October 21, 2014, 02:25:31 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - zrz2005101

Pages: 1 2 [3]
31
Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:38:42 PM »
The one point of having primes is for the extra stops of light and their reliable performance. Yes the 70-200 II is more than outstanding but even with IS sometimes it cannot have the picture just because the object may be moving too. Turning up ISO means losing IQ so having the extra stop of light is very helpful.

32
Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 13, 2012, 02:02:45 PM »
Which 3 primes?  My 3 choices are 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200L  :P

+1
lol, that's what I'm looking to have in the future :) but first 24LII 85LII 135L are must haves,, I just wish the 85LII improved optically too and not just the AF part compared to the Ver.I

33
Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:44:57 PM »
I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them.  Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider.  The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.

I would go for the Ver. II as anyone would if I have the budget, but as I mention in my post, I do not have enough funds to buy them, not everyone can afford these lenses if you ask me so yea, sadly I have to pass them

34
Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:43:28 PM »
I think anyone would opt for the version II lenses if they couod afford them.  Canon does not service the older version 1 lenses anymore, and as remaining parts are used up, you could end up with a unrepairable lens.
Aside from that, weight and need for a paticular focal length are the main things to consider.  The 400mm is pretty much the standard for large field sports, but you can use any of the ones you mention.
The benefit of the 500mm is its ability to be handheld, whereas the 400 is not something to use without a monopod or tripod.

They most certainly service the 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses.  I just had it done.  If you can get a good deal on good shape used ones, you can also get both for less than the version II 400mm lens.

+1
they have not been discontinued for long and has another few years of service before Canon run out of parts for them

35
Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:41:54 PM »
Looking carefully at the ISO 12233 test charts by Brian Carnahan the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) plus 1.4xTC II is sharper wide open than the 500/4 (vers 1) and the 600/4 (vers 1) ie both wide open.

Now that's unbeatable versatility for you.

It seems that the 1.4XTC II was designed for this lens!

This 560/4 combo is also sharper than the latest 300/2.8 IS (vers 2) with 2xTC III wide open ie 600/5.6! Cheaper as well and the extra stop and 143mm aperture is a lot more use than 107mm!

(Is there anyone out there with practical experience of the 560/4 side by side with the others mentioned above to support the evidence of the ISO 12233 charts?)

The great advantage of course of an f2.8 super tele is that even if the IS breaks down - as everything must eventually - it is far more useful than an f4.

And even if the AF packs in the much brighter image given by f2.8 will facilitate more accurate manual focus than f4.

You have made the right choice in limiting your self to f2.8 long lenses and IMHO the best of the bunch must be the 400/2.8 IS (vers 1) if wide open sharpness with/without TC is your main starting reference point.

I have carefully compared the 300 and 400 lenses on the digital review and it seems to me that the 400mm f2.8 IS does a better job with 1.4 and the 2.0 extenders but not as good in its native focal range (surprisingy it seems to me that the 400mm also outperforms the 500 f/4 and the 600 f/4 with the extenders too, I wonder why). As for the 300, the Ver. II certainly outperforms the Ver. I in every way. Any thoughts on this?

I decided to go with the f2.8 rather than the 300/4, the 400 f/5.6 and the 400 f/4 DO because of the IQ and the extra stop or two of light as other than the 5D3 or 1Dx, the high ISO performance really doesn't go well and I need the fast exposure time so I will not be missing shots.

36
Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:36:07 PM »

I have recently grow an interest in sports photography...

First we have to exclude the new Canon super teles as they are EXPENSIVE!!! It's true, I can't afford them no matter how good they are.  :(

So the choices, the EF300mm f2.8 L (non-IS version), the EF300mm f2.8L IS(first version), EF400mm f2.8 II(non-IS) and the EF400mm f2.8 L IS, all second hand of course, since they are all been discontinued. And if someone could give a comparison of the first generation IS super teles to the latest one on AF and IQ that would be fantastic!

Mainly for hockey, football, basketball and soccer. I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 so yea. Body I will be using will probably be a 1D IV I will use my 1Ds III if I have to...... ;)

I shoot sports and I use the 300mm f/2.8L IS (Version I) and a 1D MKIV.  This lens is very sharp and very fast and it mates wonderfully with the MKIV.  On the MKIV you will have a 35mm FL equivalent to 390mm, then just add the 1.4X for 546mm f/4 for Football and Soccer. I can shoot the 300mm on the MKIV at night @ f/2.8 and 1/1000sec between 6400-12,800 ISO without any problems depending on the lighting on the field.  If you can shoot 1/800sec, it's even better.  Slight noise reduction may be needed, but not always. If the game starts at dusk, I will start off with the 1.4X and as it gets darker I will take off the 1.4X if necessary.  For day games, just add the 1.4X when needed and you're set.

For indoor basketball and hockey, the bare 300mmm would be good for opposite end shots.  You may even want to use your 1Ds III for the indoor use.  The MKIV is weather sealed and is more rugged for outdoor use and provides the extra reach for the larger fields.  For outdoor night games in poor lighting you may need to shoot the bare 300mm, so that you can keep f/2.8.  The 300mm is great on a monopod for field sports, and it's also definitely hand-holdable.  It's also a lot cheaper than the 400mm version I.

If you've never handled the 400mm Version I, then you're in for a shocker.  You'll definitely need a monopod for this one.  The 400mm f/2.8L IS Version I is a great lens for field sports, but it is pretty heavy and a bit long and cumbersome for indoor sports. It's also quite a bit more expensive than the 300mm f/2.8L IS.

The 300mm f/2.8L IS Version 1, is cheaper, lighter, hand-holdable, better for indoor sports, and more flexible than the 400mm.

Get yourself a nice monopod, knee pads, shoot low and you're good to go. I would put your 70-200mm on your 1Ds III and the 300mm f.8L IS on your MKIV and you are done!

Generally speaking for fields sports, a good FL would be between 400-500mm.  If you're too long, you'll start missing shots and cutting off limbs.  You could always crop a little.

For a 7D (1.6X) I would go with the 300mm f/2.8
For a MKIV (1.3X), I would go with the 300mm f/2.8 with or without 1.4X.
For the newer FF Bodies (1.0X) I would go with the 400mm f/2.8 with or without 1.4X, or the 500mm f/4.

With the new and improved noise control of the new 5DIII and 1DX, I predict that the 500mm f/4L will become more popular for field sports, because a lot of sports shooters are using the MKIV and 400mm for 520mm.  Now with the new FF bodies, their 400mm will only be 400mm, or they could add the 1.4X for 420mm f/4 and slow down auto-focus by 50% and decrease IQ, or they could opt for the 500mm f/4L and maintain a faster AF and retain IQ.

Rich

I do use the Gitzo 3541L monopod with a Acratech ballhead if I need to. How do you think the AF on the 300mm IS Ver with the 1.4xTC compared to the bare lens itself? I have laid my hands on the 400 IS ver I a few times and I have to say that's a heavy chunk of lens, it will be impossible for me to handhold.

37
Lenses / Re: Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 13, 2012, 01:02:46 PM »
Mainly for hockey, football, basketball and soccer. I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 so yea. Body I will be using will probably be a 1D IV I will use my 1Ds III if I have to...... ;)

How about an 1.4x extender to your 200mm and a 7D body for a start? Being able to carry the lens without Major Pain sitting on your shoulders is a big benefit in the field.

I have to say the 70-200mm f2.8 itself on 7D maybe convenient but with a 1.4xTC I think the IQ will go down a lot and at f/4 I really don't think 7D's high ISO will be able to produce useable images

38
Lenses / Re: Another I need advise on a lens thread......
« on: August 12, 2012, 11:57:29 PM »
If you do landscape, then I assure you that you will find the corner IQ of the 16-35L II disappointing as I use it for my landscape shots. It's center is pretty sharp but other than that, it really doesn't quite meet the standard of an all time wide angle lens. so I would suggest you go for the 24L II as you said you find it satisfying 90% of your usage and you have an extra stop of advantage too. If you are decided on a zoom, I would say wait for the 14-24 as I am pretty tempted to sell my 16-35 L II and buy a 14-24 G from Nikon to use for my landscape shots.

Another note, you will find the distortion in 16-35 below the 20mm focal length pretty uhmm bad.

and I don't recommend the 16-35L for sports, 24L II is more appropriate

39
I must say that Canon makes no good wide angle zooms and both 14LII and TSE17 does not support filters! I use the 16-35mm L II and its corner IQ is horrible makes me think of the Nikon 14-24 G everytime I zoom in. My friend purposefully has it on his Canon body even if it meant manual focus sigh....

Anyway, put that aside, I personally have the 100L marco and it works great, you won't find it disappointing but the ultimate macro lens in my opinion would go to the 180L marco, that lens is totally a macro killer. If you don't want to get a specific lens I guess close up filter on a telephoto zoom say 70-200mm II would work fine I guess. Or extension tubes on shorter focal length lenses...

40
Lenses / Re: Lee filters
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:56:58 PM »
I use both the LEE and Singh-Ray filters and personally I find them to be outstanding, the IQ does not go down when used with 1 filter and does not go down very much when you stack 2 filters! Vignetting is visible but acceptable. I use the 16-35mm L II too with LEE system it works great! but usually the ND filters are 4x6, only my big stopper (So rare to see one and hard to get!  :D) is 4x4 but they will work, one thing I find is that at 16mm there will be dark corners on FF bodies, stopping down to 18mm and it's minimum and at 20mm it is completely out of sight, I don't know if anyone else is experiencing the problem. Another problem is that they NEVER, seem to have these filters in stock and it took me 3 months to get that big stopper...just insane.

41
Lenses / Canon super tele choices!!!
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:47:24 PM »
Hi guys, I've just created an account but I've been reading on this forum for quite some time now. It seems there aren't many posts about superteles so here I am, posting this question. ;)

I have recently grow an interest in sports photography in addition to what I do usually, which is landscape so I'm probably a complete noob in this area but I am stuck between a choice of lens.

First we have to exclude the new Canon super teles as they are EXPENSIVE!!! It's true, I can't afford them no matter how good they are.  :(

So the choices, the EF300mm f2.8 L (non-IS version), the EF300mm f2.8L IS(first version), EF400mm f2.8 II(non-IS) and the EF400mm f2.8 L IS, all second hand of course, since they are all been discontinued. And if someone could give a comparison of the first generation IS super teles to the latest one on AF and IQ that would be fantastic!

Mainly for hockey, football, basketball and soccer. I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 so yea. Body I will be using will probably be a 1D IV I will use my 1Ds III if I have to...... ;)

Thanks for your help guys!

42
Lenses / Re: Landscape Question
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:28:35 PM »
Like most other people, I do not want to step a lens down to f22 or f27/32 for some lenses just because the IQ decreases too much. My main landscape lens has been the 16-35LII and it's IQ at f22 is pretty bad  I would say. I generally use f8 (sometimes the DOF isn't enough) and f11. If I want to increase the exposure time I would just stack filters, I use LEE and Singh-Ray and to my findings, stacking a LEE and a Singh-Ray together at f11 creates at least the same IQ if not better than plainly at f22 alone so....unless I really have to, say a 3 min long exposure to photograph a sea scene at dusk, I would not step it down, but when you have no choice, getting the image is better than not getting one. :)
On a side note, I generally don't use above ISO 200, due to the great lose of DR and increased noise, especially with Canon, its banding issue in its dark areas has been troubling me for ages, tempting me to switch to Nikon :'(

43
Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: August 12, 2012, 10:11:26 PM »
since your primary purpose is portrait, for primes I would go with 35L 85LII and the 200L IS, just my opinion though.
However, I'm going for 35L 85LII and 135L on that note.

Pages: 1 2 [3]