70-200mm lenses

[woody64]

Thanks to everyone for their help in choosing my "present". I went with the Canon 70-200/f2.8. I have only played with it a little and will use it more this weekend at the first swim meet as I was allowed to open before Christmas.

Here are some of my first shots, let me know what you think:

This crazy squirrel was in our Bradford Pear during last Fridays snow/ice storm

DS(11) showing how easy it is to dive in the snow for the pass

Our beagle Belle (note:I did lighten this one a wee bit in PSE)

Have a great holiday season and thanks for the help and advice.

 

[kmadams]

Enjoy your Christmas present! 2 years ago I got my Nikon D70 as an early Christmas gift from my husband and I was so glad to have it, got some once in a lifetime shots of my daughter in the Nutcracker that year.

Of your 3 pictures I like your squirrel picture the best. It looks like he is playing peek-a-boo with you! The colors are also very nice, great capture. Have a great time taking pictures at the swim meet, looks like a nice lens.

 

[Master Mason]

you will enjoy it. That's the same chirstmas present I got. And I also was awarded it early so I could get some good shots of the kids playing football. While a heavy sucker, it is my favorite lens.

 

[mabas9395]

This is at the top of my christmas list too. Allthough it occasionally trades places with the 10-22 (depending on my mood).

But I really need to get my wife into a bigger house before I get any more toys.

 

[jann1033]

would you buy the sigma 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 70-200 f4 for $200 more? the photos look good for the sigma, great for the canon but i haven't compared them side by side. the canon f2.8 is way over my budget the sigma is maxing it out as it is( ie no external flash if i buy that one till i get some more $$)

just wondering if the extra speed would help make up for my shaky hands or if the sigma is much less sharp than the canon f4. i think where i am getting annoyingly hung up on these and the 70-300IS is i think i want the larger aperture to be able to play around with and not sure where the cut off ought to be...ie will i regret only having 5.6 on the 300 end cause the is won't make up for dof....or will the dof be enough different between 4 and 5.6 to matter? or would i rather have the 2.8 but is it not sharp enough...i'm driving myself nuts here.

 

[boBQuincy]

Hmm, a difficult call.
As most people on this board know, I usually prefer OEM lenses and accessories. The Sigma has received very good reviews but since I don't have one I will only guess:

The Sigma is probably as sharp as the Canon by the time it is stopped down to f/4. And you still have f/2.8 for low light.

The Canon is built *so*well I can't imagine the Sigma can be as good, but maybe.

The Sigma is probably a better deal now but the Canon probably has better resale value.

C'mon, you know you really want that off-white lens to tell everyone "I have arrived". Sorry, I just couldn't help it!

 

[Lachesis00]

*hehehehe* I too am looking for a new zoom lens. My 70-300 tameron took a dive. It works *sometimes*. It doesn't always auto focus. My eyesite can not be depended on for manual focus, especially for concerts.

I want a f/2.8 or lower zoom... for concert shots. I am wondering what chunk of change I will be shelling out though!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

would you buy the sigma 70-200 f2.8 over the canon 70-200 f4 for $200 more?

Ahh, the insanity inducing "just a little more" game. If you are going to spend that much for the Sigma, you can get the Canon f/2.8 for just a couple hundred more. And if you are going to spend that much, the IS version isn't that much more.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[gruZ]

I'll admit to being biased because I own the Sigma - and am very happy with it. Here is some more information:

Click - Some general thoughts

Click - More general thoughts and some posted images from this lens.

Good Luck!

 

[jann1033]

funny how that works...only last july i was thinking the sigma 18-125 was pricey
thanks for the links gruz...i think i grilled you about this on rachel's lens thread too

 

[jann1033]

anyone familiar with the lowepro cases for lens? it looks like the case 2 would fit that and the kenko teleconverter( lens =6.8", converter.78" , case 8.25" but it would be close so wondering if the cases are on the money dimensions or larger or smaller? i'd like to keep the converter with the lens in case i have it attached
the 4 is 10" and might be to big.

i think someone said about another brand as well if they can tell me again, sorry should have written it down..i want to be able to attach it to the outside of my case so it would have to be padded( i might get one of those holster type camera cases sooner or later but right now i have out grown my bag once again )

 

[Groucho]

I have a Zing lens pouch, which is less "shaped" than the Tamrac ones. I'm not sure how it compares with the Lowepro one. I'd probably get another Zing; actually, probably will, one of these days, the lens pouch was a really handy accessory at WDW. I would guess that they're all pretty effective.

The Zing one just had a sewn-on belt strap on the back, no Velcro or anything like that.

 

[handicap18]

I have the Tamrac Large lens case that attaches to my camera bag and also to my belt (came in very handy the other day when carrying around 2 lenses). It fits my 70-300mm VR lens though it might be to small for your 70-200. They also have an X-Large case that is 8 1/2 inches deep and 4 1/2 inches wide. There is a review on the xl case on amazon from someone that says its fits their 70-200. But doesn't say if its an f/4 or f/2.8, though I would think if it fits an f/2.8 then it would fit an f/4.

On a side note regarding the review, I reviewed the xl case when I actually should have reviewed the L case. I'll have to try and fix that on amazon.

 

[boBQuincy]

My Canon 70-200 f/4 lives in a LowePro #2 case. I put the lens in face down and the hood fits (snugly) on top. The lens and Canon 1.4x converter will both fit, barely.

The LowePro cases are $$$ but are well made and attach easily to belts and such.

 

[jann1033]

thanks..i'll check out the other brands as well..right now my backpack is going to have to be my carrying bag since the camera and 70-200 hog all the space of the smaller bag. i took a bunch of stuff out so i'll see how it works tomorrow

 

[jann1033]

1) exactly what does the little switch that changes from 1.2 meters- infinity and 3 meters to infinity do. when would it matter in the real world? does it just focus closer or something or what?

2) what does the "1:4" mean on the lens end by where you attach a filter? someone said it was a macro but i only saw that one place and don't think it says so on canon but don't know what else the 1:4 could mean

Thanks

 

[Master Mason]

Well I will answer the first one. It limits the range for focusing, so if you know your shooting a football game, and nothing is closer to you than 3 meters where you want to focus, then you can throw the switch and eliminate that range, It is supposed to make focusing faster, as the camera doesn't have to go into that range to check.

 

[Groucho]

I believe the 1:4 is indeed the amount of macro focusing... which isn't too much. I think 1:2 is amount the minimum that counts as a "true" macro...

I don't remember exactly, but I think it's 1:1 means that what you're photographing is exactly the same size on the sensor/film as it is in real life... 2x is twice as big... something like that?

 

[jann1033]

I believe the 1:4 is indeed the amount of macro focusing... which isn't too much. I think 1:2 is amount the minimum that counts as a "true" macro...
I don't remember exactly, but I think it's 1:1 means that what you're photographing is exactly the same size on the sensor/film as it is in real life... 2x is twice as big... something like that?

thanks master mason


macro was the only thing i had seen listed like that as well and that is the same range as my "pseudo macro" other lenses but since i don't think it focuses closer than whatever 1.2 m would be ( 4 ft ish?) i wasn't sure if it means something else.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

1:4 means that the largest "in focus" image you can create on your sensor with that lens is 1/4 the size of the object in real life. If you move closer, you'll either have to zoom out, you won't be able to focus, or both. As Groucho already said, 1:1 would mean that the image on the sensor can be as large as the object you are photographing. Of course, you can print the image at whatever size you want.

There is nothing magical about any particular magnification ratio, but it is a nice way to compare lenses. If you find yourself out in the field wanting to take a picture of a small flower, you can check the magnification ratio of your lenses and quickly see which one will give you the most magnification.

You can increase the magnification ratio of any lens by adding extension tubes or a closeup filter. Extension tubes work by moving the lens further from the camera. That helps because the closer you get to an object, the further back the lens focuses the image. By moving the lens further from the camera, you can get closer to the object and still stay in focus. A closeup lens works pretty much like putting a magnifying glass on your lens.

As for the switch, Master Mason's explanation is correct. Under normal circumstances, it doesn't matter. At times when your lens loses focus and has to start hunting, it reduces the range over which it needs to hunt. There are times when this is really handy, like shooting flying birds or planes. With either of those, when you lose track, your camera tries to focus on the sky, which has insufficient constrast for the auto-focus. In that case, it just starts roaming the entire focus range. When you catch up to your bird or plane again, the focus could be way off. The switch just limits how far off it can get.