DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> This is why you get a 200 2.8 lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/18/2005 08:09:42 PM · #1
My son's preschool was invited to a local gym for a christmas party for kids his age. I figured this was a good time to try teh 'new' Tamron 70-210 2.8. Indoor 'sports', right?

Yep, this is why you get yourself one of these lenses. IS might have been nice too, to perhaps one day...
300D, 70-210 2.8 at Av mode set at F3.5, ISO 1600, shtos at 132-210mm 1/40 to 1/50 handheld but braced. Auto WB, rather dark with flouresscent lighting. Cropped, resized, NI and USM.

This was at the 'Jesus' birtday party' at the end.


Some color adjustment on this as it was a bit yellow.

I like this lens!
 12/18/2005 08:21:09 PM · #2
how come you shot at 3.5 and not 2.8?
 12/18/2005 08:30:01 PM · #3
I was gonna ask the same thing...
 12/18/2005 09:40:42 PM · #4
Why not the elusive 200 f1.8?
 12/18/2005 10:00:46 PM · #5
To be honest, I get indoor shots of this quality with my Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6.

Even at 5.6 with ISO 1600 I can usually grab 1/60 - 1/90 sec.

and I agree with everyone else, I'm a little perplexed why you'd shoot f/3.5 if you have f/2.8 through the range?
 12/18/2005 10:46:24 PM · #6
Sharpness folks.
No lens is at its best at it's extreme focal length or aperture.
Not that 3.5 is a big move from 2.8, but some test shots i did last week show a difference. Also, i was about 50' away and shooting very active little people, so any added depth of field is a plus.

Artyste - if you do get good shots at 1/60-1.90 then you are good. As to the 5.6 - that depends on the available light in the room doesn't it? With my Sigma I have shake issues - I need to keep the shutter at 1/500 or more outdoors, and rarely have any luck indoors. The tamron is 3 pounds heavy, and a good deal longer than the sigma, so one has to hold the lens, not the body, and that moves the center of movement to a better (more stable) location. I can get acceptable 1/60sec at 200mm with the tamron completely handheld - something i have never achived with teh sigma - so i have to assume the weight/holding location is the difference.

What was nice was how bright the viewfinder image is and no aperture change when zooming. With the Sigma when i try any low light shots and zoom as i zoom and the ap shrinks the shutter speed drops - a nasty combo. At 200 mm the Sigma is at the edge of F4 to 4.5 if i recall - that is a lot darker image and a stop slower - so 1/60 would become 1/30 (roughly comparing F3.5 to 4.5). I wanted to go a bit faster to reduce the chance of blurry kids but didn't want to push it to 3200 (my rebel has the undutcahbles hack). The AIServo does work (part of the hack) which is good to know.

12/18/2005 10:52:22 PM · #7
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Sharpness folks.
No lens is at its best at it's extreme focal length or aperture.
Not that 3.5 is a big move from 2.8, but some test shots i did last week show a difference. Also, i was about 50' away and shooting very active little people, so any added depth of field is a plus.

Artyste - if you do get good shots at 1/60-1.90 then you are good. As to the 5.6 - that depends on the available light in the room doesn't it? With my Sigma I have shake issues - I need to keep the shutter at 1/500 or more outdoors, and rarely have any luck indoors. The tamron is 3 pounds heavy, and a good deal longer than the sigma, so one has to hold the lens, not the body, and that moves the center of movement to a better (more stable) location. I can get acceptable 1/60sec at 200mm with the tamron completely handheld - something i have never achived with teh sigma - so i have to assume the weight/holding location is the difference.

What was nice was how bright the viewfinder image is and no aperture change when zooming. With the Sigma when i try any low light shots and zoom as i zoom and the ap shrinks the shutter speed drops - a nasty combo. At 200 mm the Sigma is at the edge of F4 to 4.5 if i recall - that is a lot darker image and a stop slower - so 1/60 would become 1/30 (roughly comparing F3.5 to 4.5). I wanted to go a bit faster to reduce the chance of blurry kids but didn't want to push it to 3200 (my rebel has the undutcahbles hack). The AIServo does work (part of the hack) which is good to know.


Oh, I'm not saying a good f/2.8 isn't essential. (I want the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 pretty bad), I'm just saying I'm surprised that you weren't getting better shutter speeds @ f/3.5, it must have been darker than I'm used to.

It's unfortunate that f/2.8 isn't sharp enough for you to want to use it. Kind of defeats the purpose I think.
 12/18/2005 11:02:30 PM · #8

The one on the right is at f2.8, the left at f7. If not the sharpness, the contrast is certainly better at higher F-stops. Now this was under somewhat uncontrolled conditions - the lens has a HUGE 77mm front glass and i have found that not using the hood outdoors is death to the image quality.

The gym was dim. Hey! I'm a pet too!LOL

Here's a shot of the interior kind of showing the lights, or lack there of.

I was saving for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as well. But at $800 it was a ways off and this lens became available for $300 incl shipping...how could i say no?

Now the decision is - keep the sigma 70-300 apo or sell it for a 1.4x extender? I like the Sigma and it is lighter...but will i use it anymore?

I wasn't sold on IS..but i think i can work with this lens until i can afford the $1700 canon 70-200 2.8 IS. Donations gladly accepted!

I have recently met a gent with the canon 500 4.5 lens...$4200 sucker. I will hopefully get to try a few shot with it. Never own one though.

Message edited by author 2005-12-18 23:03:26.
 12/18/2005 11:09:18 PM · #9
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The one on the right is at f2.8, the left at f7. If not the sharpness, the contrast is certainly better at higher F-stops. Now this was under somewhat uncontrolled conditions - the lens has a HUGE 77mm front glass and i have found that not using the hood outdoors is death to the image quality.

The gym was dim. Hey! I'm a pet too!LOL

Here's a shot of the interior kind of showing the lights, or lack there of.

I was saving for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as well. But at $800 it was a ways off and this lens became available for $300 incl shipping...how could i say no?

Now the decision is - keep the sigma 70-300 apo or sell it for a 1.4x extender? I like the Sigma and it is lighter...but will i use it anymore?

I wasn't sold on IS..but i think i can work with this lens until i can afford the $1700 canon 70-200 2.8 IS. Donations gladly accepted!

I have recently met a gent with the canon 500 4.5 lens...$4200 sucker. I will hopefully get to try a few shot with it. Never own one though.


I've known for a long time that lenses are best when used as near f/8 as possible (usually), so I know what you're saying.

I'd just try and stay away from a lens that I wouldn't *want* to use wide open. hehe. But for $300.. hell..

anyway, happy shooting with it and all that, the poor Sigma 70-300 of mine needs to be retired for sure. lol
 12/19/2005 11:29:18 PM · #10
Always I blame the photographer not the lens.
Canon 200 F2.8 is very sharp lens wide open (if you use center focusing point).

Here is one at F2.8



Another one :



Or with Sigma 2X converter two stops up:



Message edited by author 2005-12-19 23:31:47.
 12/19/2005 11:33:48 PM · #11
@ 2.8
 12/19/2005 11:45:54 PM · #12
Somewhere between 70 and 200 at 2.8,
12/20/2005 12:16:19 AM · #13
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Always I blame the photographer not the lens.
Canon 200 F2.8 is very sharp lens wide open (if you use center focusing point).


nice and sharp, nice shots, But that is a prime lens. My shots are with a 70-210 2.8 tamron.
I just don't use primes - i think it's beacuse i cannot make up my mind and a zoom gives me the ability to waver on what focal lenght is best.;)

And yes, it is always the equipment that gets blamed. It takes me a few tries to get the best from a lens. My Sigma 18-50 2.8 i tend to shoot wide open a lot, or very close to it, and often at higher ISO - a combination that is tough to achieve great results.I often miss focus a bit, so i have adapted my shooting style to 'fix' that. My tamron 24-135 i usually shoot in teh 5.6-9 range and have no issues with it at all. The 70-210 is new - this was my second time out with it, first time indoors, second time ever using AIServo, and i dislike shooting at ISO 1600 and wide open at moving subjects (based on my 18-50 experience). I got a couple of missed focus shots, but overall am impressed with the lens' performance. I'll push it (and me) further next time out.

Message edited by author 2005-12-20 00:23:06.
 12/20/2005 12:39:15 AM · #14
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
My son's preschool was invited to a local gym for a christmas party for kids his age. I figured this was a good time to try teh 'new' Tamron 70-210 2.8. Indoor 'sports', right?

Yep, this is why you get yourself one of these lenses. IS might have been nice too, to perhaps one day...
300D, 70-210 2.8 at Av mode set at F3.5, ISO 1600, shtos at 132-210mm 1/40 to 1/50 handheld but braced. Auto WB, rather dark with flouresscent lighting. Cropped, resized, NI and USM.

This was at the 'Jesus' birtday party' at the end.


Some color adjustment on this as it was a bit yellow.

I like this lens!


You would be better off shooting wide open in the future. What little sharpness you lose will be gained in a fater shutter speed and less camrea shake in your photos.
 12/20/2005 01:14:50 AM · #15
I was just processing some shots from the NCAA Women's Volleyball Final 4 when I saw this thread. I used a Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8 for all these. Shot wide open (F2.8) from the stands at ISO 800 with shutter speeds ranging from 1/400 to 1/640. I could not have stopped the action without being at 2.8 (as you can see I still did not stop it completly)

And by the way, our UW girls won! Swept the entire playoff without losing a game. And beat #1 Nebraska 3-0.





Message edited by author 2005-12-20 01:28:43.
 12/20/2005 06:44:45 AM · #16
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
No lens is at its best at it's extreme focal length or aperture.


I wasn't going to leap in on this comment, but I see someone beat me to it sorta... :-).

Wide open at 200mm:


unedited 100% crop:


And another:


unedited 100% crop:


For that matter Here's the original file out of the camera (2.4Mb jpeg). Pixel peep to your hearts content and tell me how much sharper this could be stopped down...

I don't want to appear to be a lens-snob but I think you are wrong to say that Canon, Nikon etc don't make lenses that have a sweet spot which includes the extents of their design.

I've got 1000's of shots from my 24-70 and 70-200 which are tack sharp beyond any doubt, out of the camera at F/2.8. That's what I paid through the nose for!

Cheers, Me.
 12/20/2005 10:00:03 AM · #17
i every review of every lens i have read they all claim the image is better stopped down 1 or 2 stops. Sure L glass is gonna be nice wide open, but still better stopped down.
I will try some test shots later this week and see how much difference there is from 2.8 to 8, and more importantly, does it matter to me?

The tamron 70-210 is an older lens that has been discontinued, and not replaced from what i can see. I was unable to find any reviews on it, as in something more than a 'rating', at which it scored well. I bought it mostly on price :). I did not really expect L glass performance at 1/4 the price. I was born at night, but not last night.
This lens should last me until i can afford the 70-200 2.8 IS.

[b]Brent_Ward{/b] - there probably is some camera shake here, but not much (lens/camera sitting on a flat railing). 1/40 to 1/60 at at an effective 300mm is way too slow a shutter speed even maybe for IS (should be 1/300 or more). I don't think opening it 1/2 stop would have mattered much shutter speed wise. I should have tried ISO3200 as I have the hack - that i guess would have doubled the speed to 1/125 or so which might have helped some I suppose.


12/20/2005 10:33:09 AM · #18
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
i every review of every lens i have read they all claim the image is better stopped down 1 or 2 stops. Sure L glass is gonna be nice wide open, but still better stopped down.
I will try some test shots later this week and see how much difference there is from 2.8 to 8, and more importantly, does it matter to me?

The tamron 70-210 is an older lens that has been discontinued, and not replaced from what i can see. I was unable to find any reviews on it, as in something more than a 'rating', at which it scored well. I bought it mostly on price :). I did not really expect L glass performance at 1/4 the price. I was born at night, but not last night.
This lens should last me until i can afford the 70-200 2.8 IS.

[b]Brent_Ward{/b] - there probably is some camera shake here, but not much (lens/camera sitting on a flat railing). 1/40 to 1/60 at at an effective 300mm is way too slow a shutter speed even maybe for IS (should be 1/300 or more). I don't think opening it 1/2 stop would have mattered much shutter speed wise. I should have tried ISO3200 as I have the hack - that i guess would have doubled the speed to 1/125 or so which might have helped some I suppose.


Resting the camera on the railing will address camera shake to a degree, but won't do anything for subject motion. A faster shutter speed will.
 12/20/2005 11:06:50 AM · #19
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Resting the camera on the railing will address camera shake to a degree, but won't do anything for subject motion. A faster shutter speed will.


Same for IS. I expected subject blur, and got it too. That is fine. There was no way to do otherwise. If i had gone over the railing and used my flash, i'd have frozen the little people, but perhaps gotten thrown out too LOL.
 12/20/2005 01:00:33 PM · #20
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Resting the camera on the railing will address camera shake to a degree, but won't do anything for subject motion. A faster shutter speed will.


Same for IS. I expected subject blur, and got it too. That is fine. There was no way to do otherwise. If i had gone over the railing and used my flash, i'd have frozen the little people, but perhaps gotten thrown out too LOL.


Yup. VR (or IS) is not much good when shooting fast acting sports. As you can see with my pix below even at 1/400 to 1/640 I have blur in some of the motion areas. Thats why you want to be able to shoot as wide open as possible. As you already noted the nice thing about better glass is you can shoot wide open and still get an acceptable image. I agree through that all lenses seem to be crisper stopped down a touch.
 12/20/2005 01:18:20 PM · #21
Chris,

The sharpness of the lens isn't the problem here. Your focus was off. Your second shot was focused a foot or so behind the bucket. Had it been focused directly on the bucket, I think you'd find that the quality is just fine.

Don't be afraid to use it wide open at 2.8... just be especially careful where you're focusing; the narrow DOF can haunt you if you're not right on the mark.

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The one on the right is at f2.8, the left at f7. If not the sharpness, the contrast is certainly better at higher F-stops. Now this was under somewhat uncontrolled conditions - the lens has a HUGE 77mm front glass and i have found that not using the hood outdoors is death to the image quality.

The gym was dim. Hey! I'm a pet too!LOL

Here's a shot of the interior kind of showing the lights, or lack there of.

I was saving for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as well. But at $800 it was a ways off and this lens became available for $300 incl shipping...how could i say no?

Now the decision is - keep the sigma 70-300 apo or sell it for a 1.4x extender? I like the Sigma and it is lighter...but will i use it anymore?

I wasn't sold on IS..but i think i can work with this lens until i can afford the $1700 canon 70-200 2.8 IS. Donations gladly accepted!

I have recently met a gent with the canon 500 4.5 lens...$4200 sucker. I will hopefully get to try a few shot with it. Never own one though.
12/20/2005 01:23:16 PM · #22
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Chris,

The sharpness of the lens isn't the problem here. Your focus was off. Your second shot was focused a foot or so behind the bucket. Had it been focused directly on the bucket, I think you'd find that the quality is just fine.

Don't be afraid to use it wide open at 2.8... just be especially careful where you're focusing; the narrow DOF can haunt you if you're not right on the mark.

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The one on the right is at f2.8, the left at f7. If not the sharpness, the contrast is certainly better at higher F-stops. Now this was under somewhat uncontrolled conditions - the lens has a HUGE 77mm front glass and i have found that not using the hood outdoors is death to the image quality.

The gym was dim. Hey! I'm a pet too!LOL

Here's a shot of the interior kind of showing the lights, or lack there of.

I was saving for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 as well. But at $800 it was a ways off and this lens became available for $300 incl shipping...how could i say no?

Now the decision is - keep the sigma 70-300 apo or sell it for a 1.4x extender? I like the Sigma and it is lighter...but will i use it anymore?

I wasn't sold on IS..but i think i can work with this lens until i can afford the $1700 canon 70-200 2.8 IS. Donations gladly accepted!

I have recently met a gent with the canon 500 4.5 lens...$4200 sucker. I will hopefully get to try a few shot with it. Never own one though.

you're right, but that was addressed in the last thread that prof started about his lens.
 12/20/2005 01:24:48 PM · #23
the canon 500L/4.5 now sells for about $3200-3500 usd. There was one on photo.net for $3300 recently. Quite a lens from what i've see :-)
 12/20/2005 01:25:53 PM · #24
Originally posted by kyebosh:
you're right, but that was addressed in the last thread that prof started about his lens.


Um, dare I ask how many threads there are? :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 05:30:01 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/21/2025 05:30:01 PM EDT.