replace my 300mm Canon lens

[lynnma]

I'm thinking of selling and replacing my Canon 300 mm lens. I'ts not IS.. I get a fair amount of Chromatic Aberthingy and all in all my shots look terrible with it.. now I LOVE my 50 mm 1.4 and would like something of that nature that ZOOMS.. suggestions please?? I've only used the 300 about 4 times..:scratch

[ginger_55]

I'm thinking of selling and replacing my Canon 300 mm lens. I'ts not IS.. I get a fair amount of Chromatic Aberthingy and all in all my shots look terrible with it.. now I LOVE my 50 mm 1.4 and would like something of that nature that ZOOMS.. suggestions please?? I've only used the 300 about 4 times..:scratch
Mine is the Canon 70-300 IS, and I would NOT recommend that. I, too, need something I can count on. And in that range, as see my bird triptych.

I have used mine a lot, can't say it has never been used, I have used it a lot. It is soft at the long end, difficult to get if focused exactly, and that is with ...................

well, the dpreview people warned me last year, but I got it anyway because I could afford it.

Any suggestions, people?? No glass here..........

g

[Andy]

I'm thinking of selling and replacing my Canon 300 mm lens. I'ts not IS.. I get a fair amount of Chromatic Aberthingy and all in all my shots look terrible with it.. now I LOVE my 50 mm 1.4 and would like something of that nature that ZOOMS.. suggestions please?? I've only used the 300 about 4 times..:scratch

how much of your money can i spend?

[mercphoto]

I'm thinking of selling and replacing my Canon 300 mm lens. I'ts not IS.. I get a fair amount of Chromatic Aberthingy and all in all my shots look terrible with it.. now I LOVE my 50 mm 1.4 and would like something of that nature that ZOOMS.. suggestions please?? I've only used the 300 about 4 times..:scratch

Is it a 300mm prime, or the 75-300 zoom? And what is your price budget?

You could get a 70-200/4L and a 1.4TC. Together under a grand and a great image. You could get a 100-400/4.5-5.6L. Not the sharpest of lenses but not bad from reviews. Options for primes are the 300/4L and the 400/5.6L.

[DoctorIt]

Lynn, if I had any money at all, I'd do what Merc suggested. That 70-200 is probably the best deal on glass that Canon offers. Cheapest L glass I believe. Great quality, if you don't need the speed of the 2.8, its just as good, and half the price.

[lynnma]

Is it a 300mm prime, or the 75-300 zoom? And what is your price budget?

You could get a 70-200/4L and a 1.4TC. Together under a grand and a great image. You could get a 100-400/4.5-5.6L. Not the sharpest of lenses but not bad from reviews. Options for primes are the 300/4L and the 400/5.6L.it's the 75-300 zoom.. I'm really really stupid when it comes to lenses.. I don't know one from the other.. I bought my 50mm 1.4 on a dear friends advice and love it. (thanks Andy) and am open to advice all round. Money wise.. I'm always horribly shocked at the cost of a lens.. I want to spend as little as possible for the best I need at this time.. remember I'm new at this and still working my way up..If I'd have known I would have bought the 75-300 IS but Ginger does not like hers so who knows.. I want a crisp longer range zoom lens to shoot birds and things far away (not too far) that does'nt look soft and does'nt have chromatic thingys round it..:1drink DEFINITELY under a thousend, more like 5 or 600 or 8 maybe (I could sell my earings I spose and get a really good one....) hmmmm who cares about diamonds anyway...maybe I should just stay with the 300 and practice more..:dunno


is it this one???

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA

no image stabilizer???? :dunno

[Steve Cavigliano]

it's the 75-300 zoom.. I'm really really stupid when it comes to lenses.. I don't know one from the other.. I bought my 50mm 1.4 on a dear friends advice and love it. (thanks Andy) and am open to advice all round. Money wise.. I'm always horribly shocked at the cost of a lens.. I want to spend as little as possible for the best I need at this time.. remember I'm new at this and still working my way up..If I'd have known I would have bought the 75-300 IS but Ginger does not like hers so who knows.. I want a crisp longer range zoom lens to shoot birds and things far away (not too far) that does'nt look soft and does'nt have chromatic thingys round it..:1drink DEFINITELY under a thousend, more like 5 or 600 or 8 maybe (I could sell my earings I spose and get a really good one....) hmmmm who cares about diamonds anyway...maybe I should just stay with the 300 and practice more..:dunno Lynn,
First you are not stupid. We all make mistakes and you can be thankful that yours didn't cost you much. If your mistake caused you to ask for advice and do some checking around, this time, it was worth it. Look at it as a learning experience :wink

If you want a zoom that's sharp and has decent reach, as others have mentioned it's hard to beat the 70-200's. Either of the F2.8's from Canon ($1150 or $1650), the F2.8 from Sigma ($700), or the F4 Canon L (mid $600's :thumb ) I'd recommend the F4 70-200 Canon. It's much lighter than the other 3, gets rave reviews and I doubt if you'd miss the extra stop, or IS. Or, maybe even the Sigma 100-300 F4 ($825). Another raved about lens. It's only negative is that it weights about 3.25 pounds. But it will give you sharp images at 300mm's :-)

Good luck and keep us informed (we are very nosey :lol )

Steve

[lynnma]

Lynn,
First you are not stupid. We all make mistakes and you can be thankful that yours didn't cost you much. If your mistake caused you to ask for advice and do some checking around, this time, it was worth it. Look at it as a learning experience :wink

If you want a zoom that's sharp and has decent reach, as others have mentioned it's hard to beat the 70-200's. Either of the F2.8's from Canon ($1150 or $1650), the F2.8 from Sigma ($700), or the F4 Canon L (mid $600's :thumb ) I'd recommend the F4 70-200 Canon. It's much lighter than the other 3, gets rave reviews and I doubt if you'd miss the extra stop, or IS. Or, maybe even the Sigma 100-300 F4 ($825). Another raved about lens. It's only negative is that it weights about 3.25 pounds. But it will give you sharp images at 300mm's :-)

Good luck and keep us informed (we are very nosey :lol )

SteveThanks Steve and everyone.. I'm getting there now.. I'm concerned about the IS factor... how do you all feel about image stabilization.. would you buy one that was'nt IS??? and from a technical standpoint.. what is the difference between my 75-300 and the 70-200 F4 ...AND ... how do we feel about buying a used one...:dunno (I'm always buying preowned stuff...):rofl

[Andy]

it's the 75-300 zoom.. I'm really really stupid when it comes to lenses.. I don't know one from the other.. I bought my 50mm 1.4 on a dear friends advice and love it. (thanks Andy) and am open to advice all round. Money wise.. I'm always horribly shocked at the cost of a lens.. I want to spend as little as possible for the best I need at this time.. remember I'm new at this and still working my way up..If I'd have known I would have bought the 75-300 IS but Ginger does not like hers so who knows.. I want a crisp longer range zoom lens to shoot birds and things far away (not too far) that does'nt look soft and does'nt have chromatic thingys round it..:1drink DEFINITELY under a thousend, more like 5 or 600 or 8 maybe (I could sell my earings I spose and get a really good one....) hmmmm who cares about diamonds anyway...maybe I should just stay with the 300 and practice more..:dunno


is it this one???

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA

no image stabilizer???? :dunno

lynnie, with your budget, yes, go for the 70-200L f/4, and buy the 1.4x tc as well.

[lynnma]

lynnie, with your budget, yes, go for the 70-200L f/4, and buy the 1.4x tc as well.
Andrew... 1.4x tc ???? what is ???? I've only just figured out th 70-200 f/4:scratch

dumb and dummer...:1drink

[FAU4U]

It would be helpful to know what other lenses you have, so that an informed recommendation be given. Sounds like +/- $700 is your target budget. Remember, the light goes through the glass, get the best lens you can afford, and native Canon lenses are where to be with a Digital Rebel. Also recall that the Digital Rebel has that IMF of 160% which means that a 100mm lens on a 35m film camera will give you 160mm apparent focul length when used on your digital camera, and likewise a stated 200mm lens will give an apparent focul length of 320mm on your camera.... IS, image stabilization is a tremendous tool for available light hand-held shooting, pretty much a must for my candid photography, unless you're using a very wide angle lens. I always pick the IS lens if there is a choice in the focul lenght I desire.

:thumb

JimWilson

[lynnma]

It would be helpful to know what other lenses you have, so that an informed recommendation be given. Sounds like +/- $700 is your target budget. Remember, the light goes through the glass, get the best lens you can afford, and native Canon lenses are where to be with a Digital Rebel. Also recall that the Digital Rebel has that IMF of 160% which means that a 100mm lens on a 35m film camera will give you 160mm apparent focul length when used on your digital camera, and likewise a stated 200mm lens will give an apparent focul length of 320mm on your camera.... IS, image stabilization is a tremendous tool for available light hand-held shooting, pretty much a must for my candid photography, unless you're using a very wide angle lens. I always pick the IS lens if there is a choice in the focul lenght I desire.

:thumb

JimWilsonthnks Jim.. I was hoping to hand hold this lens some of the time.. sounds like I need IS. I only have a kit lens 18-55.. my new 50mm 1.4 and the 75-300mm which I'm looking to change for a better one.

[fish]

You need the 300/2.8L IS. :nod



heh...the hood for that lens costs $500 :rofl

[lynnma]

You need the 300/2.8L IS. :nod



heh...the hood for that lens costs $500 :roflAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhggggggg:cry :whip :humungus :huh :hang :evil :gun2 :thwak


this one.. this one

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7319

[fish]

AAAAAAhhhhhhhhhggggggg:cry :whip :humungus :huh :hang :evil :gun2 :thwak[/url]

You're thinking too small. Go big...really big:
[url]http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7320 (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7319)

(yes, I know there's a 1200mm, but it's not IS)

[DoctorIt]

thnks Jim.. I was hoping to hand hold this lens some of the time.. sounds like I need IS. I only have a kit lens 18-55.. my new 50mm 1.4 and the 75-300mm which I'm looking to change for a better one.Lynn, IS is not a must. The times when you will hand hold at the long end hopefully will be very well lit. If not, well, tough :D. Just decide what you really want. Do you want a bird lens or a replacement for that 75-300. Bird lenses are expensive, as you'd be surprised how small those buggers are, even through really big glass. I'd say 300mm would be the absolute minimum to get birds. However, as most of us have recommended, a great upgrade and general purpose replacement to that lens of yours would be the 70-200 f/4.

And a TC is a teleconverter. It makes the 70-200 a 140-400mm but at the price of speed. So your f4 would become an f8, if I'm not mistaken. Which is fine for birds in bright daylight anyway.

[FAU4U]

A great and relatively inexpensive lens is Canon's 28-135mm IS lens with a street price of $395 with present Canon rebates See B&H photo. On your Digital Rebel the apparent focul lenght would be 45mm-215mm with Image Stabilization. One can take clear images right down to 1/30 of a second hand held. Its a great all around lens, and the Rebel's kit lens is an acceptable lens for the wide angle shots, however the build quality on the 28-135mm lens is superior.

Lens Comments:

A compact, lightweight standard zoom lens with superior optical performance plus a built-in Image Stabilizer. The IS system reduces the possibility of blurred photographs caused by camera shake, enabling handheld photography in comparatively dim light without a flash or tripod. The IS system is composed of a pair of gyro sensors to detect vertical and horizontal motion and a microprocessor that compensates for it by shifting special lens elements in parallel with the perceived movement. At the wideangle end of the zoom range, the equivalent shutter speed gain is approximately 1.5 stops while at the telephoto end, it is approximately 2 stops. In addition, the lens has a USM drive mechanism for optimum AF performance, and the pulse control diaphragm (EMD) ensures precise aperture control.
Specs:



Filter Size 72mm f/Stop Range 3.5-22 (5.6-36) Minimum Focus Distance 1.64' Magnification 1:5.26 Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch (twist) Angle of View 76 to 18 Degrees Groups/Elements 12/16 Length 3.8" Maximum Diameter 3.1" Weight 1.1 lb


thnks Jim.. I was hoping to hand hold this lens some of the time.. sounds like I need IS. I only have a kit lens 18-55.. my new 50mm 1.4 and the 75-300mm which I'm looking to change for a better one.

[mercphoto]

Image stabilization is not a necessity. Remember, it can keep the lens steady, but it cannot keep the subject steady. Lynn, how still will these birds that you want to photograph be? It makes little difference if you can shoot at 1/30th of a second if your subject won't stay very still. However, being able to shoot at 300mm at 1/125 second might be worthwhile. Also remember that "normal" imagae stabilization cannot be used with the camera moving (i.e. if you are following a bird in-flight). Only lenses with a "mode 2" image stabilizer can be used while panning.

The 70-200/4 with the 1.4 teleconverter might be exactly what you want. You will see a big improvement in picture quality.

[gus]

:huh Do you glass veterans in here remember that feeling of sheer hopelessness that overcomes you when the realization of just how serious the sickness thats creeping into your bones is ?




Its starting to hit me with the 3rd phase. Pray for me.

I read there are 5289 phases of glass desire.

[FAU4U]

Another choice would be the 100-400mm Canon IS "L" lens is one my favorite lenses for animal/birds and sports shots. Its costly however, its the best alternative for a very high quality zoom and on your camera the zoom range is 160mm-640mm. Its worth every dollar of its cost.. below is a test image I took with a similar Canon IS lens last weeekend at a Boca Raton beach in FLorida. To see more test images go to my site @: http://www.faudigital.com/gallery/347830/2/13829508
JimWilson

http://www.faudigital.com/photos/13829508-M-1.jpg

[lynnma]

Image stabilization is not a necessity. Remember, it can keep the lens steady, but it cannot keep the subject steady. Lynn, how still will these birds that you want to photograph be? It makes little difference if you can shoot at 1/30th of a second if your subject won't stay very still. However, being able to shoot at 300mm at 1/125 second might be worthwhile. Also remember that "normal" imagae stabilization cannot be used with the camera moving (i.e. if you are following a bird in-flight). Only lenses with a "mode 2" image stabilizer can be used while panning.

The 70-200/4 with the 1.4 teleconverter might be exactly what you want. You will see a big improvement in picture quality.

Very good point indeed Mercphoto... hmmm back to the 70-200/4 I would be backpacking as well and it would be lighter than the faster lens...thanks so much for than.

Also thanks Jim, very helpful comments from you too.. sigh.. great site, great help.

:1drink I'm gittin there..

[DavidTO]

I bought my 70-200 f4L from lynnesite when she moved up to the 2.8 IS. She needs it for her work, especially because she gets paid for it, and needs to make sure she can get the shot.

Granted, I don't have a huge amount of experience with lenses, but I love that lens. It's a great lens.

Used you can get them for around $500, maybe even get close to that for a new one.

It is much lighter than the 2.8, which would be too heavy for me.

On Fred Miranda it gets 4.9 out of 5 stars, recommended by 99.9%.

[lynnma]

I bought my 70-200 f4L from lynnesite when she moved up to the 2.8 IS. She needs it for her work, especially because she gets paid for it, and needs to make sure she can get the shot.

Granted, I don't have a huge amount of experience with lenses, but I love that lens. It's a great lens.

Used you can get them for around $500, maybe even get close to that for a new one.

It is much lighter than the 2.8, which would be too heavy for me.

On Fred Miranda it gets 4.9 out of 5 stars, recommended by 99.9%.
Oooooohhhh David.. I love positive feedback re something I want.. where can I get one??? do y ou know.. pm me if you have secret..:rofl NOW I REALLY WANT ONE ... it's my birthday in March.. (here comes the rationalization) ..maybe I can buy myself a pressy....:D

[lynnma]

Oooooohhhh David.. I love positive feedback re something I want.. where can I get one??? do y ou know.. pm me if you have secret..:rofl NOW I REALLY WANT ONE ... it's my birthday in March.. (here comes the rationalization) ..maybe I can buy myself a pressy....:D
Hey!! look at this.. is this legit do you think??? I don't suppose any one would know.. feedback please good or bad. :D
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3864752634&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

[DavidTO]

Hey!! look at this.. is this legit do you think??? I don't suppose any one would know.. feedback please good or bad. :D
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4687&item=3864752634&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

You can get pretty much the same price at B&H or Abe's of Maine, or whatever, and yes, there is a rebate going on right now. It's a Canon mail-in rebate.

[DavidTO]

Are you registered at Fred Miranda? Here's (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/170315) a nice looking used lens, $525, shipped.

[lynnma]

Are you registered at Fred Miranda? Here's (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/170315) a nice looking used lens, $525, shipped.no I'm not I'll go now and register.. thanks David..
:clap

[DavidTO]

no I'm not I'll go now and register.. thanks David..
:clap

Of course, like I said, Abe's of Maine you can get it for $528 AFTER rebate, but plus shipping. Not a lot more, and it's brand new. I would see if you can use the current rebates as a bargaining point with that guy, get him down $25, maybe. Lenses don't depreciate all that fast, I guess, though. Anyway, it's not a bad price for the lens either way.

[lynnma]

Of course, like I said, Abe's of Maine you can get it for $528 AFTER rebate, but plus shipping. Not a lot more, and it's brand new. I would see if you can use the current rebates as a bargaining point with that guy, get him down $25, maybe. Lenses don't depreciate all that fast, I guess, though. Anyway, it's not a bad price for the lens either way.
I feel a little unsure buying from FM.. don't ask me why.. probably cos I live here. I think I'm going to buy new from B&H.. then I can set Andy on them if something goes wrong :lol ... now I just have to run it by husband of Lynnma... now where's the wine....:1drink :freaky :feelgood

[DavidTO]

I feel a little unsure buying from FM.. don't ask me why.. probably cos I live here. I think I'm going to buy new from B&H.. then I can set Andy on them if something goes wrong :lol ... now I just have to run it by husband of Lynnma... now where's the wine....:1drink :freaky :feelgood

Makes sense, the price isn't all that different, especially with the rebate.

Be sure to let me know how you like it.

[Steve Cavigliano]

I feel a little unsure buying from FM.. don't ask me why.. probably cos I live here. I think I'm going to buy new from B&H.. then I can set Andy on them if something goes wrong :lol ... now I just have to run it by husband of Lynnma... now where's the wine....:1drink :freaky :feelgood

LOL Lynn :rofl Stooping to bribery, eh? It's surprising what the desire for good glass will cause an otherwise decent person to do.....lol

Wine him and make his favorite meal (that always works on me :clap ). A candle lit dinner table and wearing a slinky outfit might also rack up some points. Or, if your hubby is an old dud like me, just set up some TV trays and turn on ESPN :lol


Good luck and just be thankful that us guys aren't fond of little blue boxes :wink

Steve

[John Mueller]

I feel a little unsure buying from FM.. don't ask me why.. probably cos I live here. I think I'm going to buy new from B&H.. then I can set Andy on them if something goes wrong :lol ... now I just have to run it by husband of Lynnma... now where's the wine....:1drink :freaky :feelgood
Lynnma,I have bought,traded and sold on FM.
It a great place and you can find some great deals.
Just make sure you check the feedback on the seller.
I have seen the 70-200 f4 go for under $500.00 :deal

[ginger_55]

Now I know why I bought the one I did......those words like under a "grand".

Lynn, I accidentally turned the IS off on both of my lenses, shot without it for who knows how long, finally found out and remedied the situation. Actually didn't notice that much difference. (Don't tell anyone here that I do that kind of stuff). I turned the AF off of my lens today, birds again, once I did that things did go better.

If you have the money, I would go for it. I am going to sit on what I have. Gotta have that 20D. Lynn, do you still have a Rebel? It doesn't shoot birds well, not on autofocus. I missed shots just because it wouldn't fire. I had prefocused and all.

ginger

[Mongrel]

Lynn, it sounds like the 70-200f/4 will fit your needs pretty well. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter you'll only loose one stop so you will be at f/5.6 which isn't bad at that focal length. As has already been said-it's a great lens. Too slow for me at this point, but just a super all around reasonable weight zoom.

I'll throw in a :thumb for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 here also. Very fine lens for the money. Heavy? Yes, but great reach decent speed very well built. Brand new from a place called DeltaInternational for $790.00 + S&H. I haven't heard anything negative about them, and my experience was great. I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX TC with good results as well. That's a 672mm (1.6 crop factor) f/5.6 lens. Having the ability to zoom is great for what I use it for (sports action), but probably would be just as handy for birding or wildlife.

[lynnma]

Lynn, it sounds like the 70-200f/4 will fit your needs pretty well. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter you'll only loose one stop so you will be at f/5.6 which isn't bad at that focal length. As has already been said-it's a great lens. Too slow for me at this point, but just a super all around reasonable weight zoom.

I'll throw in a :thumb for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 here also. Very fine lens for the money. Heavy? Yes, but great reach decent speed very well built. Brand new from a place called DeltaInternational for $790.00 + S&H. I haven't heard anything negative about them, and my experience was great. I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX TC with good results as well. That's a 672mm (1.6 crop factor) f/5.6 lens. Having the ability to zoom is great for what I use it for (sports action), but probably would be just as handy for birding or wildlife.Thanks for your input Mongrel .. I don't shoot much thats moving too much so I'm not that concerned with speed.. husband says I should sell 75-300 first..:wxwax much too sensible..:deal

[gus]

Lynn, it sounds like the 70-200f/4 will fit your needs pretty well. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter you'll only loose one stop so you will be at f/5.6 which isn't bad at that focal length. As has already been said-it's a great lens. Too slow for me at this point, but just a super all around reasonable weight zoom.

I'll throw in a :thumb for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 here also. Very fine lens for the money. Heavy? Yes, but great reach decent speed very well built. Brand new from a place called DeltaInternational for $790.00 + S&H. I haven't heard anything negative about them, and my experience was great. I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX TC with good results as well. That's a 672mm (1.6 crop factor) f/5.6 lens. Having the ability to zoom is great for what I use it for (sports action), but probably would be just as handy for birding or wildlife.
Mongrel..do you have some shots at 672mm to show us ? I would love to see some. What camera ?

And if ANYONE has some good reading site re Lenses....please please post the link.

[Michiel de Brieder]

First off, do you have this link already?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/
It is a very good resource for info on lenses
Now, as for that 70-200 :D :lust:lust:lust:lust:lust:lust:lust:lust
I use it extensively on my 20D, with or without the Kenkoo 1.4 TC, I can 'get it done' :wink for instance:
http://www.digital-eye.nl/images/Scheveningen/scheveningen7.jpg
hasn't been cropped and looks very sharp @ full size :D it is made with the 70-200 and 1.4 TC, granted, I had a lot of light, but this is just ISO 100, had I been a little quicker, I'd have put it to ISO 400 and WHAM purrrrrfect picture.
I hope this helps a bit towards your determination to 'sway the hubby' so to speak :D Good luck deciding Lynn!
Oh and still life is also 'doable' with the 70-200:
http://www.pbase.com/giel/image/38176390.jpg
or just some landscapish pitcha:
http://www.pbase.com/giel/image/37075940.jpg
As some shoeguy said: "Just do it" :clap

[DoctorIt]

Hey Lynn, I'm really gonna throw a fork in the process now. I've researched this range of lenses considerably. For just a little more than the Canon f4, you can have a Sigma f2.8... a lens which has gotten amazing reviews. They go on ebay for $650.


:D

[lynnma]

Hey Lynn, I'm really gonna throw a fork in the process now. I've researched this range of lenses considerably. For just a little more than the Canon f4, you can have a Sigma f2.8... a lens which has gotten amazing reviews. They go on ebay for $650.


:D
thanks eric but too late... I've ordered it already and am hooked on the Canon...I mean.. I could go round and round on this...:D :1drink

[DoctorIt]

thanks eric but too late... I've ordered it already and am hooked on the Canon...I mean.. I could go round and round on this...:D :1drinknice. congrats on that then... mind you, i'm not that far from you, and may need to evaluate it sometime :deal

[yvonne]

You need the 300/2.8L IS. :nod



heh...the hood for that lens costs $500 :rofl
You can't hand hold that it weighs about 6 pounds!!!

[lynnma]

Question! I'm assuming there are folks here who "hand hold" their 70-200 f4 lenses? not everyone uses a tripod right? and I'm hoping I'm going to hear that "yes you can get sharp crisp shots hand held? right? tell me this is so? please?

:D

[pathfinder]

Question! I'm assuming there are folks here who "hand hold" their 70-200 f4 lenses? not everyone uses a tripod right? and I'm hoping I'm going to hear that "yes you can get sharp crisp shots hand held? right? tell me this is so? please?

:D

Sure at 1/750 or faster:D :D You CAN get acceptably sharp imaages at 1/60 with IS usually. Depends on how fast the subject is moving too Lynn. Show us some more of your work with your new lens please, Lynn.
:thumb

[lynnma]

Sure at 1/750 or faster:D :D You CAN get acceptably sharp imaages at 1/60 with IS usually. Depends on how fast the subject is moving too Lynn. Show us some more of your work with your new lens please, Lynn.
:thumbI have great plans for that lens :D but the f4 is'nt IS....:(: now I'm worried.. the first thing my dratted smart kid said when I sent the good news on my lens was "is it IS mom?" when I said no he would'nt reply to me...:rofl

[wxwax]

Sure at 1/750 or faster:D :D You CAN get acceptably sharp imaages at 1/60 with IS usually. Depends on how fast the subject is moving too Lynn. Show us some more of your work with your new lens please, Lynn.
:thumb
:scratch I thought the rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should match the focal length? So about 1/200 or 1/250 should be fast enough to hand hold a 200mm lens, no?

[lynnma]

:scratch I thought the rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should match the focal length? So about 1/200 or 1/250 should be fast enough to hand hold a 200mm lens, no?does that really work??:clap I shall try it right now...

[yvonne]

does that really work??:clap I shall try it right now...
Yes, that rule pretty much holds.

[ginger_55]

Lynn, I have been waiting to use this for a long time. We women can hand hold lenses at a slower shutter speed than the men can, so take what they say with a grain of salt.

We have learned to hold still with every mammogram we have ever had.:roll
We knew if we didn't hold still we would have to have another one.

Yes, you can handhold at 1/250th. I can handhold much slower than that. You learn to brace yourself against posts, fences, people who promise not to breathe, etc. And you take more than one exposure. At least three. If you have to get it, and are comfortable that way, use a tripod. Or I might bunch up my coat and use it as a temp tripod. I get more freedom to maneuver that way. Besides, I don't like tripods.

I have learned that there is a point past which I am not going to be able to hold it, even though I thought I could. I don't remember what that point is as far as shutter speed goes, but it is almost dark. Up to then, I am going to get one out of 5 shots, and before that........ Since I never seem to plan on staying out as late as I do, I will be trying to handhold impossible shots for the rest of my life. If I were being paid, I would not play that game, but I would also be more likely to have planned things out.

Hold your arms close to your body. Try to hold your breath. If there is something to lean on, do that. And see what your limits are.

(Remember, men don't have mammograms, they don't get the practice we do.):rofl

ginger

[DavidTO]

I have great plans for that lens :D but the f4 is'nt IS....:(: now I'm worried.. the first thing my dratted smart kid said when I sent the good news on my lens was "is it IS mom?" when I said no he would'nt reply to me...:rofl

Lynn,

I love that f4 lens. The IS version is much heavier and much more expensive, and if you decide down the line to upgrade, your lens will hold its value very well. But I don't think you should be bemoaning your purchase. It's a great lens.

As for the focal lenght/shutter speed thing, I have a question for y'all. Do you need to factor the 1.6x conversion into that? Meaning if I'm shooting at 100mm on my 20D, is 1/100 a good minimum exposure for handheld, or should it be 1/160?

[ginger_55]

In my humble opinion it depends on you. To be safe, there would be situations at which you might wish not to handhold at all, even at relatively fast shutter speeds.

You can't get absolutes on something like this. The rule of thumb, on a film camera, was a length of 50 mm meant 1/60th second, etc. You may be able to handhold it at 1/60th of a second, but if something is going horizontal to you at 150 mph, and you can't pan with it, it would be better to have it on a tripod and learn to pan.

If you can do it, whether film or digital with little problem to you, whatever is a problem to you, you can do it. If you need it 100% in focus, and you can do that, then you can do it, at whatever focal length of the lens. If freedom of movement is more important to you, than maybe 1 out of 3 times would be acceptable, then you do what you want. If that is not acceptable, then get out your tripod. And use common sense. If you are going out with Andy to shoot that bridge at dusk and night in SF, you are going to be happier with a tripod, probably.

If you can't hold your elbows in, hold your breath, brace your feet, or find something to lean against, you are going to have more problems hand holding than someone who does that stuff.

Just my opinion in a subject of some disagreement.

ginger

[ginger_55]

Lynn, I plan to buy that lens, too. If you can't handhold it down to 1/30th of a second, ever, please let me know. I planned to use it in place of my 70-300 IS that I dislike so much, but handhold all the time.

And, I know I have said this before, but in my ignorance I had the IS turned off on that lens and on my other IS lens, the 28-135. Probably they were like that for months (I am learning......slower than some), but when I turned them back on, I did not notice anything at all as far as increased clarity. There probably was some, but it was not dramatic. I wouldn't worry about it.

ginger but let me know if it is too heavy to handhold, or something.

[pathfinder]

:scratch I thought the rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should match the focal length? So about 1/200 or 1/250 should be fast enough to hand hold a 200mm lens, no?

You're right Sid about the general recomendation of 1/focal length in mm . Lynn asked for a real CRISP image so I up'd my recx3 to razz her a bit - was meant to be funny:dunno I guess I missed the mark. Sorry.

Ginger - I doubt you can get really sharp crisp images at 1/30th at 200mm handheld, even if you are female. But I could be wrong of course. You can handhold at 1/30 and get acceptable images but not the sharpest of images that's all.

[FAU4U]

Question! I'm assuming there are folks here who "hand hold" their 70-200 f4 lenses? not everyone uses a tripod right? and I'm hoping I'm going to hear that "yes you can get sharp crisp shots hand held? right? tell me this is so? please?

:D



Hi Lynn,

The “theory” of hand-holding lenses is based on some rather simple physics. If the shutter speed is sufficiently short then camera movement will have diminished influence on the resultant exposure. In regular English, for example, if an exposure is established at 1/2000 of a second, then small levels of camera shake will have a diminished effect on the captured image.



Notice the carefully chosen words, diminished effect, there is always some effect; it’s a matter of degree. The shorter the exposure duration, meaning 1/2000sec rather than 1/200sec, or 1/20sec, the level of image “blur” will be reduced to perhaps an acceptable level, not actually eliminated. If there is a high level of camera “shake” then 1/2000sec may not sufficiently reduce image blur. Photographers have said that for an individual to reasonably hold a camera “steady” then a minimum shutter duration of 1/200sec may be short enough for a 200mm focul length, and 1/300sec for a 300mm lens,…etc.



Presently, with the advent of Image Stabilization, IS, these rules are amplified by two or three times. My personal experience is that with Canon “L” lenses, excellent exposures can be obtained at 1/100sec using 400m lenses, assuming the camera is carefully hand-held, holding the equipment as steady as possible. I definitely direct my attention to IS lenses for my kit. And can report that even at 15/sec acceptable results may be obtained in extreme low light candid situations. The extra expense is very well worth the advantages mentioned.



In examination of my inventory of digital images, most if not all imaging is hand-held, except those taken with the 300mm IS f2.8 and the 400mm IS f2.8 lenses, where a mono-pod was used because of combined camera + lens weight. Take a look at these image taken hand-held, and visit www.faudigital.com (http://www.faudigital.com/).



JimWilson



http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383840-L.jpg (http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383840-L.jpg)

http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383822-L.jpg (http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383822-L.jpg)

http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383724-L.jpg (http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383724-L.jpg)

[ginger_55]

Ginger - I doubt you can get really sharp crisp images at 1/30th at 200mm handheld, even if you are female. But I could be wrong of course. You can handhold at 1/30 and get acceptable images but not the sharpest of images that's all.
Is it heavier than the 70-300 IS? Do you know? Anyone? I could accept the limit of 1/60 th, especially with the 20D camera and higher acceptable ISOs, but I would not like to be restricted more than that. If it is a shot I really want, I just let the camera shoot the shot til it stops, then cull the sharp one. Heck I was going to the book store the other night and ended up at the dock. Just happened to have my camera. Am going to check my settings, I was alternating lenses.

ginger

[lynnma]

Hi Lynn,

The “theory” of hand-holding lenses is based on some rather simple physics. If the shutter speed is sufficiently short then camera movement will have diminished influence on the resultant exposure. In regular English, for example, if an exposure is established at 1/2000 of a second, then small levels of camera shake will have a diminished effect on the captured image.



Notice the carefully chosen words, diminished effect, there is always some effect; it’s a matter of degree. The shorter the exposure duration, meaning 1/2000sec rather than 1/200sec, or 1/20sec, the level of image “blur” will be reduced to perhaps an acceptable level, not actually eliminated. If there is a high level of camera “shake” then 1/2000sec may not sufficiently reduce image blur. Photographers have said that for an individual to reasonably hold a camera “steady” then a minimum shutter duration of 1/200sec may be short enough for a 200mm focul length, and 1/300sec for a 300mm lens,…etc.



Presently, with the advent of Image Stabilization, IS, these rules are amplified by two or three times. My personal experience is that with Canon “L” lenses, excellent exposures can be obtained at 1/100sec using 400m lenses, assuming the camera is carefully hand-held, holding the equipment as steady as possible. I definitely direct my attention to IS lenses for my kit. And can report that even at 15/sec acceptable results may be obtained in extreme low light candid situations. The extra expense is very well worth the advantages mentioned.



In examination of my inventory of digital images, most if not all imaging is hand-held, except those taken with the 300mm IS f2.8 and the 400mm IS f2.8 lenses, where a mono-pod was used because of combined camera + lens weight. Take a look at these image taken hand-held, and visit www.faudigital.com (http://www.faudigital.com/).



JimWilson



http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383840-L.jpg (http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383840-L.jpg)

http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383822-L.jpg (http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383822-L.jpg)

http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383724-L.jpg (http://www.faudigital.com/photos/14383724-L.jpg)
thanks very much Jim.. I'm learning so much these past couple of days i'ts giving me a headache:rofl all makes sense.:thumb

[lynnma]

Lynn, I plan to buy that lens, too. If you can't handhold it down to 1/30th of a second, ever, please let me know. I planned to use it in place of my 70-300 IS that I dislike so much, but handhold all the time.

And, I know I have said this before, but in my ignorance I had the IS turned off on that lens and on my other IS lens, the 28-135. Probably they were like that for months (I am learning......slower than some), but when I turned them back on, I did not notice anything at all as far as increased clarity. There probably was some, but it was not dramatic. I wouldn't worry about it.

ginger but let me know if it is too heavy to handhold, or something.Ginger it's not heavy.. I'll test it out for you but I very much doubt if I can hand hold at 1/30th even at 70mm focal length.. I'll try and see.:1drink

[gus]

G'day jim...im just learning here but from my research (which may well be incorrect)...it appears that most people use a rather slow shutter with larger 400mm zooms etc. Is this a result of something or can these bigger zooms go on up to 1/2000 & beyond to match what a good DSLR can do ?

[ginger_55]

Ginger it's not heavy.. I'll test it out for you but I very much doubt if I can hand hold at 1/30th even at 70mm focal length.. I'll try and see.:1drink
Lynn, I am not positive I can either, I know I can at 1/60th. (But that is only a percentage that get sharp, I hate that lens anyway. Got my first sharp shot with it the other day. It was probably an accident on the lens part.) I got bored looking through my stuff really fast. The other night I was using the shorter lens more often. Got a real good shot at 1/10. I had no idea, I just know it is a good shot. crisp, as they say. But that is my favorite lens and I was probably wedged in somewhere leaning on a fish cleaning table, who knows.

The only thing that would really bother me would be if that lens were much heavier or off balance, or something. I think Andy and all the experts would know that. I know they advised you not to get anything else as it would be too heavy.

If you ever get another tripod, do as Andy says. I get more shake from my tripod than I do from me, so I am kind of messed up. Andy said to get the heaviest one possible. But that is a quandary, I have enough trouble carrying the backpack to say the least of the tripod. And Bill says it hurts his back to carry either. They have a studio tripod I can borrow if I let them know, but I would have to be close to what I was photographing. No trail wandering.

The man in my picture was using a tripod, don't know whether it was a film or digital camera, I do know it would go to 300 as that is all he said. He left before I needed a tripod, and I sure don't know why he needed one when he first got there. I think some of us like them, and some of us don't. It made a better picture for me to have his tripod in it.

later, ginger
might go out to see if birds are anywhere, it is high tide, probably not.

[Michiel de Brieder]

Here ya go Ginger, 70-200 F/4 L handshot @ 200mm shutterspeed 1/30th resize + USM only (camera = 20D), 100% crop included:
http://www.pbase.com/giel/image/38857400.jpg
I must point out that I do have steady hands as I hear friend-photographers say :D

[lynnma]

Hi Ginger.. I just did these through my window.. too cold to go out.. sorry about the content it's really bad.. nowI'm hoping the wreth was'nt moving.. the fence was not I'm sure..


http://lynn.smugmug.com/photos/14521225-L.jpg

1/200

http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/14521227-L.jpg


http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/14521223-L.jpg

http://Lynn.smugmug.com/photos/14521226-L.jpg
hand held through rather dirty glass...:rofl


(http://lynn.smugmug.com/photos/14521223-L.jpg)

[FAU4U]

G'day jim...im just learning here but from my research (which may well be incorrect)...it appears that most people use a rather slow shutter with larger 400mm zooms etc. Is this a result of something or can these bigger zooms go on up to 1/2000 & beyond to match what a good DSLR can do ?I went to your site. The pics are great.

As to your comment/question, the shutter speed is set on the digital camera, the "f" stop is set through the camera to the lens. So most/all of the lenses discussed in this forum are attached to cameras that have focul/plane shutters which are resident in the camera. SO if your camera can expose at 1/2000sec then you can use that setting assuming you have enough light, etc.

JimWilson

[ginger_55]

Thank you, Lynn, Michiel. I was out shooting the rest of the afternoon and into the evening.

Then I worked it all up. I will say I didn't get anything. Not that I like. I went to the other side of Shem Creek, great sunset, lots of good stuff, I just didn't get anything that I like.

From what you two did with hand holding the lenses at 1/30th, it looks like it shoots as I would expect, so that is great. I ended up at 1 sec tonight, and 1/2 a sec, all impossibles. And I got exposures confused on the sunsets, couldn't figure out how to expose them. There were a few egrets on one side of the dirt rd and a heron on the other, so I underexposed the heron, never did get a good egret........or a good heron. It wasn't meant to be, no water for reflections, the heron blended into the surroundings just like I am sure nature meant him to, but he was not photogenic. By the time he was close enough to me, it was so dark, I took like 10 shots, one is clear, but there is not much color because it was so dark. I want to know what kind of heron he is, so I will have to show Harry, but the whole thing was disappointing.

I did learn of new wetlands today........... a bit closer than the last ones I heard of, but not close enough that I want to put those miles on my car every day. I am going to go check it out with Bill on Sunday. I will definitely buy that lens and camera, if the prices stay down, if I can sell my camera and the kit lens, by the time the tax stuff gets done. The lens looks good to me.

Thanks,
what kind of eye drops do you all use, this is killing my eyes.:D Seriously. Oh, and my batteries drain faster in the cold.

[lynnma]

Thank you, Lynn, Michiel. I was out shooting the rest of the afternoon and into the evening.

Then I worked it all up. I will say I didn't get anything. Not that I like. I went to the other side of Shem Creek, great sunset, lots of good stuff, I just didn't get anything that I like.

From what you two did with hand holding the lenses at 1/30th, it looks like it shoots as I would expect, so that is great. I ended up at 1 sec tonight, and 1/2 a sec, all impossibles. And I got exposures confused on the sunsets, couldn't figure out how to expose them. There were a few egrets on one side of the dirt rd and a heron on the other, so I underexposed the heron, never did get a good egret........or a good heron. It wasn't meant to be, no water for reflections, the heron blended into the surroundings just like I am sure nature meant him to, but he was not photogenic. By the time he was close enough to me, it was so dark, I took like 10 shots, one is clear, but there is not much color because it was so dark. I want to know what kind of heron he is, so I will have to show Harry, but the whole thing was disappointing.

I did learn of new wetlands today........... a bit closer than the last ones I heard of, but not close enough that I want to put those miles on my car every day. I am going to go check it out with Bill on Sunday. I will definitely buy that lens and camera, if the prices stay down, if I can sell my camera and the kit lens, by the time the tax stuff gets done. The lens looks good to me.

Thanks,
what kind of eye drops do you all use, this is killing my eyes.:D Seriously. Oh, and my batteries drain faster in the cold.Ginger I sold my 75-300 old lens on ebay for nearly what I paid for it!! Don't use eye drops (you can addicted to them ya know) you just have to suffer for your art :rofl glad the terrible yard shots were helpful .. and remember I DO NOT have a steady hand.

[gus]

I went to your site. The pics are great.

As to your comment/question, the shutter speed is set on the digital camera, the "f" stop is set through the camera to the lens. So most/all of the lenses discussed in this forum are attached to cameras that have focul/plane shutters which are resident in the camera. SO if your camera can expose at 1/2000sec then you can use that setting assuming you have enough light, etc.

JimWilson
Thanks jim...i wasnt sure. We get heaps of light in this part of the world & i may choose a lens that has a higher f/stop to start with at the motorsport meetings i intend to shoot. We are spoilt & if it gets overcast....no-one goes out much.

Tks for the compliment re my stuff.