Tupperware Photography & Red Ring Tinfoil (14)

poppie guy wrote in post #7843570


You'll be seeing flowers from here too Wool, but few with nicer light than you found on this one!

I don't know anything about the 200L f2. Other than the one stop, what advantages does it have over the 200L f2.8 that make it worth an extra 4 grand?

Image stabilizer, big, white, sharpest lens in the Canon arsenal to date, carries on legendary tradition of 200/1.8 lens, awesome AF, takes a TC like it ain't there.

Actually, it is in a way closer to the 135/2 because the 135 has the f/2.0 aperture that matters so much. But no stabilizer.

The same question could be asked of the 300/2.8 ISL vs the 300/4 ISL (I owned the latter). What is one extra stop, super sharpness and the best AF available worth? The price difference is pretty similar, but you don't see folks being deterred from owning the 300/2.8. In fact here on POTN the 300/4 is widely regarded as being for the lightweights.. the 2.8 version is for the 'pros'.

Lightstream wrote in post #7843598
Image stabilizer, big, white, sharpest lens in the Canon arsenal to date, carries on legendary tradition of 200/1.8 lens, awesome AF, takes a TC like it ain't there.

Actually, it is in a way closer to the 135/2 because the 135 has the f/2.0 aperture that matters so much. But no stabilizer.

The same question could be asked of the 300/2.8 ISL vs the 300/4 ISL (I owned the latter). What is one extra stop, super sharpness and the best AF available worth? The price difference is pretty similar, but you don't see folks being deterred from owning the 300/2.8. In fact here on POTN the 300/4 is widely regarded as being for the lightweights.. the 2.8 version is for the 'pros'.

I recently purchased my 85L from a guy who shoots professional pool tournaments. He said the 300 2.8 is the standard lens for shooting pool tournaments due to the low light and distance from the tables. If I win powerball tonight I'll buy a 200 f/2, but other than that I probably won't be finding one in my gear bag.

I kinda like fast primes and slow zooms. If I have good light, the 70-200/4 ISL (we shortened this to 724ISL) is the preferred option.

When the light goes to crap, the super high speed primes have the ability to make bad light look good. You own the 85L, you can feel the POWER

I usually do event work, so being able to nuke out the background with bokeh and being able to shoot speakers or performers on stage in utter crap light is valuable to me. So far the 135L is being tasked with this. I always end up shooting in black holes, we start at ISO 1600 from the get-go and crank it up as the evening gets started. Mad crazy aperture or my 430EX and slow-sync is a must-have.

Basically I agree with the answer from your pro, the bottom line is "the aperture matters". Focal length matters too but we have a good selection of hardware in any of the FL's we need for the task at hand. It's just how fast we can go given the FL.

Like I said I'd love a 200/2.0...it's just that it is a fiscally irresponsible purchase for me.

Lightstream wrote in post #7843727
I kinda like fast primes and slow zooms. If I have good light, the 70-200/4 ISL (we shortened this to 724ISL) is the preferred option.

When the light goes to crap, the super high speed primes have the ability to make bad light look good. You own the 85L, you can feel the POWER

I usually do event work, so being able to nuke out the background with bokeh and being able to shoot speakers or performers on stage in utter crap light is valuable to me. So far the 135L is being tasked with this. I always end up shooting in black holes, we start at ISO 1600 from the get-go and crank it up as the evening gets started. Mad crazy aperture or my 430EX and slow-sync is a must-have.

Like I said I'd love a 200/2.0...it's just that it is a fiscally irresponsible purchase for me.

I have a 24-105L, and a 724IS that I bought from Permie a year ago. The 724IS is a great lens, and I wouldn't want the 2.8 version. I plan on getting the 135L and either the 35L or 50L. Slow zoom, fast prime works for me too!

The bokeh from the 724ISL is pretty nice too, and I find that for events, f/2.8's DOF is too shallow. f/4 is much better, allows some wiggle room because often I don't even have time to frame the photo before I lose the moment. No point buying a f/2.8 if you are going to stop down to f/4 the majority of the time.

When I DO have time to set up the shot, that's where the fast primes come in. I switch to them when I can control the DOF and the subject is being relatively consistent.

Lightstream wrote in post #7843791
The bokeh from the 724ISL is pretty nice too, and I find that for events, f/2.8's DOF is too shallow. f/4 is much better, allows some wiggle room because often I don't even have time to frame the photo before I lose the moment. No point buying a f/2.8 if you are going to stop down to f/4 the majority of the time.

When I DO have time to set up the shot, that's where the fast primes come in. I switch to them when I can control the DOF and the subject is being relatively consistent.

Of course, you can always get the 2.8 and shoot it at 4.0. You should get similar DOF, and you'll still have 2.8 when you need it.

I didn't like the 2.8 as well as the 4. I don't like my nikon 2.8 vr as well as the canon f4IS either. That lens I would put as my 2nd favorite lens (iq wise and af wise) ever, to the 300 2.8. Above the 85L and above my new Zeiss that I'm so enamored with.

Belmondo wrote in post #7844132
Of course, you can always get the 2.8 and shoot it at 4.0. You should get similar DOF, and you'll still have 2.8 when you need it.

Tru dat, but the light weight appeals to me. Try 2 days of back to back 8-hours-on-your-feet nonstop shooting with about six kilos of gear on you (2 cameras, glass, flash, support gear). In 90F weather. Hat and shades mandatory. The Oakleys take 3.5 stops off ambient brightness and that's still not enough.

Very grateful I did not have a 2.8 that day, plus there was enough light. When the light goes bad, the 135 comes out to play - f/2.!! plus I need a lightweight travel lens.

I am, however, thinking about it. 70-200/2.8 IS would reduce the need for a 200/2.0, provide decent bokeh, IS and the versatility of a zoom.

OTOH I think 724ISL + 135L for the win. I've been very happy with this setup for either zoom flexibility OR crazy speed. Plus I already have it so no need to sell and change, which always carries the risk of regrets and re-purchase after that.

Isn't the F2 supposed to be quite heavy?

I'd choose the 2.8 prime over the 2.8 zoom. We had both and kept the prime. I sold it with the 5D. That was a dark day for me in the way of gear

Though currently I'm the happiest I've been with my gear, since that day so that is good

I really wanted to put mine through field testing (for action) today but it's raining and it doesn't look like we'll be shooting the local re-enactment.

Yoda..Permie...

I have the 2.8, and don't really have any issues with the weight. Instead, it has been the most difficult lens for getting consistent results (for me). I'm not sure what my issues are with it, but I'm satisfied it's not the lens.

I don't dislike the 2.8 Chief (not like I do the 100-400). I just don't like it as well as the other options in it's range. Just a personal preference. For me the F4IS was the golden child. It did everything I needed it too. The IS worked better than any lens I had, the bokeh was beautiful and I found F4 to work (even in weddings) plus it was lightweight. I'd say that 50% of my shots were with that lens.

Whereas now, I've got the 2.8, it weighs a ton and the VR works fine the bokeh is nice, it's sharp in the center so it works. But it's not the golden child.

Permagrin wrote in post #7844220
I don't dislike the 2.8 Chief (not like I do the 100-400). I just don't like it as well as the other options in it's range. Just a personal preference. For me the F4IS was the golden child. It did everything I needed it too. The IS worked better than any lens I had, the bokeh was beautiful and I found F4 to work (even in weddings) plus it was lightweight. I'd say that 50% of my shots were with that lens.

Whereas now, I've got the 2.8, it weighs a ton and the VR works fine the bokeh is nice, it's sharp in the center so it works. But it's not the golden child.

I'm not sure I have a 'Golden Child,' but I do have some lenses I know I'm going to have a better chance with than others. I suppose my 'default' lens is the 24-70L and/or the 24-105. They're both an easy focal length to shoot in, and they're very forgiving.

Permagrin wrote in post #7844198
Isn't the F2 supposed to be quite heavy?

I'd choose the 2.8 prime over the 2.8 zoom. We had both and kept the prime. I sold it with the 5D. That was a dark day for me in the way of gear

Though currently I'm the happiest I've been with my gear, since that day so that is good

I really wanted to put mine through field testing (for action) today but it's raining and it doesn't look like we'll be shooting the local re-enactment.

The f2 is heavy. Think 300/2.8 with a bit of weight trimmed from it. This is also the practical reason that stops me from carrying it as 2nd lens on location. My shoulder should be dead by the end of the 1st day if I have this lens. And of course, I'm not buying any lens that I am not willing to physically carry.

f/2.8 primes have never impressed me. For me, prime means f/2.0 or faster. Dunno.. just the way I feel it should be for my setup. Macro lenses and special-purpose lenses (TS-E, or related) excluded.

I'll hang onto the 135L. We get on well.

Belmondo wrote in post #7844204
Yoda..Permie...

I have the 2.8, and don't really have any issues with the weight. Instead, it has been the most difficult lens for getting consistent results (for me). I'm not sure what my issues are with it, but I'm satisfied it's not the lens.

Hmm... dunno either. Actually, weight is not THAT huge an issue, since I used to own the Sigma 70-200 and quite liked it. But it's just a preference for a lighter setup.

Permagrin wrote in post #7844220
I don't dislike the 2.8 Chief (not like I do the 100-400). I just don't like it as well as the other options in it's range. Just a personal preference. For me the F4IS was the golden child. It did everything I needed it too. The IS worked better than any lens I had, the bokeh was beautiful and I found F4 to work (even in weddings) plus it was lightweight. I'd say that 50% of my shots were with that lens.

Whereas now, I've got the 2.8, it weighs a ton and the VR works fine the bokeh is nice, it's sharp in the center so it works. But it's not the golden child.

That's the thing about the 724ISL. State of the art design plus state of the art IS. f/4 is not always the encumbrance that it is made out to be, not with today's high ISO capabilities.

I don't quite like the 40D's high ISO (3200 especially irks me), but Lightroom's NR is pretty darn good. On the 5D it is no problem at all.

I am fine with the slower zooms, on my existing rig. As we go forward, improvements in high ISO performance will yield even more gains - think 5DMk2

Belmondo wrote in post #7844242
I'm not sure I have a 'Golden Child,' but I do have some lenses I know I'm going to have a better chance with than others. I suppose my 'default' lens is the 24-70L and/or the 24-105. They're both an easy focal length to shoot in, and they're very forgiving.

I really enjoyed both those lenses. The 24-70 was my other work horse and the 24-105 was my preferred walk around lens.

basically my 70-200F4IS and the 24-70 were the lenses I made my $ with. This year however, work is slim around here. So I have no idea what will be the nikon $. I'm assuming the same two. However I'm not looking forward to lugging the new 7-2 around for 6 or 7 hrs at a whack.

Lightstream wrote in post #7844266
That's the thing about the 724ISL. State of the art design plus state of the art IS. f/4 is not always the encumbrance that it is made out to be, not with today's high ISO capabilities.

It's true. I was thinking about that the other day. With my d700 (not so much the D300...it's more like my ds2 as far as iso ability) 2.8 is not a necc. at all. It's really rendered aperture moot. I can shoot at mostly whatever I want because the high ISO is so usable. Because the D300 isn't, I still need fast lenses. And frankly, nikon doesn't have an F4IS anyway...their lineup is SO WEIRD.

you know something I've noticed since I switched brands?

It may only be in the place I frequent but so many people buy their fast lenses, and post OOF shots with them. And everyone says "oooh, that's nice".

Originally I thought "maybe it's my laptop monitor" but it's not. It's like pretty bokeh is the only thing that matters...and expensive gear.

They go on and on about the 85 1.4 (which cannot touch the 85 1.2 in IQ or bokeh or colors) and hardly anyone uses it properly. And the 50 1.2...and some of those MF lenses...it's like they don't bother to learn how to focus it properly...

I'm so serious here. They post a shot that would have been nice if they'd focused properly but instead the subject isn't in focus and people say "ooh lovely shot" and the like.

It's the weirdest thing to me. I mostly keep quiet and don't say anything...but the longer I've been a member, the more I've seen this phenomenon. It's not all over...there's a zeiss thread where people actually focus and some of the fast lens threads have focused shots. But I just get amazed at the amount of threads/posts that aren't...and am even more amazed that people say "oh that looks like a wonderful lens" when I'm thinking "if this is an example of the lens in a mass population's hands" I don't want it.

I know this is a generalization and usually I stay away from those...but I'm seeing a trend over there...usually hobbiests with $ to spend buy the gear...very few working people. And an amazing amount of lack of ability (again, not everyone...but a goodly amount). And the weird thing is that no one seems to notice the plethora of oof shots (it's like a twilight zone)....gosh I wish potn had a nikon section.