Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Tim...

  
 
MGH-PA
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse


Ok, couldn't have made that title more confusing. Here's the deal.

Wife gave me the ok to make a big purchase for Christmas on my own so she doesn't screw up the buying part. I was originally eyeing up the 70-200/F4 IS (have a 30D, 17-50/2.8 Sigma, 50mm/1.8, and 28-135mm). Problem is, I don't have much of an idea what end of the range I should aim toward. The 70-200/F4 would be a great general purpose, light option. However, not having 2.8 makes me worried about indoor shooting. It's also a valid argument to make, that I'm not sure how much I shoot people on a regular basis, which is where I think the 70-200 shines. I've always wanted to dabble in wildlife photography, so the 100-400mm makes sense, but it's a bit slow and large for indoor shooting or people shooting if I want to use it for that.

That leads me to the second part of the question. One area of photography that REALLY interests me is time lapse. I've always wanted to get into it. I think I'm getting an Intervalometer for Christmas, and I have a usable tripod. However, I'm not sure if the Sigma is up for the task. I was thinking the Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22 might be better there. The problem with that is then I feel like I'm missing everything beyond 135mm if I buy too much on the low end of the focal range.

Could I get buy with entry level time lapse using the Sigma? If so, it would make the 70-200/F4 an easier decision.



Dec 08, 2013 at 10:00 AM
gdanmitchell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse


The question of whether to get the f/2.8 or the f/4 version of the 70-200mm lens is a common one, and for a number of reasons. Almost every photographer can imagine at least a scenario or two where an extra stop might be useful, and it is easy to assume that the biggest and most expensive lens must be "better." The lower cost and smaller/lighter design of the f/4 are appealing.

Fortunately, both are really excellent lenses and either one can produce best of class photographic results. While some will point out that you may be able to measure ever so slightly better optical performance in the f/2.8 on the test bench, when the f/4 came out many reviewers remarked that it was the highest resolution lens of its toe that they had ever seen. Basically, the image quality question is superfluous.

So, it comes down to, mostly:

- cost, both for the individual lens and in terms of the subsequent effect on your other purchases
- size and weight
- how much you push the very edge of the low light envelope (do you need that extra stop?)
- are you going to want to put a 2x extender on the lens
- how either lens fits with the rest of the lenses you own or will own

I currently use both the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS versions of the lens. (It is a long story how this came to be and I won't bore you.) I'm using the f/2.8 for a special project that has me taking photographs of classical musicians in low light in their work environment over a three-year period, and here the extra stop has some value since I'm almost always shooting in truly marginal light at ISO 3200, and often with a 1.4x extender. But the lens is a beast - a very big and heavy thing. I've also used the f/4 in the same circumstances, and I have to say that it is amazing what you can do in low light with a f/4 IS-equipped lens on modern cameras that work as such high ISO values.

For other work such as landscape photography and similar, I would rate the f/4 lens as a better option, considering all factors. Here there is little or no advantage to the f/2.8 aperture, and the smaller size and lighter weight can be quite important. There is no sacrifice in image quality. In fact, just a couple of months ago I spend better than a week doing back-country landscape photography in the southern Sierra Nevada... and I took the f/4 lens. I would not have even considered schlepping the f/2.8 along for that.

(Keep repeating: "both lenses are optically excellent. both lenses are optically excellent. both...")

Regarding your question about the Sigma lens and time lapse, are you asking if you need a lens with greater wide angle coverage? I can't see why the lens would not be "up to the task" in other ways - if it works for "normal" photography it should work for time lapse.

Dan

Edited on Dec 08, 2013 at 01:01 PM · View previous versions



Dec 08, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse


For additional low-light shooting and improving your overall IQ, I think you would be better off investing in a 6D (maybe a refurb?) and using your 30D as a back-up or selling for a couple hundred dollars. You'll be able to use a couple of your existing lenses and get much better images, plus crank up the ISO, eliminating your worry about f/2.8 vs. f/4. Later you can add a 70-200, or upgrade the 28-135 IS to a 24-105L. The upgrade to larger sensor and improved Digic will be much more apparent in your pictures than any 70-200 on the 30D.



Dec 08, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Glenn NK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse


On an impulse I bought the f/2.8 L IS (not the Mark II). I'm looking to get rid of it and acquire the f/4.

Unlike Dan (above), I rarely if ever have compromising light, so one stop faster is of little or no benefit to me personally.

I lugged the damn f/2.8 around Europe for two weeks in August/September 2013, and I've had enough of awkward and heavy. It was very useful, and I'd take this focal length along again on another trip, but not the weight of f/2.8.

It's very hard to be inconspicious with this lens, particularly with a 2X extender.

f/2.8: 86 mm x 197 mm x 1470 grams
f/4: 76 x 172 mm x 760 grams

The f/2.8 is 25 mm (one inch) longer and just about twice the weight, but feels like four times the weight after a while. It was also "fun" to pack in a bag.



Dec 08, 2013 at 11:51 AM
MGH-PA
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse




Gunzorro wrote:
For additional low-light shooting and improving your overall IQ, I think you would be better off investing in a 6D (maybe a refurb?) and using your 30D as a back-up or selling for a couple hundred dollars. You'll be able to use a couple of your existing lenses and get much better images, plus crank up the ISO, eliminating your worry about f/2.8 vs. f/4. Later you can add a 70-200, or upgrade the 28-135 IS to a 24-105L. The upgrade to larger sensor and improved Digic will be much more apparent in your pictures than any 70-200 on the
...Show more

I've though about it, but I want to keep this at about $1000-$1200. The only lens I have that would work with the full frame is the 50mm.



Dec 08, 2013 at 01:53 PM
Jefferson
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse


... 70-200 f/4L IS ... all day long ...

Jefferson



Dec 08, 2013 at 02:09 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Two Part Question...Frequent Focal Length Shooting & Considering Timelapse


Glenn NK wrote:
On an impulse I bought the f/2.8 L IS (not the Mark II). I'm looking to get rid of it and acquire the f/4.

Unlike Dan (above), I rarely if ever have compromising light, so one stop faster is of little or no benefit to me personally.

I lugged the damn f/2.8 around Europe for two weeks in August/September 2013, and I've had enough of awkward and heavy. It was very useful, and I'd take this focal length along again on another trip, but not the weight of f/2.8.

It's very hard to be inconspicious with this lens, particularly with a 2X
...Show more

I went through the same thing: bought a 70-200 2.8 (non-IS), loved but found it too much of a bazooka to carry. I sold it and bought a 70-200 4L IS and, dang, it's sharper but a lot easier on the shoulder so I use it more. It's not much shorter but is thinner and much lighter. For my style of shooting, the 3 stops of IS are more useful than the extra stop of aperture. I use a more travel friendly screw-in rubber hood. The OEM hood is a beast and bag hog.



Dec 08, 2013 at 02:13 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.