lighting or flash. That's not a very good choice for your application. I use it outside. Remember that the 1/focal length for shutter speed is the 35mm equivalent, so you need about 100-300/ths of a second minimum to handhold. On a 10D it's quite long.
Considering that a lot of your stuff will be shot inside I'd suggest going for a few prime focal length lenses. If you had a Sigma 20 1.8, a Canon 50 1.8 and a Canon 100 F2, for example, you'd be fairly well covered for low light photos and have good quality, bright glass. Don't make a direct correlation to image quality based on price between zoom lenses and prime lenses. Prime lenses are much cheaper, and usually brighter (wider aperture) than their zoom counterparts. The 50 1.4 vs the 24-70 2.8 is a great example of that.
Consider ordering from adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com or somewhere similar in the states. The prices here in camera stores are way over the top. With the strength of our dollar lately it'd be dumb not to order from the US. Those places also have a used section, where you can sometimes get good deals.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Edit: I'm considering the Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM ... not as wide an aperture, but it's good glass and has the higher zoom i need sometimes. Don't know anyone who owns it though.. |
|
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:29:36 PM · #102 |
Yea, I'll check them out, too.
On a side note, I saw this lens and never even heard of it before:
200mm F/2.8 II USM = $1019CND.
I'm assuming it's a fixed length, has anyone used it before? |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:35:19 PM · #103 |
Yes it's a fixed focal length. Any lens designation with just one length is. I've never used it but I've read tons of reviews and I don't think I've heard anything bad about it. That and (especially the 135 F2L) are amongst the sharpest lenses made by Canon. The 135 F2L i sprobably more useful on a 1.6x crop for weddings and portraits, a stop brighter and about as sharp and contrasty as it gets. The 200 F2.8L doesn't get much attention because it is upstaged by the 70-200. Most people aren't willing to sacrifice the zoom for the size and ever-so-slight optical advantage.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Yea, I'll check them out, too.
On a side note, I saw this lens and never even heard of it before:
200mm F/2.8 II USM = $1019CND.
I'm assuming it's a fixed length, has anyone used it before? |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:38:32 PM · #104 |
Hmm interesting...I'd want it for concerts, and it's a very decent price. AND has a decent Fstop I'm looking for. I've never used a fixed length before.
Too many options...actually, for my price range, there's relaly not enough options. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:40:36 PM · #105 |
| So you're still deciding? I would go for glass right now, but if the camera was a little more worn (i'm at about 5400 pics), I would go with a body. If you're doing pro work and don't have a backup body things could be dangerous. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:42:16 PM · #106 |
Yeah...when I eventually have money again I'm going to buy the 35 F1.4L and the 135 F2L for low-light and creative stuff. For indoor telephoto, there's really only one serious option in the 135 other than the (incredibly expensive and rare) 200 1.8L.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Hmm interesting...I'd want it for concerts, and it's a very decent price. AND has a decent Fstop I'm looking for. I've never used a fixed length before.
Too many options...actually, for my price range, there's relaly not enough options. |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:44:59 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
So you're still deciding? I would go for glass right now, but if the camera was a little more worn (i'm at about 5400 pics), I would go with a body. If you're doing pro work and don't have a backup body things could be dangerous. |
I've decided on getting a lens..but now to figure out what kind of lens. I'll get a telephoto for indoor concerts (that's the debate right now: which one) and a much cheaper 50mm for weddings. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:46:01 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
For indoor telephoto, there's really only one serious option in the 135 other than the (incredibly expensive and rare) 200 1.8L. |
Which 'one serious option' are you talking about? Honestly, I am trying to keep up. lol |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:47:27 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
So you're still deciding? I would go for glass right now, but if the camera was a little more worn (i'm at about 5400 pics), I would go with a body. If you're doing pro work and don't have a backup body things could be dangerous. |
I've decided on getting a lens..but now to figure out what kind of lens. I'll get a telephoto for indoor concerts (that's the debate right now: which one) and a much cheaper 50mm for weddings. |
Get the 70-200mm f/2.8L, you won't regret it! Although having the IS version is nice it's up to you to decide whether it's woth the extra C$700-800 to you.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 01:48:33 PM · #110 |
The 135 F2L. Just read... fredmiranda.com 135 F2L reviews
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Which 'one serious option' are you talking about? Honestly, I am trying to keep up. lol |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:06:34 PM · #111 |
| How much difference does the IS really make? |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:09:37 PM · #112 |
Up to 3 stops of light in shutterspeed.
Message edited by author 2004-12-09 14:17:02.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:11:44 PM · #113 |
Keep in mind that it doesn't help stop action, though. It acts like a tripod. You'll still get the same amount of motion blur if the subject is moving. It can be useful for aristic band shots, though. The IS version has other benefits - better weatherproofing and a circular aperture.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:11:44 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
How much difference does the IS really make? |
A lot LOL I can Shoot my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at 200m handheld at 1/60 and get tack sharp results! With the non IS you'd need 1/250 at the 200mm side to get sharp results handheld.
Also the IS version has circular blade aperture, meaning better looking bokeh.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:16:09 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
A lot LOL |
Crap. I was hoping that wouldn't be the case :-)
I'm so torn. What to do what to do....I DO know there's no way I could afford $2500 for one lens (even with the 'rents financing it). |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 02:47:07 PM · #116 |
UPDATE.
Okay, I think I've made up my mind (how passive aggressive of me!!!).
I'm holding off. No point going half-assed. If a super expensive, out of reach, IS lens is what I need, then I should save for it.
After Christmas I should have about 1/2 the money for it, then have the 'rents kick in the other half. I think it's the responsible thing to do.
:-)
Thanks for everyone's help! |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:12:01 PM · #117 |
I'd really consider making a compromise in this situation. If you only have the 28-105 and have to scrimp to get the IS lens, really consider getting a few less expensive lenses. As I said earlier you could get the 70-200 F4L, the 17-40 F4L, a good flash and a bright prime from a mail-order place for a lot less than $2500. That, in my opinion, would make more sense.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:22:56 PM · #118 |
| How about a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM APO? Both lenses are highly regarded at Fred Miranda, and f/2.8 will work a lot better for you than f/4 while still keeping you under budget. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:36:14 PM · #119 |
Kosta uses this lens.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Yea, I'll check them out, too.
On a side note, I saw this lens and never even heard of it before:
200mm F/2.8 II USM = $1019CND.
I'm assuming it's a fixed length, has anyone used it before? |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:37:45 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I'd really consider making a compromise in this situation. If you only have the 28-105 and have to scrimp to get the IS lens, really consider getting a few less expensive lenses. As I said earlier you could get the 70-200 F4L, the 17-40 F4L, a good flash and a bright prime from a mail-order place for a lot less than $2500. That, in my opinion, would make more sense. |
The F4 doesn't help me in concerts, though..esp. without the IS. And since it's waht I really want to be doing, I think it's in my best interest to save for the lens I'll use the most later on. Don't get me wrong, I plan on investing in some other less expensive lenses for other types of photography - like the weddings I have booked. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:39:02 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
After Christmas I should have about 1/2 the money for it, then have the 'rents kick in the other half. I think it's the responsible thing to do. |
LOL!!! Mooching off the parents does sound responsible :) |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:39:49 PM · #122 |
i agree. add one of the 50mm's to this list and you have yourself a nice little set up--with some great versatility to handle most situations that come your way. which is hugely important, especially with people photography--in dealing with and trying to capture the ever-changing nuances--you want to be prepared for anything. if that makes sense. :)
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I'd really consider making a compromise in this situation. If you only have the 28-105 and have to scrimp to get the IS lens, really consider getting a few less expensive lenses. As I said earlier you could get the 70-200 F4L, the 17-40 F4L, a good flash and a bright prime from a mail-order place for a lot less than $2500. That, in my opinion, would make more sense. |
|
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:45:21 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by hopper:
LOL!!! Mooching off the parents does sound responsible :) |
I didn't ask, they offered and just so ya know, I did say No about a dozen times. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 03:46:40 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
... if that makes sense. :)
|
Yup, makes great sense :-) except none of those lenses help me with the one thing I really want to do: concerts.
I thought that's what I wanted to do..but last night's show confirmed it.
P.S. I will, howver, definetly pick up the 50mm.
Message edited by author 2004-12-09 15:47:06. |
|
|
|
12/09/2004 04:01:58 PM · #125 |
Both excellent cost effective options. Do concider other than Canon, both these lenses would do well for concerts and weddings.
-danny
Originally posted by scalvert:
How about a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM APO? Both lenses are highly regarded at Fred Miranda, and f/2.8 will work a lot better for you than f/4 while still keeping you under budget. |
|
|
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: 06/26/2025 02:49:16 AM EDT.
