MaveRick Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Kicker: you're always fond to posting teasers (mahilig ka talaga magpabitin ha!! hahaha) lemme see your new baby! all these talk makes me wanna plunge in and get a DSLR camera as well (as some people say i've already outgrown my camera).. but that's too much for my wallet to take for now.. i guess i'll just have to be contented with my PnS camera.. Quote
anime52k8 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) Went with the basic. Big thanks to Eugimon, Swoosh, and you of course for your input. Just started reading the books for it. But i'm tired as heck so i'll play with it tomorrow. =) what a tease, and I'm not even sure what you bought... anyways, serious question: I've been saving up for a new telephoto lens, and by Christmas I should have enough for a nice new 70-200mm L series. It's either going to be a 70-200mm f/4 IS or a 70-200mm f/2.8. the price is about the same so the only real difference is weight and aperture vs. image stabilization; so I'm wondering, would I be better off with 4 stop IS and a pound less weight or a full stop faster aperture? Edited October 27, 2009 by anime52k8 Quote
eugimon Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 (edited) what are you gonna use the lens for? Like, are you gonna be using the lens during the day, or well lit sporting events or similar things? Then I'd say get the IS but if not, get the faster lens. Edited October 27, 2009 by eugimon Quote
STL Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Whoa some beautiful photography there. Love the ones with the gun barrel blurred and then unblurred Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 muahaha, our numbers grow! Nikon shooters unite! Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 anyways, serious question: I've been saving up for a new telephoto lens, and by Christmas I should have enough for a nice new 70-200mm L series. It's either going to be a 70-200mm f/4 IS or a 70-200mm f/2.8. the price is about the same so the only real difference is weight and aperture vs. image stabilization; so I'm wondering, would I be better off with 4 stop IS and a pound less weight or a full stop faster aperture? As Eugimon says, it largely depends on your shooting style and preferences. Where the f/2.8 would have an advantage: If you are shooting fast moving object (sports, cars, etc), you might want the f/2.8 to maximize shutter speed (to "freeze" the subject). If you are shooting in low light (weddings, functions, etc) and you have to work at a distance and cannot use a flash unit, the f/2.8 can give you that range necessary to work. Where the f/4 IS have an advantage: If you are shooting closeup using the zoom (the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR has a great bokeh for this), then the VR/ IS is very useful in such cases, and you might want to go for the f/4 IS lens. If you are shooting on the move (i.e., you are hiking, doing a lot of movement), then lesser weight is a good thing. Where it doesn't really matter: If you shoot (relatively) stationary objects from long distance in daylight (e.g., unaware animals, girls in bikini on a beach, scenary that doesn't move about, that kind of things), then either lens is good enough. If you are shooting at night but using long exposure, then either one is good -- or bad -- enough. (fairly wasted capability IMO, but still...) The problem here is IS. In Nikon terms, VR and VR II actually does help, in narrow circumstances, to allow you to shoot at a higher shutter than normal conditions. I.e., a 1/30 shot can be possibly done at 1/60 instead. It's quite helpful there. Since shutter, aperture and ISO all combine in the shooting of a photo, a f/4 IS and a f/2.8 normal may actually not have significant differences in capability under those circumstances... however, on a personal basis, I would prefer a f/2.8. Electronics may fail, but glass won't short of cracking -- mostly. Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) IS is good for one other thing, tracking shots; birding, sports, cars, etc. Helps minimize the hand jiggle and movement blur. But 200mm is really too short for most of those activities. Edited October 28, 2009 by eugimon Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 IS is good for one other thing, tracking shots; birding, sports, cars, etc. Helps minimize the hand jiggle and movement blur. But 200mm is really too short for most of those activities. VR I know can do that, but I'm not sure about IS. At any rate, I've never really thought it that good at tracking fast moving objects... It works, but I'm not too sure how much it really helps. Quote
eugimon Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 VR I know can do that, but I'm not sure about IS. At any rate, I've never really thought it that good at tracking fast moving objects... It works, but I'm not too sure how much it really helps. It works, IS and VR are pretty much the same thing. It's good because you can get away with a higher f stop... nice if you're trying to catch something small/fast and worried about the depth of field and getting the subject in focus. Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 It works, IS and VR are pretty much the same thing. It's good because you can get away with a higher f stop... nice if you're trying to catch something small/fast and worried about the depth of field and getting the subject in focus. Well, I tend to use IS/ VR to get higher shutter speeds, but yeah, that's another possibility. Still, most of the time the immediate benefit is to get a stable picture -- amazing how a little hand shake can affect a picture. Quote
Dante74 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Be patient and save up enough money to get the f2.8 IS. I did and I never regretted it. If you get the f4 you might one day need an extra stop and not have it. You'll regret not getting the f2.8 then. On the other hand, you might one day take a shot with the f2.8 non-IS which is just out of focus and wonder if that would've happened if you'd gotten the f4 IS. The f2.8 IS is a heavy lens to walk around with all day, but once I import my pics into lightroom I forget all about the weight. BTW: There are rumors going around the net about a new Canon f2.8 70-200 mm coming next year. Quote
Vegas Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 muahaha, our numbers grow! Nikon shooters unite! nikon FTW !!!! :lol: according to photozone "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories. The resolution figures are stunning regardless of the setting. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are nothing to worry about. The build quality is excellent with the new sealing as a another highlight. On top of that the lens now features a image stabilizer with an efficiency equivalent to 4 f-stops (at cost of shutter speed). The only heartbreaking drawback for some is the price tag which increased significantly to a whopping grand - price/performance-wise this is still very sound though". http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-cano...-report--review Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 according to photozone "The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L IS may well be the very best tele zoom on the market today - it is certainly the best Canon zoom lens tested locally to date. The lens was capable to deliver a near-flawless performance is all categories. The resolution figures are stunning regardless of the setting. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are nothing to worry about. The build quality is excellent with the new sealing as a another highlight. On top of that the lens now features a image stabilizer with an efficiency equivalent to 4 f-stops (at cost of shutter speed). The only heartbreaking drawback for some is the price tag which increased significantly to a whopping grand - price/performance-wise this is still very sound though". Uh huh, uh huh... so how does it shoot? I mean, indoor hall with dimmed lighting, no flash, ISO maxed out, can it still do the job at ranges of 15 ~ 20m? The glass may be good but that f/4 is a fundamental barrier that restricts the lens a bit. Quote
Vegas Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Uh huh, uh huh... so how does it shoot? I mean, indoor hall with dimmed lighting, no flash, ISO maxed out, can it still do the job at ranges of 15 ~ 20m? The glass may be good but that f/4 is a fundamental barrier that restricts the lens a bit. ofcourse it can only do F/4... there is no perfect lens. but there is no denying that this lens is the sharpest (70-200mm canon lens) and the distortion is almost non existent much like primes. im just saying Quote
VFTF1 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Damn.Reading all this I feel really small with my silly little Sony 3.3 mega pixel digital camera... I mainly got it because it was...well...digital...and therefore easy to use with a computer. My ex-girlfriend then got a digital camera mainly because of how it LOOKED - it was small and feminine and girly and kind of like designer jewelery... it sometimes took better pictures and sometimes worse... I definitely need to get a good camera - but that's probably something I'll be able to think about realistically next year...maybe for my birthday... Pete Quote
Kicker773 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 wife wanted me to get the nikon something which was a point and shoot.. then she went and told me to get the d60, but that ain't going to happen. It took a while and some major saving here and there and not look or buy more mac toys for a bit. I know some of you know how i dragged in getting one (vegas and maverick), so now that i have one...believe me its worth the investment (in my case wait). =) Quote
Dante74 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 wife wanted me to get the nikon something which was a point and shoot.. then she went and told me to get the d60, but that ain't going to happen. It took a while and some major saving here and there and not look or buy more mac toys for a bit. I know some of you know how i dragged in getting one (vegas and maverick), so now that i have one...believe me its worth the investment (in my case wait). =) *sits in front of computer looking at screen and waits* Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 ofcourse it can only do F/4... there is no perfect lens. but there is no denying that this lens is the sharpest (70-200mm canon lens) and the distortion is almost non existent much like primes. im just saying Yeah, I know. I'm just saying sometimes lens reviewers go gushy-gushy over a lens' performance in viglentting, or barrel distortion, or chroma... and then conclude it's THE lens of the year or some such. Doesn't work that way, a lens work within the parameters it is designed with, and whether your photographic needs fall into those parameters would determine whether the lens works for you. But to be honest, I can't really think of many situation where I'd want a f/4 lens of any type. It's just not a set of circumstances I normally shoot under... I definitely need to get a good camera - but that's probably something I'll be able to think about realistically next year...maybe for my birthday... Actually, don't go out to shop yet. Most consumer cameras are more than adequate for 60% to 70% of the situations most people shoot under, and they have additional advantages in compactness and weight that cannot be ignored nowadays. NOI, but the odds are good that you hadn't maximize the potential of your current camera. If you are really serious about photography, understanding the concepts and theories behind photography will allow you to maximize your camera's potential. More importantly, without knowing those, it's hard (but not impossible) to get the most out of any camera you may upgrade to. SLRs in particular need to have a good grounding to get the most out of, because in 60% to 70% of the circumstances, you are just using a bigger and heavier camera to achieve the same results... Can't justify the expense that way. Quote
Vegas Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Yeah, I know. I'm just saying sometimes lens reviewers go gushy-gushy over a lens' performance in viglentting, or barrel distortion, or chroma... and then conclude it's THE lens of the year or some such. Doesn't work that way, a lens work within the parameters it is designed with, and whether your photographic needs fall into those parameters would determine whether the lens works for you. its good that canon has 4 versions out in the market. i had a chance to play with the 3 lens (f/4, f/4 IS and the 2.8 IS) theyre all sharp overall but i love the f/4 IS and the 2.8 IS very much. would like to have one of them in the future. But to be honest, I can't really think of many situation where I'd want a f/4 lens of any type. It's just not a set of circumstances I normally shoot under... i start with F/4 when i do portraiture and off-camera flash photography. the DOF is just about right for those kinda stuff kicker where are those pics youve promised? *F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5* Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 its good that canon has 4 versions out in the market. i had a chance to play with the 3 lens (f/4, f/4 IS and the 2.8 IS) theyre all sharp overall but i love the f/4 IS and the 2.8 IS very much. would like to have one of them in the future. Why not both? :D To be honest I would go for IS/ VR where possible, their assist is very useful. It's only if the basic glass is very much an improvement over the VR lens that I would have issue. Thankfully, Nikkor glass tends to be exceptional, so I rarely run into that. i start with F/4 when i do portraiture and off-camera flash photography. the DOF is just about right for those kinda stuff Well, I can also achieve the same aperture with a f/2.8, although the bokeh and image quality might be different. I guess I just don't do those stuff, so I can't see a need for a f/4 (and hence why my glass collection doesn't have one...) Quote
Vegas Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 (edited) Why not both? :D To be honest I would go for IS/ VR where possible, their assist is very useful. It's only if the basic glass is very much an improvement over the VR lens that I would have issue. Thankfully, Nikkor glass tends to be exceptional, so I rarely run into that. i cant have both lenses, its impractical and besides i cant even afford either one. we canonites are lucky that our lens are kinda cheaper than the nikon versions Edited October 29, 2009 by Vegas Quote
eugimon Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 i cant have both lenses, its impractical and besides i cant even afford either one. we canonites are lucky that our lens cheaper than nikon versions true on so many levels. Quote
Vegas Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 true on so many levels. cheaper in terms of price Quote
Dante74 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Canon lens collection FTW!!!1 There's a lens available for every budget and every need and the 70-200 range is a fine example. Quote
Kicker773 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 kicker where are those pics youve promised? *F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5* I haven't forgotten about it.. working on how to take a picture manually.. it seems when i do nothing on the LCD shows up (just pitch black). Plus trying to find good lighting and a backdrop for some customs. Quote
eugimon Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I haven't forgotten about it.. working on how to take a picture manually.. it seems when i do nothing on the LCD shows up (just pitch black). Plus trying to find good lighting and a backdrop for some customs. The default for the LCD on the D90 is for review only, if you want to use the LCD as your viewfinder hit the Lv button on the upper right corner of the LCD. Quote
Kicker773 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 phack.. so the picture is there then when i load it to the comp.. I love you guys!! Big help man.. hehehe i'm such a newbie... Quote
Dante74 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 phack.. so the picture is there then when i load it to the comp.. I love you guys!! Big help man.. hehehe i'm such a newbie... Unless your manual settings are something like f22, 1/4000th, iso 100. Then you'd actually get a black pic. Quote
Lynx7725 Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 Unless your manual settings are something like f22, 1/4000th, iso 100. Then you'd actually get a black pic. Easier just to leave the lens cap on... Quote
eugimon Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 phack.. so the picture is there then when i load it to the comp.. I love you guys!! Big help man.. hehehe i'm such a newbie... ? If you're not seeing a review image right after you take the picture: menu -> playback menu -> image review: ON Quote
Kicker773 Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 *sits in front of computer looking at screen and waits* For you Dante: Excuse the pics.. still learning.. Quote
STL Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Whoa! Awesome pics. My YF-19 Anniversary is on its way in the mail. I'm very much looking forward to this beauty. Quote
Lynx7725 Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Excuse the pics.. still learning.. Well, some suggestions -- 1st, black on black background is tricky; Nikon's focussing is contrast-based, so it's going to be hard to focus. Try instead to have a contrasty background to "pop" the subject. 2nd, you should use a tripod for this kind of shoot. If you are already, you have a broader range of options, so you need to know how to take advantage of them. Leading to #3... 3rd, f/4.5 isn't going to work for a long object like a Valk -- the DoF is not sufficient. Nikon's ISO performance isn't terrible, so you can easily go up to ISO 640 or even 800 without too much noise. You can use this to make the aperture smaller, say f/11 or so. You can also use that ISO band to up the shutter speed of the shot -- 1/25s is hand-shake territory. Still, with this kind of photography, you would most likely want aperture to have priority over shutter speed. 4th -- and getting more technical here -- you might want to use spot or center-weighted metering instead of pattern metering (the default). Nikon metering is conservative, and usually under-exposes. On a black object, this compounds; on a black object on a black background, it compounds some more. Using center-weighted metering on this kind of photography usually works out better, as it meters off the subject (or rather, around the focal point) rather than then whole scene. Quote
Kicker773 Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 I love it!! thank you for the feedback i actually took the picture in my room with little space for anything due to Mac toys everywhere. I will use a tripod next time. I haven't really learned to use the ISO or adjust it (still reading the D90 book by J. Dennis Thomas on page 60 Chap 2). Still learning on the shutter speed and spot/metered. Thank you so much Lynx I will keep reading and thank you for your feedback I will work in getting a better background =) this place is awesome!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.