Photo sharing: High ISO

mom2rtk · Apr 1, 2015

Here's a rundown on the options. I have the Sigma 50-150 (no OS) for crop and Canon 70-200 f/4L IS for FF.

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS - 3.28 lb
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC - 3.24 lb
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS - 3.15 lb

Canon f/4L IS 1.95 lb
Canon f/4L (no IS) 1.55 lb

Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (no OS) - 1.7 lb

fractal · Apr 1, 2015

havoc315 said:
I've had no trouble resisting that one. While I don't pine for a small mirrorless system, I also have no desire to carry around a huge 70-200/2.8. In this thread, you see the low light results I got with the 70-200/4. Would the 70-200/2.8 yield even better results? Probably... but my back would be so sore after handholding it for a couple hours.

When I shot Sony, I had the Minolta 200/2.8 prime -- That lens was a DREAM. IQ even better than a 70-200/2.8, with the weight of a kit telephoto lens. I guess that's why I'm lusting for the Nikon 300/4, though I doubt it's anywhere close to my old Minolta 200. Fractal, if you're listening, you better be taking care of my baby (he bought my lens when I left Sony).

Don't worry @havoc315 - I'm taking care of her!

mom2rtk · Apr 1, 2015

havoc315 said:
If I owned the 70-200/2.8, I suspect I'd constantly be torn about whether it is worth carrying. I'd want the better IQ, but I think I'd only drag it out of the closet for "special occasions." But there certainly are others who find the weight to be a non-issue, and carry it everywhere.

I did have the stabilized version of my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 for about a year. And that was exactly my experience. It was just too much for me to want to drag very often. So I parted with it and didn't look back. That experience is why I knew I wanted to f/4 when I went FF. Of course, it helps that FF allow me to bump up the ISO to compensate for that.

elmoandzoey · Apr 1, 2015

Maybe he was trying to tell me the Tamron weighs as much as the Canon f2.8 and then accidentally said it weighs as much as the f4. That would make sense. Since the zoom isn't really a walkaround lens for me I don't have an issue with the weight. I guess it would be different if it was constantly on the lens.

mom2rtk, I have looked at the Sigma 50-150 as well, especially because of the price, but I doubt I'd be happy with the range. I started off with a 50-200 zoom and I was always unhappy with the 200 end of things that I quickly replaced it with a 70-300. That's what I mainly use now.

mom2rtk · Apr 1, 2015

elmoandzoey said:
mom2rtk, I have looked at the Sigma 50-150 as well, especially because of the price, but I doubt I'd be happy with the range. I started off with a 50-200 zoom and I was always unhappy with the 200 end of things that I quickly replaced it with a 70-300. That's what I mainly use now.

I can understand that. I was just willing to sacrifice a little on the long end to have it a little wider on the other end. I liked being able to leave it on my camera more and always felt like 70 was too tight on a crop sensor camera.

elmoandzoey · Apr 1, 2015

I rarely use the short end when I have the zoom on. I am mostly somewhere between 200 and 300 so I have never found it to be too tight. The 70-200 f2.8 is a sacrifice I am willing to make just for the larger aperture... And because I once lifted a Canon 300 f2.8 and THAT I don't want to lug around EVER!

mom2rtk · Apr 1, 2015

elmoandzoey said:
I rarely use the short end when I have the zoom on. I am mostly somewhere between 200 and 300 so I have never found it to be too tight. The 70-200 f2.8 is a sacrifice I am willing to make just for the larger aperture... And because I once lifted a Canon 300 f2.8 and THAT I don't want to lug around EVER!

I'm the opposite. I'd rather crop than carry a really heavy lens.

Even so, the loss of length has been a big adjustment with my change to FF. It sounds like it would be an even bigger loss to you.

elmoandzoey · Apr 1, 2015

I am a very odd person because I usually shoot ultrawide in the 10mm range or use the zoom in the 300 range. I think I could get away with just those ranges 95% of the time.

havoc315 · Apr 1, 2015

elmoandzoey said:
I am a very odd person because I usually shoot ultrawide in the 10mm range or use the zoom in the 300 range. I think I could get away with just those ranges 95% of the time.

You're not that odd. On full frame, my camera bag often includes my 18-35 and my 70-200. I often completely skip the "standard kit" range.

Geoff_M · Apr 1, 2015

havoc315 said:
That defeats the whole purpose for me --- light weight. The 300/2.8 is massive. I want something I can handhold for hours at a time.

Sorry, missed that detail! I used to own a 300 f4 AF (obviously not the AF-S), but to be honest I never really liked it. It provided a little more reach that my 80-200, but that was it. Nikon never made a 1.4x TC for it that would auto-focus, and the Tamron TC I bought for it was way soft except for when stopped way down to f11. Yes, the 300 2.8 is a beast, but it's so much more usable out in the field.

fractal · Apr 1, 2015

ISO 3200 on my NEX-7 (APS-C sensor).

havoc315 · Apr 2, 2015

Geoff_M said:
Sorry, missed that detail! I used to own a 300 f4 AF (obviously not the AF-S), but to be honest I never really liked it. It provided a little more reach that my 80-200, but that was it. Nikon never made a 1.4x TC for it that would auto-focus, and the Tamron TC I bought for it was way soft except for when stopped way down to f11. Yes, the 300 2.8 is a beast, but it's so much more usable out in the field.

The nikon 1.4 works with both the old and new 300. What's particularly impressive about the new 300/4.... The weight is comparable to a standard zoom.

Geoff_M · Apr 2, 2015

havoc315 said:
The nikon 1.4 works with both the old and new 300. What's particularly impressive about the new 300/4.... The weight is comparable to a standard zoom.

I don't believe Nikon ever made a TC that supported the "cam" focus drive mechanism. Mine was just the "AF" lens, not the "AF-S".

dmaxphil · Apr 4, 2015

ISO 6400 on Fuji X-E2 @ 200mm

havoc315 · May 22, 2015

ISO 16,000...
It was daylight, but towards the end of the day, and needed a very very fast shutter speed, so had to crank up the ISO. Minimal lightroom noise reduction.

The Jump! by Adam Brown, on Flickr

mom2rtk · May 22, 2015

havoc315 said:
ISO 16,000...
It was daylight, but towards the end of the day, and needed a very very fast shutter speed, so had to crank up the ISO. Minimal lightroom noise reduction.

The Jump! by Adam Brown, on Flickr

I guess you DID need a very fast shutter speed! Great capture!

mom2rtk · Jul 1, 2015

ISO 16000.

Bonding Time by mom2rtk, on Flickr

TC09 · Jul 7, 2015

I forgot about this thread.

ISO 6400

Prison Dog by Chris Marquez, on Flickr

havoc315 · Jan 17, 2016

12,800

Chappaqua Station by Adam Brown, on Flickr

havoc315 · Apr 15, 2016

ISO 25,600 on the A6300 -- Definitely a record high ISO for me on APS-C:

Arrived at Grand Central by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Photo sharing: High ISO

Invented the term "Characterpalooza"

DIS Veteran

Invented the term "Characterpalooza"

DIS Veteran

Invented the term "Characterpalooza"

DIS Veteran

Invented the term "Characterpalooza"

DIS Veteran

DIS Veteran

DIS Veteran, DVC Member, "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

DIS Veteran

DIS Veteran

DIS Veteran, DVC Member, "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

DIS Veteran

DIS Veteran

Invented the term "Characterpalooza"

Invented the term "Characterpalooza"

Hidden Mickey?

DIS Veteran

DIS Veteran

Share this page