Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses *really* fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.

Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info?
Posted by name at Mon Dec 25 12:53:38 2006
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info? Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 10 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:09 2006
ng on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Mon, 14 Nov 2005
I am shaky
Last weekend after Mind Camp, I stopped by Glazer's Camera in Seattle. I've stopped in a few chain photo stores here and there (there aren't many in Kitsap County), but haven't had the opportunity to stop in a store aimed at more serious photographers. Since I was already in Seattle and had a car with me, it was a good opportunity to stop in. I spent a while poking around at various bits of photographic equipment. I was also able to mount a few lenses on my camera to get a feel for what they'd be like. I looked a several telephotos in 70/75-200/300 range, and a 100mm macro lens.
I definitely felt the lack of a telephoto when trying to photograph the girls at soccer this fall, and there are a ton of choices. The lenses I was most curious about were the new 70-300mm image stabilized lens versus the 70-200mm F4 L series lens. The L lens focuses really fast, which seems like a big plus. However, the salesman had me turn off the image stabilizer in the 70-300mm lens, and that was really an eye opener. My hands shake a lot -- granted I'd had some coffee and not much sleep due to Mind Camp, but that whole episode gave me a lot to think about. I'm still undecided on what the best choice would be, but I feel fortunate that we are now well into the winter season, which means there isn't much need for me to shoot sports action of the kids.
The Canon kit lens has been pretty good for close ups, but I wanted to see how much difference a real macro lens would make. Results of that experiment:
Backside of a
Seemed pretty good, although my shaky hands made it hard to get a good picture. This seems more practical to me than the telephoto, but I'm a little concerned about the length -- I should have tried to 60mm macro while I was there.
If it wasn't for the (potentially) massive Canon rebate, I'd probably just stick to working with the 50mm and the kit lens - who know, maybe I'll end up doing just that. This weekend I took some photos of Julie (with the 50mm) for her SXSW headshot, and it seems clear to me that I've still got plenty of room to learn how to work with that lens.
| [photography | # | TB | F | G | 8 Comments | Other blogs commenting on this post
I had the 70-200L - lovely bit of kit. I only use it with a tripod or monopod (unless its bright), so I don't really miss IS, which you can't use on a tripod anyway.
Have you looked at the 17-85 IS lens, now thats a great piece of kit.
Posted by bg at Tue Nov 15 03:07:01 2005
Hi Ted,
FYI, from what I've read, IS is not useful for shooting moving objects (e.g. kids playing soccer). I'm interested in the 70-200 f4 myself, but I haven't had a chance to compare it to the 70-300 lenses.
I just bought the 85 1.8 for some theater work. It's a great lens, but I kind of wish I had gone for the 60 macro instead. The 85 is very tight indoors. Not as useful for food photography as I had hoped.
Good luck with the lens hunt, and happy shooting.
Posted by Denny at Tue Nov 15 06:21:14 2005
I really enjoy reading about your re-discovery of photography, almost more than the Python and other technical stuff ;)
Have you looked at Canon's 70-300MM DO IS lens? A lighter weight and IS zoom.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Looking forward to more.
Posted by James at Tue Nov 15 08:38:23 2005
I've used the Nikon equivalent 70-200 f2.8 AF-S quite successfully in sports, although 300 would have been even better.
Fast focusing, wide aperture, and higher ISO is really all you need. Just tune the ISO for the
light condition.
Stabilizing is nice I suppose, and it may buy you
an extra f-stop or two, but in many cases investing in better glass and wider apertures could give you at least part of that range.
If the lens is that heavy, you can get a decent monopod.
Everyone has trouble hand-holding macro shots.
I have a 60mm macro (Nikon though) that you're welcome to try out and see how it behaves for you.
I would think a view camera would be a lot more useful for food photography.
Posted by rick at Tue Nov 15 12:20:43 2005
bg,
I thought about the 17-85IS, but have seen mixed reviews, and I'm trying to avoid EF-S lenses.
Denny,
Yep, I know that IS won't help with moving targets, which is why the focus advantages of the F4L are really chewing on me.
James,
Yes, I've read some favorable reviews of the 70-300DO, but if I was going to shell out that kind of money, I'd probably just swallow and go for a 70-2002.8L, maybe even stabilized. But I want to keep things reasonable -- I don't even have an external flash. So I'm trying to strike a balance between decent quality and building up equipment.
Thanks for the comments on the photography posts! I didn't know if people liked them or not.
Rick,
Please don't show me any more of your lenses ;-)
Posted by Ted Leung at Tue Nov 15 22:53:15 2005
Hi Ted,
I got myself a 20D recently and bought a 70-300DO IS with it (as well as a few other lenses). It's a fantastic lens and it's really quite light and unobtrusive compared with the canon L/white lenses. The IS can be useful with moving subjects as it can auto detect panning direction and only stabilise in the axis at 90 degrees to it (it has full IS and this one axis IS as two different modes). This would make it quite nice for tracking action. It's also pretty responsive on the focus. It'll never be a big glass lens but it's pretty good.. What about a 2x convertor on your 50 .. that would give you the equivalent of about 160mm in 35mm terms at about f2.0? If I had the pixels to crop stuff dramatically I think I'd move towards primes however, especially the 135/2.0!!! :-)
Posted by Tim Parkin at Wed Nov 16 13:45:15 2005
Tim,
Thanks for the additional info on IS -- the 70-300IS has similar modes. As far as the teleconverter, that's an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of extender tubes instead of a macro lens anyway....
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Nov 16 18:42:06 2005
As a 70-200 f/4 L owner, I can say that I like it. You're right. Focus is fast and silent. I think the problem you'll run into with the 70-300 IS (the cheaper one rather than the DO obnoxious $ version) is that at 300mm it's pretty soft wide open (which is what you'd be shooting if you were doing sports). I'd take the 70-200 at 200mm and f/4 anyday. But even the cheap L is a pretty major investment after you end up buying a tripod collar like I did. I know several folks who recommend the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX lens. It's a little more $ than the Canon but it's a solid choice and would give you an extra stop.
As for macro, I had both the Sigma EX 50/2.8 macro and the Sigma 105 EX Macro lenses. They were absolutely outstanding optically. They are noisey when focusing but for the money they represent about the best glass you can get. I wasn't huge into macro work and while they were awesome for portraits and such, I sold off my Sigma's to pay for a Canon 50mm/1.4 and a Canon 35mm/2 (to simulate the feel of a 55mm on a film camera).
One ultra-budget way out for you would be to get the Canon 100-300 lens. It's pretty inexpensive and the results from 100-200 are great... 300 is a little soft wide open. It also has a tendency to zoom creep rather easily. But it's portable and quite a bit cheaper. I recommend Peter Kun Frary's site where he discusses some of the zooms including the 100-300 and the IS. Then poke around a bit more there too. Seems like he's tried all sorts of things. Lots of good information if you poke around a bit.
Posted by Steven Wilcox at Wed Nov 16 21:31:23 2005
Posted by Name at Mon Dec 25 12:51:11 2006
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog: RSS Feed for comments
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are: <a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>,
,
, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => emphasized text
<b> => bold text
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Name:
E-mail:
URL:
Comment:
Remember my info?
Posted by name at Mon Dec 25 12:55:10 2006

To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are:
<a href>
, <em>
, <i>
, <b>
, <blockquote>
, <br/>
, <p>
, <code>
, <pre>
, <cite>
, <sub>
and <sup>
.You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => _emphasized text_
<b> => *bold text*
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk