One suggestion: tape down the AF-MF button/switch- the way that button is designed and where it is located makes it very easy to toggle accidentally. I missed a number of shots when I first had this lens because I had accidentally tripped the button to MF.
orangefirefish wrote:
One suggestion: tape down the AF-MF button/switch- the way that button is designed and where it is located makes it very easy to toggle accidentally. I missed a number of shots when I first had this lens because I had accidentally tripped the button to MF.
True. The other thing which works and I use is a good fitting, fat rubber band that covers that area. Had a couple that came with the UpStrap that were the perfect size. But had some gaffer tape on mine for a long time for just as you say, don't want to miss a single shot because of that switch.
orangefirefish wrote:
One suggestion: tape down the AF-MF button/switch- the way that button is designed and where it is located makes it very easy to toggle accidentally. I missed a number of shots when I first had this lens because I had accidentally tripped the button to MF.
Thanks for the tip, I've never tripped mine but I'm sure not that I've read about it, I will.
MTBtrials wrote:
After the wedding, should you decide to share your work with us, would it be too much to ask you to throw a link in this thread to that thread?
I can't wait until the finances (and the wife) allow me to get the 70-200 2.8 IS, until then I can at least enjoy others work with the same lens
It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
timbop wrote:
If it's your first IS lens, you need to be aware that the IS takes about a half second to stabilize. I find that I sometimes forget that fact, and my 1dm2 focuses so fast I will get a blurred shot because the IS hasn't stabilized. As mentioned you also have to be aware of DOF. Here's a handy set of calculators that can help: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm
Very helpful, I found blurred shot if I don't wait for the IS work before fire.
I think I will go to 70-200/2.8 IS instead of 135/2 + 200/2.8. I always need to take photos with my son/ family on outing, lesser lens change is better.
I also tried this lens (borrowed from my friends) in the holidays, the zoom range is very useful and have IS for more adaptation on unexpected situation like low light landscape when in travel.
So heavy lens but still much lighter than my son a lot when he don't want to walk (36lbs net weight) A back pack is necessary.
KKFung, for convenience you obviously can't beat a zoom- but man giving up the IQ from those two lenses..... geez! Those two lenses are sharp as heck wide open, while 200mm on the zoom @ 2.8 leaves much to be desired.
orangefirefish wrote:
KKFung, for convenience you obviously can't beat a zoom- but man giving up the IQ from those two lenses..... geez! Those two lenses are sharp as heck wide open, while 200mm on the zoom @ 2.8 leaves much to be desired.
The 70-200/2.8 IS may be a little soft(er) wide open at 200mm, but it is still more than acceptable, especially when taking portraits or other situations where the overal IQ including bokeh is more important than just sharpness. No it isn't the same as the superb 200/2.8, but still good to be used when needed.
I've got to agree, and my experience is mainly with primes. I held off on this lens for a long time because of all the softness talk. Maybe I just got an exceptional copy from Amazon but this lens is VERY sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. It only took me one afternoon with it to sell my 200 2.8L. I guess my thought is that if any $1500 lens isn't sharp, you should exchange it or get it calibrated.
kjcramer wrote:
I've got to agree, and my experience is mainly with primes. I held off on this lens for a long time because of all the softness talk. Maybe I just got an exceptional copy from Amazon but this lens is VERY sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. It only took me one afternoon with it to sell my 200 2.8L. I guess my thought is that if any $1500 lens isn't sharp, you should exchange it or get it calibrated.
No, you got a normal copy. This is by far the most used medium telephoto by nearly every Canon sports shooter and I never hear anyone fussing about it except for a few on some forums. Don't let a few give you wrong impression...and they never back it up with any photos...just more internet fussing, soooo typical anymore.
I often use my 70-200/2.8L IS wide open at all focal lengths, and it's sharp at all focal lengths. The DOF at f/2.8 might not be deep enough to capture all of a scene that you want to capture, but the parts within the DOF should be plenty sharp. Maybe some users aren't aware of how shallow the DOF gets for a fast telephoto. For example, at f=200mm and f/2.8 with a subject at 3m distance, the DOF is only 3.8cm deep (1.5"), for a full frame body - that's not deep enough for sharp coverage of many subjects. Maybe expectations aren't always in line with reality.
MSC wrote:
..... This is by far the most used medium telephoto by nearly every Canon sports shooter and I never hear anyone fussing about it except for a few on some forums. Don't let a few give you wrong impression...and they never back it up with any photos...just more internet fussing, soooo typical anymore.
I kept reading about what a great lens the 70-200 2.8 was on the internet forums so I bought one. I use it for sports and most often wide open, and for some photojournalism type shooting where the zoom feature really comes in handy. But it's sharpness doesn't measure up to what I get from the primes I was using for sports before I got it - the 300 f4, the 200 f1.8 and the 135 f2.0. Same goes for the 24-70 - it's not as sharp as my 35 f2.0, my 50 f1.8, or my 85 f1.8.
I had been lead to think that modern, high quality zooms were as good as primes, but I guess that was "just more internet fussing".
In my opinion the 70-200 f/2.8 IS owes its commercial success to a good combination of performance qualities rather than to its sharpness alone which is probably adequate at best but not extraordinary at all.
The lens is fast (f/2.8), image stabilized, weather resistant and has a speedy AF drive......a nice blend of traits.
However, if it wasn't for that IS feature, I would have chucked it long time ago in favour of sharper and significantly cheaper non-IS version which I had before.Even my "economy" 70-200 f/4 non-IS is somewhat sharper, and so is my 80-200L.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Alas, wrong answer. IS mode 2 is for panning. It turns of IS in the direction in which you're panning (either horizontal or vertical). IS mode one stabilises the image / reduces camera shake in both directions.
Of course, a lot of panning is done on a monopod...
Very good point - too many folks automatically assume mode 2 and horizontal panning are synonymous. It works in whatever direction you're panning. I'd love to know the logic they use for that - one smart damned IS!
A back pack is necessary.