Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
Thread started 15 Jun 2009 (Monday) 02:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

GKPE 7 - And Still Going! Still Friendly and Still The BEST!

 
this thread is locked
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 27, 2010 21:39 |  #9436

I find IS valuable even at 1/50th. It just increases my hit rate.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1042
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Aug 27, 2010 21:41 |  #9437

Well I managed a 25second river shot with the 17-55 (braced) I'm sure the IS helped a fair bit.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weka2000
Is that a 300mm in your pocket?
Avatar
20,889 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 234
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Auckland
     
Aug 27, 2010 21:43 as a reply to  @ tim's post |  #9438

Dave I shoot landscapes and dont need IS at all. I think it comes from the wedding lot that shoot and often cant use a flash so IS helps out.


https://500px.com/tony​searle/galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manipula
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,290 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: English Wookie in Wellington, NZ.
     
Aug 27, 2010 21:55 |  #9439

tim wrote in post #10803472 (external link)
I find IS valuable even at 1/50th. It just increases my hit rate.

Really? Don't get me wrong, I don't shoot weddings, although I've done about 30 before I figured out I really do hate them, so I don't have the time constraints present you'd get at a wedding, but I find I can handhold the 24-70 all day long at 1/30th and not struggle...

RobDickinson wrote in post #10803480 (external link)
Well I managed a 25second river shot with the 17-55 (braced) I'm sure the IS helped a fair bit.

Fair point, but everyone knows that *should* have been a tripod shot.

weka2000 wrote in post #10803489 (external link)
Dave I shoot landscapes and dont need IS at all. I think it comes from the wedding lot that shoot and often cant use a flash so IS helps out.

Exactly my point, the people are still moving, doesn't stabilize them does it?

I dunno, maybe I'm a tit, but I just don't get the need for it. ?! ???


Cheers, Dave.
www.manipula.co.nz (external link) :: Gear list for the nerds (external link) :: flickr (external link) :: ModelMayhem (external link)
:: insert scathing quip here! ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Potisdad
Senior Member
Avatar
667 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Auckland NZ
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:01 |  #9440

manipula wrote in post #10803545 (external link)
I dunno, maybe I'm a tit, but I just don't get the need for it. ?! ???

I agree Dave (not about you being a tit, about the IS :)) I don't own a single IS lens.

But clearly Canon disagrees, since even the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manipula
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,290 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: English Wookie in Wellington, NZ.
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:16 |  #9441

Potisdad wrote in post #10803578 (external link)
I agree Dave (not about you being a tit, about the IS :)) I don't own a single IS lens.

But clearly Canon disagrees, since even the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If if it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

18-55's have IS for no other reason than at the time it was introduced, if they didn't have it when Nikon did, and Olympus and Sony had it in bodies, they'd lose valuable willy-waving rights to easily influenced and inexperienced buyers of entry SLRs. There's still a monumentally high proportion of buyers of compacts, bridge cameras or low end SLRs who see big numbers, or headline grabbing features and assume the more they have the better. If you saw how many people I speak to per week who still think Megapixels makes better photos you'd be shocked. 18-55IS exists just because not having IS would look bad... ;)

To get the nerdy head on for a second, f stops (and the physical aperture size) are a relationship aren't they, like a ratio, relative to a given focal length of the lens. If you look at all the lenses that do have IS, they all have either relatively speaking longer focal lengths on the long end, smaller max apertures etc, except the 17-55. It's a guess but I'm thinking that maybe the process of throwing an image circle out the back of the lens big enough to cover a FF sensor, which is still sharp at f/2.8, and which can provide that f stop, or ratio of aperture to focal length at 70-ish mm and at 24mm is a bit of a nightmare. 17-55 does all of it except providing the big image circle... Just wonder if it isn't basically just a technical nightmare to do... ???


Cheers, Dave.
www.manipula.co.nz (external link) :: Gear list for the nerds (external link) :: flickr (external link) :: ModelMayhem (external link)
:: insert scathing quip here! ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1042
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:20 |  #9442

manipula wrote in post #10803545 (external link)
Fair point, but everyone knows that *should* have been a tripod shot.

Oh for sure, but I didnt feel like carting one round the Kepler.

IS is realy only usefull for those 2-4 stops where handholding isnt enough but you dont have a tripod.

It also lets yopu stop down a bit or shoot at a lower ISO than you could without.

Overall a handy tool to have if it doesnt compromise the lens in other respects.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manipula
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,290 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: English Wookie in Wellington, NZ.
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:28 |  #9443

RobDickinson wrote in post #10803667 (external link)
Overall a handy tool...

Yeah I guess, but not the 'oh-my-god-I'll-kill-my-mother-if-there-isn't-a-24-70IS-lens-at-Photokina' prospect so many seem to desire.

IS is useful on longer lenses, you're stabilizing a much more easily created movement in yourself, and even when you reach the limits of how far you can go with the shutter speeds (1/30th or so) it's still a speed where a person in the shot is half likely to still look sharp unless they're running about. Taking the shutter speed = focal length thing as a rule, if you go four stops below 1/60th down to 1/4 all you're stabilizing is the background and not anything moving in the picture.

I don't get it eh? :lol: If they make one, I use it and it's a revelation, I reserve the right to ignore everything I've just said and change my mind though! ;)

Anyway, enough procrastination for me, I've got photos to edit. *cries* :(


Cheers, Dave.
www.manipula.co.nz (external link) :: Gear list for the nerds (external link) :: flickr (external link) :: ModelMayhem (external link)
:: insert scathing quip here! ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:28 as a reply to  @ RobDickinson's post |  #9444

manipula wrote in post #10803545 (external link)
Really? Don't get me wrong, I don't shoot weddings, although I've done about 30 before I figured out I really do hate them, so I don't have the time constraints present you'd get at a wedding, but I find I can handhold the 24-70 all day long at 1/30th and not struggle...

I've never really done any tests, IS/VR just gives me a bit more confidence.

Potisdad wrote in post #10803578 (external link)
I agree Dave (not about you being a tit, about the IS :)) I don't own a single IS lens.

But clearly Canon disagrees, since even the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

I wouldn't go that far. It'd take a lot more than that to get me back to Canon at the moment.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Potisdad
Senior Member
Avatar
667 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Auckland NZ
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:29 |  #9445

manipula wrote in post #10803645 (external link)
To get the nerdy head on for a second, f stops (and the physical aperture size) are a relationship aren't they, like a ratio, relative to a given focal length of the lens. If you look at all the lenses that do have IS, they all have either relatively speaking longer focal lengths on the long end, smaller max apertures etc, except the 17-55. It's a guess but I'm thinking that maybe the process of throwing an image circle out the back of the lens big enough to cover a FF sensor, which is still sharp at f/2.8, and which can provide that f stop, or ratio of aperture to focal length at 70-ish mm and at 24mm is a bit of a nightmare. 17-55 does all of it except providing the big image circle... Just wonder if it isn't basically just a technical nightmare to do... ???

The 70-200/2.8 IS has a FF image circle, is sharp at 2.8, has the same zoom ratio and the physical aperture size at 70 mm/2.8 is the same as would be required for a 24-70.
Maybe the reverse zoom mechanism of the 24-70 has something to do with it?


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Potisdad
Senior Member
Avatar
667 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Auckland NZ
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:40 |  #9446

tim wrote in post #10803722 (external link)
I wouldn't go that far. It'd take a lot more than that to get me back to Canon at the moment.

What about the new lighter shade of white on the L lenses? Surely that is swaying you? :D

A 24-70 IS would be a point of difference between 2 otherwise very similar systems.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1042
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:53 |  #9447

Well. Canon has the direct print button too.


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pleb1024
Senior Member
Avatar
313 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Ex Christchurch, New Zealand. Now Atlanta, GA, USA
     
Aug 27, 2010 22:53 |  #9448

Potisdad wrote in post #10803578 (external link)
In the Rebel kit lens has IS. A 24-70 IS would have Tim and half the Nikon world jumping to Canon. If it was easy to do, they would have done it by now...

I think IS in the short focal ranges is part usefulness, and part marketing. For certain situations IS can be a handy additional feature to a lens. However, I certainly think that IS gets added to help the less knowledgeable users get better pictures. This seems to happen especially with the gear aimed at the lower end of the market. People tend to forget that canon makes a hell of a lot of its money at this end of the market. And dont forget the marketing love to add all sorts of letters / numbers to make something sound better/better value than competitors.

At lenses aimed at the higher end user, Canon probably looks at the cost/benefit of how many extra sales they will make if IS is included, and the drop in sales due to higher cost of including IS by people who dont really care about it. Its probably slanted towards the keeping the cost down a little.

When you get into the telephoto/supertelepho​to, it becomes almost required now (I know a few of these don't have IS). It's in the mid range * where it gets interesting - just look at the 70-200 where you can get with or without IS in _both_ the f/2.8 and f/4 lenses.

For myself, I try to work out what the best lens to cover the situation I need it for, that fits in my budget. In the low end - its a bonus if it has IS, but not a requirement. On the long end for me it's required.

To get a 24-70 IS will probably take a competitor to release a similar lens that gains a lot of attention and sales. (Seems in the last few years canon enjoys playing catchup!)

Daniel


7DMkII | 7D | 450D | Canon 18-55 IS | Canon 55-250 | Canon 100-400L MkII | Canon 100-400L | Canon 24-105L | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | Tokina 11-16
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manipula
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,290 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: English Wookie in Wellington, NZ.
     
Aug 27, 2010 23:22 |  #9449

Potisdad wrote in post #10803725 (external link)
The 70-200/2.8 IS has a FF image circle, is sharp at 2.8, has the same zoom ratio and the physical aperture size at 70 mm/2.8 is the same as would be required for a 24-70.
Maybe the reverse zoom mechanism of the 24-70 has something to do with it?

Doesn't have to work optically out at 24mm though does it? ;) You're talking with a 70-200 about something going from mild telephoto through to a bit more, whereas a 24-70 is covering a pretty extreme range optically at f/2.8.


Cheers, Dave.
www.manipula.co.nz (external link) :: Gear list for the nerds (external link) :: flickr (external link) :: ModelMayhem (external link)
:: insert scathing quip here! ::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,996 posts
Likes: 364
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 27, 2010 23:30 |  #9450

I read something interesting, which i'll try to reproduce here in my own words.

When it comes to Canon focus systems there are two groups of thought on the subject. The first has no problems at all, and thinks the people who do have problems are either stupid or don't know how to use their equipment. The second group has focus problems, and thinks the people who don't are either lying or aren't as critical as them.

In practice there are variations in equipment and their tolerances, varying situations, and peoples tolerances are different. Neither group is wrong, but neither group is right either. All in all it's best that people just use the equipment that works best for them, they are after all just tools to do a job.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

696,943 views & 0 likes for this thread
GKPE 7 - And Still Going! Still Friendly and Still The BEST!
FORUMS Community Talk, Chatter & Official Stuff The Lounge 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Arti
1052 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.