| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/29/2011 11:37:50 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Maggye:
I went to a store today and I was looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 135mm f/2, the only thing they didn't have a full frame camera, so I would like to see them again maybe on mine. They guy at the store said that the sharpness on the 135mm opened at f/2 was really good, wich is not the case on the 70-200mm opened at f/2.8. Has anybody experience that?
I like the flexibility of the zoom lens, but would I be really loosing picture quality and sharpnes?? |
I shoot the 70-200/2.8 IS wide open a lot, and I have never been dissatisfied with the sharpness. That said, your sensor is denser than mine, so you may see some slight softness that I do not. My recommendation is to take your body to the store, mount the lens and take some shots of a person, using flash, while in the store. Also take some shots of things with fine detail. Take shots at both 70mm and 200mm. Don't make any decisions in-store. Take your photos home, look at them critically on a larger monitor. I say to use flash because it eliminates questions of camera shake. You're not looking for a professional portrait, you're looking for a gauge of sharpness. If you can, take some shots with the 135/2 at f/2 and f/2.8 as well. Words of warning: The 135/2 is an addictive piece of glass :-) |
|
|
|
01/29/2011 12:14:45 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Maggye:
...
I went to a store today and I was looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 135mm f/2, the only thing they didn't have a full frame camera, so I would like to see them again maybe on mine. They guy at the store said that the sharpness on the 135mm opened at f/2 was really good, wich is not the case on the 70-200mm opened at f/2.8. Has anybody experience that?
I like the flexibility of the zoom lens, but would I be really loosing picture quality and sharpnes?? |
If I'm going specifically to look at lenses I always take my own camera... after all, that is where it will be used, right? :)
There isn't really any true optical differences between a lens on a 35mm vs. a smaller sensor. However, there is a big difference in the field-of-view(FOV). And it is edge effects that you wanna look for in a lens you are considering and if it is a zoom you wanna do it at the shortest and longest focal lengths. So never check out a lens on a small sensor camera.
You'd mentioned bulk weight as an issue with the 70-200mm f/2.8... I own the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM which I specifically bought because it is a lot smaller, lighter and more portable. That might be a possibility for you to, though you can't get as shallow of DOF with the f/4. I've read, though, that the image quality of the f/4L is better than the f/2.8L because it has fewer optical elements. I've never made the comparison myself so cannot verify that.
Coincidentally enough, I am going to photograph a birthday party gig this very afternoon! Other photographers have other focal lengths covered so I was planning to use my 70-200mm specifically for outdoor shots.
If I get anything worth sharing I will put some up for you to see.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2011 12:20:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I shoot the 70-200/2.8 IS wide open a lot, and I have never been dissatisfied with the sharpness. That said, your sensor is denser than mine, so you may see some slight softness that I do not. My recommendation is to take your body to the store, mount the lens and take some shots of a person, using flash, while in the store. Also take some shots of things with fine detail. Take shots at both 70mm and 200mm. Don't make any decisions in-store. Take your photos home, look at them critically on a larger monitor. I say to use flash because it eliminates questions of camera shake. You're not looking for a professional portrait, you're looking for a gauge of sharpness. If you can, take some shots with the 135/2 at f/2 and f/2.8 as well. Words of warning: The 135/2 is an addictive piece of glass :-) |
Yeah... do everything kirbic says. I do that in camera stores a lot. :) You will never go wrong taking kirbic's advice.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2011 01:28:35 PM · #29 |
| thank you guys, I thought about taking my camera but didn't consider actually taking pictures to look at them at home, I did considered renting them and use them for a day, but I couldn't find any local stores for that... anyways, if I had the money right now I would buy them both (hehe) |
|
|
|
01/29/2011 01:29:35 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
There isn't really any true optical differences between a lens on a 35mm vs. a smaller sensor. However, there is a big difference in the field-of-view(FOV). And it is edge effects that you wanna look for in a lens you are considering and if it is a zoom you wanna do it at the shortest and longest focal lengths. So never check out a lens on a small sensor camera.
You'd mentioned bulk weight as an issue with the 70-200mm f/2.8... I own the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM which I specifically bought because it is a lot smaller, lighter and more portable. That might be a possibility for you to, though you can't get as shallow of DOF with the f/4. I've read, though, that the image quality of the f/4L is better than the f/2.8L because it has fewer optical elements. I've never made the comparison myself so cannot verify that.
Coincidentally enough, I am going to photograph a birthday party gig this very afternoon! Other photographers have other focal lengths covered so I was planning to use my 70-200mm specifically for outdoor shots.
If I get anything worth sharing I will put some up for you to see. |
I would love to see them. |
|
|
|
01/29/2011 01:38:21 PM · #31 |
| One thing to think about that I didn't see mentioned is the distance that a 70-200mm (or 100mm) lens will require you to be from your subject. If you're shooting teens and adults, that's not really an issue. If you're shooting kids, though, and especially younger ones, a longer lens can put you out of a range that makes it easy to interact with them and keep their attention. |
|
|
|
01/30/2011 07:49:20 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Maggye:
Originally posted by Artifacts:
Coincidentally enough, I am going to photograph a birthday party gig this very afternoon! Other photographers have other focal lengths covered so I was planning to use my 70-200mm specifically for outdoor shots.
If I get anything worth sharing I will put some up for you to see. |
I would love to see them. |
Good news and bad news...
First, the bad news... After the shoot I gave my card to another team member for image post processing so will not have it back for a few days
The good news... I did not have problem one getting a soft BG. The setting was overcast at a rural farm and I took pictures of the birthday girl + husband to capture a bit of that.
Message edited by author 2011-01-30 07:49:50.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2011 11:58:32 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Artifacts:
Good news and bad news...
First, the bad news... After the shoot I gave my card to another team member for image post processing so will not have it back for a few days
The good news... I did not have problem one getting a soft BG. The setting was overcast at a rural farm and I took pictures of the birthday girl + husband to capture a bit of that. |
Hopefully we get to see them soon :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 11:58:12 AM EDT.
