• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

BrassPremier said:
There's no question that the 70-200 2.8 is an awesome lens. I've used the mark I and it's great. It just comes down to, do you really need to spend that much?

I've used the 70-200 4.0 Non-IS and it also produces great photos. Some say the 4.0 puts out better photos than the 2.8... It's also a hell of a lot cheaper. Also a lot lighter, nice if you're carrying it around all day.
Click to expand...

Seems to be the same experience for Canon/Nikon :) I'll echo that pretty much exactly.

I've had used both, and while the F2.8 is great for long-distance portraits, the lack of DOF means it's really only useful when things are moving slow (IMO). And, it's hoooge, and heavy, and uses a lot of battery with the IS on.

The 4.0 on the other hand, is literally half as big, half as heavy, a lot more useful at events because it's simply less obtrusive and therefore easier to get candids, and not knock off the heads of small children :)

I ended up buying the 4.0, simply because it's more useable.

Mr. Moneybags (Aris ya bastad!) can get both, and I would if I could.

Actually, I'd get the 300mm FF F2.8.

Next up is prolly the 17-40 F4.0, tho I'd like to get the 16-35 F2.8, but that's nearly 3 times as much money :cry

Then the 24-70.

Then a FF 35mm.

I could keep going. :)
 
Joebar4000 said:
Seems to be the same experience for Canon/Nikon :) I'll echo that pretty much exactly.

I've had used both, and while the F2.8 is great for long-distance portraits, the lack of DOF means it's really only useful when things are moving slow (IMO). And, it's hoooge, and heavy, and uses a lot of battery with the IS on.

The 4.0 on the other hand, is literally half as big, half as heavy, a lot more useful at events because it's simply less obtrusive and therefore easier to get candids, and not knock off the heads of small children :)

I ended up buying the 4.0, simply because it's more useable.

Mr. Moneybags (Aris ya bastad!) can get both, and I would if I could.

Actually, I'd get the 300mm FF F2.8.

Next up is prolly the 17-40 F4.0, tho I'd like to get the 16-35 F2.8, but that's nearly 3 times as much money :cry

Then the 24-70.

Then a FF 35mm.

I could keep going. :)
Click to expand...



I don't agree that the F4 is more useable. Yes, it's lighter, but it's not more useable from a photography point of view. For sports photography, the F2.8 II is a freakin godsend. Shooting wide open indoors allows me to freeze the action with quick shutter speeds. Plus, the 2.8IS II focuses almost instantly even compared to the gen 1 version of the 2.8. And, there's more than enough depth of field to get good pics.

I shot this pic wide open at F2.8. I assure you that these guys were not moving slow at all. (Ignore the graininess. I purposely added a high pass filter in post to make it look that way.)

180074_10150089277437483_605697482_6694183_3623338_n.jpg
 
BrassPremier said:
he must have meant outdoor events in sunlight :p
Click to expand...

I meant mostly indoor events, so you'd think I'd want the 2.8 - but, at 200mm, and close to the subject (think - close portrait, face filling frame), the DOF at 2.8/200mm is really, REALLY short.

Even the F4 is a little tricky - focus on the nose, or pupils?

If you can be bothered, there's an example at www.yahphoto.biz, go to Galleries, Personal - Male - the very first pic was (I think?) at 300/F4 - the DOF with a similar subject size in the image is about the same as the 200 at 2.8.

Only *just* deep enough. Now, if this person is walking around...

Both our points are valid, which is why I had the "(IMO)", because for candid portraits, I found the 200 at 2.8 pretty useless for catching up-close portraits. The F4 is just about OK, with the added bonus of being relatively light and compact.

Now, for days at the track, even a 300mm F2.8 wouldn't be too short a DOF, but then you're much further away from a much larger subject (like two Judoka).

:teeth
 
when i shoot trackside, im usually shooting at f8-16 anyway to allow real slow shutter for panning.

So I'm going on a trip to Europe in a month and trying to pick out camera gear. I'm going to be carrying it with me for 3 weeks, so I want to stay light. Just picked up the 35mm 1.8 for $199 (the local store hasn't noticed the price has gone up to $279 everywhere else). Very lightweight.

Also thinking bringing the 85mm 1.4 for longer distance shots. Either that or the 70-300, which isnt too much heavier but would give nicer range.

Also considering my Tokina 11-16 2.8. Weigh's same as the 85mm, so not too bad. (and holy crap the price has gone up on it, I bought it new for $500, now it's $659 and out of stock)
 
Yeah, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan has really done a number on the supply chain hence the drastically increased prices. Did you see how much they want for a 5D MKII now? It went up almost by almost a full $1000 since I bought it.
 
You're gonna like the 35. It's the only lens I actually own right now, and I find it very versatile if you're willing to think about composition and zoom with your feet.
 
Yea the Nikon D700, which should hopefully be replaced somewhat soon, has almost gone back up to its original price. Few months ago it was down to like $2200 or so, back to $2700. And it's generally out of stock too.

Yea I'm digging the 35 so far. I have the 50 1.8, and it's just barely too narrow of a view on cropped sensor for casual photo taking. The 35 seems to focus quick, and makes no noise, compared to the loud motor used on the 50.
 
Last edited:
Dayum.

70-200 VRII was awesome. I love the look it gives on an FX body. I'll have some pictures from the weekend up soon.
 
jorbar1551 said:
I got to help out at my cousins wedding. I just used my Nikon D5000 and kit lens. Can you guys critique some of my shots?





The rest of the pics can be found here
http://motomedic23.smugmug.com/Weddings/Zach/17436356_VjWVKz
Click to expand...

For the first photo I would have increased the shutter speed so you don't get that blury effect and also you should adjust the white balance during your post processing to get the orange hue from the sun down to a more natural tone. Regarding the shutter speed, there are certain instances where you would want the motion of travel to be composed, but in this case it wouldn't be my particular taste.

The 2nd photo you need a light filler. It's underexposed. In a perfect world a wedding photographer would have an off camera light to fill in shadows around the room. Not sure what mode you were shooting in, but going a few f-stops down would let your on camera flash collect more.

Happy shooting!
 
is there anywhere locally that rents gear? i want a teleconverter for motogp, i have a 70-300 but for some corners i know 300 wont be long enough right?
 
I've rented at Calumet in SF before. Borrowlenses.com also is good I hear, they have pickup locations all over bay area.

I'd look up how well a teleconverter would work on the 70-300. The basic 1.4x reduces light by one stop, making it a 420mm f8. The camera will have a hard time autofocusing, if it can at all.

If you shoot canon, I'd check out the 400mm f5.6. I've shot with it a lot and it works well. Very lightweight for telephoto, which is nice. Would be cheap to rent.

If you shoot nikon, you could rent the 300mm f4 and the 1.4 extender, giving you a 420 f5.6
 
I did some searching and the converter won't autofocus with this lens...I'm shooting nikon and thinking about just renting the sigma 50-500 instead
 
hm, you already have 70-300. i would recommend the 300 f4 with 1.4 teleconvertor route still, i'm sure it would give better results than the sigma 50-500
 
The only thing with that is for some spots like the corkscrew and t9 it will be too much and I didn't really wanna bring 3 lenses (I'm bringing my 17-50 for the paddock)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top