Comments on: Anything long, fast, and cheap? http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml You tell that other boy, not to touch the woodwork... Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:55:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8-bleeding-edge hourly 1 By: tychay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-28066 tychay Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:39:11 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-28066 @Rama: Good point. I don’t know anything about that model but I recommend people reading this entry look it up. As for IS, that only applies to freezing, Both Canon IS and Nikon VR have a mode which will stabilize only one direction. Just thought I’d mention that. @Rama: Good point. I don’t know anything about that model but I recommend people reading this entry look it up.

As for IS, that only applies to freezing, Both Canon IS and Nikon VR have a mode which will stabilize only one direction. Just thought I’d mention that.

]]> By: Rama http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-27995 Rama Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:23:38 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-27995 What about the 120-300mm f/2.8 by Sigma ? I heard favourable reviews of it, compared against the 70-200 f/2.8 ; considering its price, it is difficult to judge how much the positive critics are influenced by buyer's guilt. It is not stabilised, but at this length, I would assume that it is often used on a stand of some kind (wall, tripod...), and that the subject moves too fast for the IS to be much use (birds or other animals, sports, etc.). For someone with the 5D / 24-105mm combination, it might be useful. Maybe a bit heavy to handhold, and a bit long for portraits... What about the 120-300mm f/2.8 by Sigma ?

I heard favourable reviews of it, compared against the 70-200 f/2.8 ; considering its price, it is difficult to judge how much the positive critics are influenced by buyer’s guilt. It is not stabilised, but at this length, I would assume that it is often used on a stand of some kind (wall, tripod…), and that the subject moves too fast for the IS to be much use (birds or other animals, sports, etc.).

For someone with the 5D / 24-105mm combination, it might be useful. Maybe a bit heavy to handhold, and a bit long for portraits…

]]> By: tychay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-20216 tychay Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:28:25 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-20216 I used my 70-200 (with and without diopter) to shoot photos of the iPhone: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tychay/354253801/" title="Photo Sharing" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/354253801_4b0be0733f_m.jpg" width="161" height="240" alt="Apple iPhone 30" /></a> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tychay/sets/72157594473741326/" rel="nofollow">Apple iPhone Flickr set</a> I used my 70-200 (with and without diopter) to shoot photos of the iPhone:

Apple iPhone 30

Apple iPhone Flickr set

]]> By: tychay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-18559 tychay Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:51:55 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-18559 Bill mentions this positive <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=304" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">review of the 70-200mm f/4L IS</a>. Also, starfish235, whose analysis I trust implicitly points out that the 70-200mm f/4L IS is <a href="http://flickr.com/groups/techtalk/discuss/72157594262617688/" rel="nofollow">one of the few cases where it outperforms</a> the 70-200 f/2.8L IS even when stopped down to f/4. My guess is that the f/2.8L IS is a venerable design. For instance, I think the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VR is slightly sharper than the Canon version (I can’t prove this because you cannnot compare MTF curves across vendors). This is in counterpoint to my mostly derogatory opinion of this lens (viz. you should either save money and get the 70-200 f/4L or get the 70-200 f/2.8L at the same price or pay a little more for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS). Bill mentions this positive review of the 70-200mm f/4L IS. Also, starfish235, whose analysis I trust implicitly points out that the 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of the few cases where it outperforms the 70-200 f/2.8L IS even when stopped down to f/4. My guess is that the f/2.8L IS is a venerable design. For instance, I think the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VR is slightly sharper than the Canon version (I can’t prove this because you cannnot compare MTF curves across vendors).

This is in counterpoint to my mostly derogatory opinion of this lens (viz. you should either save money and get the 70-200 f/4L or get the 70-200 f/2.8L at the same price or pay a little more for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).

]]> By: tychay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-12716 tychay Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:17:09 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-12716 I forgot to mention that Tokina has a Pentax-designed model slated for release sometime: The <a href="http://www.tokina.co.jp/atx/4961607633229.html" rel="nofollow">AT-X828AF PRO</a>. AN 80-200mm f/2.8 lens. I forgot to mention that Tokina has a Pentax-designed model slated for release sometime: The AT-X828AF PRO. AN 80-200mm f/2.8 lens.

]]> By: terry chay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-12699 terry chay Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:25:26 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-12699 <a href="http://www.ziplens.com/" rel="nofollow">ZipLens</a> rents Canon and Nikon lenses. I don’t know how good the service is though. Might want to check. ZipLens rents Canon and Nikon lenses. I don’t know how good the service is though. Might want to check.

]]> By: terry chay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-12528 terry chay Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:07:51 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-12528 Just to be clear, my advice is to rent the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, not buy it. This model can “emulate” nearly the entire range of lenses available for purchase. In the case of a 70-200mm f/2.8 L or 70-200mm f/4 L, you turn off the IS or turn off the IS and stop down. (In the latter case, you’ll have to rent the f/4L before making a final purchase because the focusing won’t be as fast—focusing occurs at the largest aperture.) I think the IS versions are just as sharp as the non IS when the IS is turned off. It might be marginally less sharp because the floating lens elements that create the optical stabilization are mechanically locked into place, but I think the only real cost (besides price) is probably the extra lens ghosting/flare you get. In the Canon models, IS does also an adequate job of stabilizing really cheap tripod setups; Nikon trades this off for really agressive stabilization optimized for shooting out of a moving car, plane, or helicopter. Image stabilization does not work when the subject is moving, however if you are really good, there is a mode that will allow you to pan with the subject and it will only stabilize along one axis. I do not think it is necessarily “worth it” especially for the cheaper lenses. There is a >$400 markup that Canon is asking you to pay. On the low end this can double the price of the lens; on the high end it’s still a 50% markup! But the real answer lies in what type of shooting you are planning on doing. Do you have a tripod or monopod handy for most of the shooting you do? Wedding photographers often have no such luxury. Light hikers or tourists might feel the same. Then again, carrying a dSLR with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS attached is hardly light hiking *shrug*. Just to be clear, my advice is to rent the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, not buy it. This model can “emulate” nearly the entire range of lenses available for purchase. In the case of a 70-200mm f/2.8 L or 70-200mm f/4 L, you turn off the IS or turn off the IS and stop down. (In the latter case, you’ll have to rent the f/4L before making a final purchase because the focusing won’t be as fast—focusing occurs at the largest aperture.)

I think the IS versions are just as sharp as the non IS when the IS is turned off. It might be marginally less sharp because the floating lens elements that create the optical stabilization are mechanically locked into place, but I think the only real cost (besides price) is probably the extra lens ghosting/flare you get. In the Canon models, IS does also an adequate job of stabilizing really cheap tripod setups; Nikon trades this off for really agressive stabilization optimized for shooting out of a moving car, plane, or helicopter.

Image stabilization does not work when the subject is moving, however if you are really good, there is a mode that will allow you to pan with the subject and it will only stabilize along one axis.

I do not think it is necessarily “worth it” especially for the cheaper lenses. There is a >$400 markup that Canon is asking you to pay. On the low end this can double the price of the lens; on the high end it’s still a 50% markup! But the real answer lies in what type of shooting you are planning on doing. Do you have a tripod or monopod handy for most of the shooting you do? Wedding photographers often have no such luxury. Light hikers or tourists might feel the same.

Then again, carrying a dSLR with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS attached is hardly light hiking *shrug*.

]]> By: Matt M http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-12511 Matt M Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:43:53 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-12511 Do you think the IS on the 70-200 is really worth it? I read it doesn't work if your subject is moving. And its not as sharp as the non IS version. Do you think the IS on the 70-200 is really worth it? I read it doesn’t work if your subject is moving. And its not as sharp as the non IS version.

]]> By: tychay http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-12494 tychay Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:46:06 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-12494 Umm, that’s a $1000 lens. Perhaps my next purchase. Oh yeah, right. I haven’t won the lottery :-D Umm, that’s a $1000 lens. Perhaps my next purchase. Oh yeah, right. I haven’t won the lottery :-D

]]> By: carpeicthus http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml/comment-page-1#comment-12489 carpeicthus Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:23:25 +0000 http://terrychay.com/blog/article/anything-long-fast-and-cheap.shtml#comment-12489 135 f/2 and get closer ;-) 135 f/2 and get closer ;-)

]]>