Longwatcher
28th of March 2006 (Tue), 15:09
For my next obscure question...
Should I rent a 400/2.8L and/or a 200/1.8L for a specific task?
Last year I got a press pass for DragonCon and with a little bit of luck may get one again. I took pictures of the costume events, but my problem last year was I was pretty much at the limits of my camera equipment in terms of light getting to the sensor and was at f3.2 and ISO 1600 for the best shots of two of them (the third I was much closer and could use flash). My shutter was at a somewhat unacceptable 1/80th (I found f3.2 was looking better then f2.8 for some reason or would have gone there and been at 1/125). Primary lens was 70-200/2.8L IS. Subjects were moving enough that a few hands and props blurred slightly, which was not a desired effect.
The conditions were:
- NO use of flash allowed
- Bad spot lighting
- Distance about 75-100 feet away from subjects (only spot to avoid people's heads without being farther away)
- in short about as bad as it could get and still get decent pictures.
I really need to get my shutter up to 1/125 and as mentioned f3.2 was looking better then f2.8 for some reason and the few shots I took at f2.8 just did not look as good when I got home so it was one of the rare occasions where the LCD actually helped.
I also really want to come down below ISO 400 if possible, but even though 3200 is the camera's limit, ISO 1600 is mine. I also would have liked more zoom range for some shots so a 400mm lens would have been good, but the only 400mm solutions I have are 100-400/4.5-5.6L (which means f5.6 at 400mm) or putting the 2x extender on my 70-200 (again ending up with f5.6) that isn't going to work well even at ISO 3200.
I am thinking of renting a 200/1.8 and/or a 400/2.8 lens if I get the press pass, but I probably need to reserve as soon as possible to make sure I can have them reserved for me.
My logic for 200/1.8 is I get more light (stop and half) which means to me 1/125 and ISO 800 and a better exposure (assuming the lights are not worse this year), although I still need to crop. AT ISO 800 noise goes down a lot from ISO 1600 so picture quality should climb a lot.
Meanwhile to get the closeups I would need to get a 600mm or crop, which since a 600/f1.0 does not exist (at least that I am aware of), I go with a 400/2.8, but suffer the same limitations on shutter, ISO and aperture (give or take 1/3 stop) as last year. I could also put my 1.4 or 2x on the 200/1.8 which would be a compromise.
There is also the hauling around factor and rental cost. The weight is 6.6lbs for the 200/1.8 (or twice the 70-200/2.8) and the 400/2.8 comes in at 11.7lbs (I think) so that is a lot of weight to be hauling around. During picture taking they will be on tripod, although I might be able to manage the 200/1.8 for a short period. The 200/1.8 will run me about $200 for the Con, while the 400/2.8 will run about $450. $650 for both (assuming I don't drop or lose them).
This will be for the fun of it more then any likely hood of making money so I am strongly leaning to just the 200/1.8, but if I think the 400/2.8 will make more of a difference or both, then it may be worth it to me. Also I kind of want to play with those two lenses, which I otherwise am not likely to have an excuse to play with.
So what do you all think?
Money is a factor, but I am willing to pay if I think it will make a difference.
for trivia: my pictures from last year
http://www.longwatcher.com/event_DC_p_00.html
Thanks for your opinions and advice,
Should I rent a 400/2.8L and/or a 200/1.8L for a specific task?
Last year I got a press pass for DragonCon and with a little bit of luck may get one again. I took pictures of the costume events, but my problem last year was I was pretty much at the limits of my camera equipment in terms of light getting to the sensor and was at f3.2 and ISO 1600 for the best shots of two of them (the third I was much closer and could use flash). My shutter was at a somewhat unacceptable 1/80th (I found f3.2 was looking better then f2.8 for some reason or would have gone there and been at 1/125). Primary lens was 70-200/2.8L IS. Subjects were moving enough that a few hands and props blurred slightly, which was not a desired effect.
The conditions were:
- NO use of flash allowed
- Bad spot lighting
- Distance about 75-100 feet away from subjects (only spot to avoid people's heads without being farther away)
- in short about as bad as it could get and still get decent pictures.
I really need to get my shutter up to 1/125 and as mentioned f3.2 was looking better then f2.8 for some reason and the few shots I took at f2.8 just did not look as good when I got home so it was one of the rare occasions where the LCD actually helped.
I also really want to come down below ISO 400 if possible, but even though 3200 is the camera's limit, ISO 1600 is mine. I also would have liked more zoom range for some shots so a 400mm lens would have been good, but the only 400mm solutions I have are 100-400/4.5-5.6L (which means f5.6 at 400mm) or putting the 2x extender on my 70-200 (again ending up with f5.6) that isn't going to work well even at ISO 3200.
I am thinking of renting a 200/1.8 and/or a 400/2.8 lens if I get the press pass, but I probably need to reserve as soon as possible to make sure I can have them reserved for me.
My logic for 200/1.8 is I get more light (stop and half) which means to me 1/125 and ISO 800 and a better exposure (assuming the lights are not worse this year), although I still need to crop. AT ISO 800 noise goes down a lot from ISO 1600 so picture quality should climb a lot.
Meanwhile to get the closeups I would need to get a 600mm or crop, which since a 600/f1.0 does not exist (at least that I am aware of), I go with a 400/2.8, but suffer the same limitations on shutter, ISO and aperture (give or take 1/3 stop) as last year. I could also put my 1.4 or 2x on the 200/1.8 which would be a compromise.
There is also the hauling around factor and rental cost. The weight is 6.6lbs for the 200/1.8 (or twice the 70-200/2.8) and the 400/2.8 comes in at 11.7lbs (I think) so that is a lot of weight to be hauling around. During picture taking they will be on tripod, although I might be able to manage the 200/1.8 for a short period. The 200/1.8 will run me about $200 for the Con, while the 400/2.8 will run about $450. $650 for both (assuming I don't drop or lose them).
This will be for the fun of it more then any likely hood of making money so I am strongly leaning to just the 200/1.8, but if I think the 400/2.8 will make more of a difference or both, then it may be worth it to me. Also I kind of want to play with those two lenses, which I otherwise am not likely to have an excuse to play with.
So what do you all think?
Money is a factor, but I am willing to pay if I think it will make a difference.
for trivia: my pictures from last year
http://www.longwatcher.com/event_DC_p_00.html
Thanks for your opinions and advice,