• 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.

PHOTOGRAPHY - The official Camera-setup Thread

This year for my birthday, got a Canon 70-200mm 4.0L. This adds to my 24-70mm 2.8L and 50mm 1.8.

Still using my Canon 10D but hoping to pick up the 30D or 5D for Christmas.

3181939-img_797700.jpg
 
How do you like the 4L? I'm thinking about picking one up.
 
dito said:
slower shutter speeds will (IMO) always make a better picture. you get more action blur and sense of motion BUT they are also harder to get. the slower the shutter the better a photog you have to be. I never use anything more than 640 shutter speed for motorsports and usually shoot at around 160-250 for panning. aperture is also something to play with. for out of focus fore/background you'll want a lower # aperture (2.8 for example). this also allows more light when there isn't a lot of sun out. long lenses (i use 600mm and 400mm) help out but i don't recommend for the hobbyist(unless you have an extra $4-8k to burn). actually the 400 5.6 is a great "inexpensive" lens at around $1100. I would definatley recommend the 70-200 2.8 non IS ($1140) AND the 1.4 TC ($290)instead. The crop factor in the lower end digi's are pretty high (up to 1.6) so you can get good reach from a XT with 70-200 and a 1.4 attached (448mm). learn to pan and NOT prefocus on a area to shoot. todays DSLR focus are very good and you should be able to get good photos with the autofocus. if you prefocus and shoot at a specific area you'll get motion blur, but the background and track will be in focus and the moving object will be blurred. for a starting point, use the "sports" mode (high shutter speed) and when you master that move into TV mode and see how you do at different shutter speeds. hope it helps...
Click to expand...

Of course there is some good info here. Case(s) in point(s): my shot below was taken with a Rebel XT and Canon 70-200mm F4.0 IS at roughly 190mm. I left the IS off though through most of the day because it isn't conducive to panning and I wanted to conserve my battery life. I also pre-focused and turned the autofocus off (against Dito's advice above, but if your panning matches the speed of the bike, the bike remains pretty sharp). Aperture was f/10.0 and the shutter speed was only 1/160th here. As you can see, the motion blur from panning the camera with the bike looks good.

97440948-L-2.jpg


The next picture was taken using settings on the opposite end of the spectrum: 1/2500th shutter speed and f/4.0 aperture. It's a less interesting photo as a result.

97440674-L-2.jpg


One piece of advice I received was to try to frame the subject in a location other than dead center and I must say that it makes my motorcycle shots more exciting when I follow that advice.

The 70-200mm is a fantastic lens and is worth every penny -- it's hard for me to quantify it, but every shot that comes out of it looks better than it has a right to. It's a little short for racing shots though; it's tough to get close enough to the action even with the 1.6x crop factor.
 
Ha! It's been so long since I've shot that I claimed to own the wrong lens: I have a 24-70mm f/4L, not the 70-200. Everything I said about it still applies though.
 
Rambeezi said:
How do you like the 4L? I'm thinking about picking one up.
Click to expand...

So far - liking the 4L. Haven't played with it too much as I only got it Memorial Day Weekend. Here's a few pics if you wanna take a look:

My Flickr Page

It'll see a lot of action this summer as I'll be going to Hawaii, Texas and a few stops back to the bay area.

Rent it and check it out. I opted for the 4L as I didn't like the price or weight of the 2.8L, 2.8L IS or 4L IS for the kind of pics I seem to mostly be taking.
 
whats the difference from a 35mm lens and a dslr lens... also how do you tel the difference, cause when i go on ebay or craigslist to look for lens its never specific
 
oh, i don't need it for myself. :p

i still make due w/ my little 256MB. tho' mostly cause i shoot in small. frankly, don't need all that much res.
 
Nice...:twofinger

trackjunkie said:
Here you can see the proper uses of the 400 5.6... 2 of them in frame and was shot with +1.4x tele



oz-1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
so something to ponder. which would you get?

70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS

they both cost about 1kish. not to say i could afford either
 
Go with the 2.8
"IS" cant help you when you're panning bouncing silicone. :laughing
 
Last edited:
MackeyStingray said:
so something to ponder. which would you get?

70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS

they both cost about 1kish. not to say i could afford either
Click to expand...


f/4 non IS. <3 $400 on CL. :teeth
 
Ok thinking of renting a lens for laguna to try my hand at some motorcycle pics
Which would you choose
Current setup
Camera rebel xt
Tamron 28-200
experience not much

Would you get the
-100-400 4.5-5.6L IS (I think this wold be great as a lot of range and decent speed)
-70-200 2.8L
-Bigma 50-500

Unless I luck out and find a good deal on a 70-200 f4L before and have the money to buy a lens
 
Last edited:
sparkyincali said:
Ok thinking of renting a lens for laguna to try my hand at some motorcycle pics
Which would you choose
Current setup
Camera rebel xt
Tamron 28-200
experience not much

Would you get the
-100-400 4.5-5.6L IS (I think this wold be great as a lot of range and decent speed)
-70-200 2.8L
-Bigma 50-500

Unless I luck out and find a good deal on a 70-200 f4L before and have the money to buy a lens
Click to expand...

Out of the list I would go 100-400 if you are only going to take one lens. 200 wont be long enough. You have a 1.6 crop camera so getting some pit/paddock type stuff might be harder if you dont bring your 28-200.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I was really thinking the 100-400 was going to be the best choice for trackside pics and I will have my 28-200 no matter what other lens if any I take
 
Out of those choices I would go with the 100-400 also. 70-200 even with a 1.4x is not enough. I shot with the 100-400 + 1.4x last year at Laguna and had to crop a lot of the pics.
 
what do you guys think of the 28-135 IS as a walk around? that's w/in my budget (can't spring for a 24-70 or 24-105 L) and seems to be decent. it's a little slow for low-light but the IS should compensate right? comes w/ the 30D IIRC

any alternatives in the price range (<$500)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top