Thinking of buying 70-200 2.8, but do I want a fixed apertur

[HeatherJL]

I like the idea of being able to shoot in low light conditions with the 2.8 (indoor hockey, inside a church from the back, etc)... but I sometimes wonder if my depth of field will be too shallow for certain conditions.
http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/headscratch.gif

My choices are 70-200mm 2.8 with 1.4 of 2x converter, or 100-400mm... and because I'm a novice I'm really struggling with the answer. I'm not asking you to tell me what I want, obviously I need to figure that out, I'm just looking for some wisdom and guidance.

I thought that I was all set with the 70-200 2.8, but the other day I was taking some pictures with my 50 1/4 and had my aperture set at 2.0 and my subject's face was in focus, but her earrings were not. Maybe I was too close? http://geoparent.com/community/icons/disoriented.gif

Thanks for any advice!

[justme_dc]

HeatherJL wrote:I thought that I was all set with the 70-200 2.8, but the other day I was taking some pictures with my 50 1/4 and had my aperture set at 2.0 and my subject's face was in focus, but her earrings were not. Maybe I was too close?

Nope, That's the effect of a shallow depth of field. You'll not be able to get away with shooting wide open and expect crisp, sharp images with lots of depth of field, everything is a trade off. For what it's worth the 70-200 is pretty okay wide open.

[scottbergerphoto]

They are both great lenses. The 70-200/2.8 is a fast lens that is great for sports and high speed action. The 100-400 is great for close ups from a distance. I don't think you can easily choose one over the other. It depends what you are interested in shooting.

Here are some shots with the 100-400 IS L:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park

Here are some shots with the 70-200/2.8:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/brooklyn_nature_walk

You can't go wrong with either one.
Scott

[DaveG]

HeatherJL wrote:
I like the idea of being able to shoot in low light conditions with the 2.8 (indoor hockey, inside a church from the back, etc)... but I sometimes wonder if my depth of field will be too shallow for certain conditions.
http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/headscratch.gif

My choices are 70-200mm 2.8 with 1.4 of 2x converter, or 100-400mm... and because I'm a novice I'm really struggling with the answer. I'm not asking you to tell me what I want, obviously I need to figure that out, I'm just looking for some wisdom and guidance.

I thought that I was all set with the 70-200 2.8, but the other day I was taking some pictures with my 50 1/4 and had my aperture set at 2.0 and my subject's face was in focus, but her earrings were not. Maybe I was too close? http://geoparent.com/community/icons/disoriented.gif

Thanks for any advice!

This is about having choices. There's nothing you can't do with a fast lens that you can't do with a slow one. If F2.8 has too little depth of field then stop it down. But how do you open up an f4 lens to 2.8?

Speed in a lens is very important to me in situations where the camera MUST be handheld or the subject is moving very quickly, and that's all about shutterspeed. There are also times where you really want the content behind the subject to be out of focus and a fast lens of the 70-200's focal length will do it @ f2.8.

But in a conventional photograph my thinking is that I'd rather have the subject's eyes sharp (f2) and their ears out of focus then the whole thing soft (f5.6) due to camera or subject movement. But you also have the choice to use f5.6, get the D of F you need and have it sharp, as long as you use a tripod. But with a fast lens you do have choice.

[D60wannabe]

Heather,

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "fixed aperture". The aperture is not fixed at 2.8. It's range is 2.8 to 32 and every stop inbetween. This amazing lens is capable of maintining 2.8 throughout it's zoom range. Most lens will show the range of their capable f stops available from wide angle to the most telephoto. The more you zoom the 100-400 the less f stop is available. At 100mm the lens will open to f4.5 at 400 it will only open to f5.6 and will change all the way through it's zoom range. I hope this helps your understanding of this lens. Good luck:)

Paul

[robertwgross]

Let me phrase the same thing slightly differently.

If you have what we call a fast lens, it may have a wide open aperture of f/1.8 or f/2 or f/2.8. At that stage of the discussion, the word "fast" doesn't really mean shutter speed, as you might guess. What happens, though, is that if you go to those wide open apertures, it allows the shooter to go to a faster shutter speed and still maintain proper exposure. So, for certain fast motion shooting, like sports, a fast lens is one with a smaller aperture number. The side effect of the smaller aperture number is that the depth of field is very limited. For some scenes, that is exactly what you want, so the fast lens is good. For some other scenes, you want everything in focus from five feet out to fifty miles, so having a fast lens isn't really used effectively, since you will probably have to shoot at f/22 or f/32 or some other big aperture number (small aperture opening).

So, the fast lens is awfully nice to have around, but there are certain times when it is essential and other times when it isn't a big deal. You decide what you want to do. Fast lenses can get very pricey.

---Bob Gross---

[HeatherJL]

http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/doh.gif Oh my, I'm so embarrassed.... you are absolutely right Paul, I thought that it was a fixed 2.8... meaning you didn't have the ability to change it at different focal lengths.

I appreciate the explanation, but how about we just keep this between us?http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/secret.gif

I suppose that some of you are thinking... what idiot has the right to own a lens of that caliber if she doesn't even understand it? Well, you're right, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can.
http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/read2.gif

[NormaB]

Don't feel bad Heather - I'm in the same boat! There's so much to learn - but it's fun!

I'm a novice and (among other things) I take figure skating pictures. I already had a lens with greater zoom, but not the large aperture, so I bought an f2.8 28mm-70mm. The higher resolution really helps and by the time I crop etc. on the computer I get some pretty good results - but not as good as I would with greater zoom. I don't think you can go wrong with that lens - the 2 or 3 stops make a HUGE difference.

Because of the lousy lighting in rinks, you will have to play around a lot with shutter speed, aperture and ISO, Try using the custom feature that allows you to make 1/2 or 1/3 increment aperture adjustments. I'm finding I need to shoot at ISO 800, Shutter speed 160-180 and f3.0-3.5 to get the best results. Also - make sure you white balance is set for flourescent lighting and try setting your exposure compensation up +2 - but I don't think that has much of an effect shooting in TV mode.

Since we're both battling similar lighting conditions - I'd appreciate hearing how you do! I think the only thing worse than shooting a hockey player in a rink is shooting a spinning figure skater! : ) Good luck!

[D60wannabe]

Heather,

That is what is great about this and other forums, Don't be afraid to ask! There is lots to learn and lots to understand so we all learn what others know that we don't. You probably see something that I don't understand and think "that's easy!". Have a nice day:)

Paul

[MediaMagic]

HeatherJL wrote:
http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/doh.gif Oh my, I'm so embarrassed.... you are absolutely right Paul, I thought that it was a fixed 2.8... meaning you didn't have the ability to change it at different focal lengths.

I appreciate the explanation, but how about we just keep this between us?http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/secret.gif

I suppose that some of you are thinking... what idiot has the right to own a lens of that caliber if she doesn't even understand it? Well, you're right, but I'm trying to learn as much as I can.
http://geoparent.com/graphics/emoticons/read2.gif


Lol, Heather, believe me, there will be a day where you will make some other mistake that will make this little "fixed aperture" misunderstanding seem like nothing at all. That is, unless you are extremely lucky. Everyone learns from somewhere, either from books, other people, etc, (or worse, from missing a shot or taking a horrendous shot of something important). This is the best place to learn, right here where you can ask questions. Not when the shot counts and you learn because you have made a critical mistake. Who cares what the people think? lol, most everyone here thinks I'm an idiot (no need for reinforcement of this statement from the gallery), but I couldn't give a rat's behind because I'm *learning* new tricks and my shots are looking great. :-)

To argue over which lens maker is better is stupid, but to not understand what the 2.8 meant on the 70-200 is just part of the learning curve.

Just as a reinforcement:
If you see a lens marked like this one, 70-200mm f2.8, that will mean that the aperture value of 2.8 or larger number (smaller opening) is available at every focal length. On a lens like the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 , the f values mean that the smallest the opening will be is f4.5 at the shortest focal length. The 5.6 means the smallest opening the aperture can will be at the longest focal length (full zoom), and as someone already mentioned, the focal lengths in between shortest and longest will have a minumum aperture value of somewhere either between or equal to 4.5 or 5.6. But all aperture values larger than the minimum will be available at any focal length.

Take care

Media "copying that crazy signature habit of another" Magic

David

[defordphoto]

I have both lenses and the 1.4TC. The 70-200L USM with or without IS is one of (if not THE) Canon's best zoom lenses. It's fast (see explanations of 'fast' above) and is a well built lens. It's an awesome, medium range zoom lens.

The 100-400L IS USM is a fantastic lens for outdoor, daytime sports, wildlife etc. The build of this lens is not quite as good as the 70-200L, but it is a good lens and a great value. I had some problems with mine where something internal broke and it had to be sent to Canon for repair. It took three times to have it repaired, but it's now back in service and I do have to say it was dearly missed, even though I used the 70-200 and the 1.4TC in its place, I missed the reach of the 100-400 in a big way...No, HUGE way.

I have not used the 2.0TC on the 70-200, but have not heard very good reviews on it at all, so it was never considered for my bag.

Your alternative for reach would then be the 400 prime, but those suckers are pretty pricey so that's why I ended up with the 100-400. It's a great deal for the 400mm reach, but I highly recommend an extended warranty.

The zoom control on the 100-400 is a push-pull, which some people do not like, but it has not hindered my shooting at all. I have shot some of the best photos of my life with this lens:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Friday/index.htm
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Saturday/index.htm

And check the galleries off this page: http://www.rfmsports.com/USSBA/Photos/USSBAPhotos.html