Question on my new 70-200 2.8IS

Dogdots

Santa brought me a new lens and I finally was able to get out and try it yesterday. I have some questions about this lens with hopes someone can help me out.

I noticed that at 200mm the lens gets closer to the subject then with my 70-300mm set at 300mm.

Here is a photo I took last spring. My 70-300 was set at 300mm.




Here is the next photo I took yesterday with the 70-200 set at 200mm. I'm positioned a little differently when I took this photo, but I'm still on the gravel road so the distance is the same.




The reason I ask this is because the other day I had the lens out to take a photo of the hubby shoveling off the roof and I had to walk to the sidewalk to get him fully in the shot. Which I know I'd never have to do with my 70-300 lens. My setting for the next two photos are at 70mm with the 70-200mm lens. Why did I have to walk to far away to get a shot at 70mm and why does the 2nd photo look closer :scratch

Excuse the tilt in the first photo, but I left everything "as-is"

1.




2.




Another question if you don't mind....but this lens is heavy and big :cry My hands are small and I'm really having a hard time getting a clear shot handheld. Even getting the lens on the camera was a challenge. Any suggestions on a good way to hold this beast would be a great. What shots I took that came out I really like and I'd hate to send it back, but my keeper rate is going to be really low if I can't hold this steady. Took some photos of some guys on their snowmobile's -- the color was awesome. Went to edit one and didn't have to do any saturation adjustment to it. Now I'm wondering if this lens is so good that my editing will even be different with it.

I'm also thinking of buying another 40d and instead of modifing it to an IR camera like I was going to -- just pop this lens on and never worry about changing it out.

Any insight, help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated

Costanzo

70-200 lens question
Hi Mary, Santa was very generous with such a nice lens, you must have been very good through out the year! I have this same lens on my second Canon 40-D, and like you mentioned, I leave it mounted to this body 95% of the time, and just switch lenses with my first 40-D. The first question on focal length is caused by the crop factor of 1.6, making your lens more like a 320mm. But it should also be increasing the 300mm too. So I'm not totally sure on this. Maybe Ziggy or Art will clear this up for both of us. As to the weight of the lens, I keep the collar on my lens, and use a monopod for any extended shooting, and any other shooting done at the 200/320mm end I like to use my Manfrotto tripod for the sharpest images. This is a fantastic quality lens, and is always mounted to my 40-D, and in the bag. I use it for portraits too, when I have the distance for it.


Hope this will get something started, and we get more answers.

Thanks, Rob C.

Art Scott

I have no idea as to why a 70-200 lens would make something look "closer" than a 70-300 @ 300mm......unless you were somewhat closer with the 200 or weren't all the way out to 300.....has me intrigued....

To counter the weight of the heavy lens, I have a 50-500 on one of my cam bodies, I use a really cool strap from Crooked Horn Outfitters....it called a BINO STRAP SYSTEM and I have purchased them at Wal- Mart for under$20....it pulls the cam close to the chest and when you raise the camera to shoot there is a liitle tension to help "stabilize" the cam and lens....also takes the stress off the neck and distributes the weight across your upper back and shoulders.....it is devised for large binoculars but I have used them now for over 4 yrs on all my cameras, especially when hiking and carrying 2 cameras-cam with shortest lens goes on top and one with longest is adjusted to be lower so they do not hit each other.........now with a belt system for my cam bags I only carry one on the harness at a time (the 70-210f2.8 one heavy lens)...................also in the HotShoe Diaries Joe McNally has a couple of pages on cam holding technique for greater stability..........

ziggy53

Hi Mary Kim. If you can supply us with images which contain the EXIF that would help. Alternately just copy the EXIF to text and post that for each image.

As far as the weight of the lens, it is a heavy lens. If I need to shoot for a length of time I generally shoot with the camera and lens off to my left side, resting my left elbow on my hip and forming a triangle with my bent left arm and the lens. This is similar to a hunting stance so you might ask someone who shoots rifles to demonstrate.

A tripod or monopod is a very effective tool for both stabilization and reducing fatigue.

Dan7312

In the case of the tree photos they are taken for really different angles... see how the limb crosses the nest in on but not the other. A long narrow nest will look narrow viewed from it short side. As you walk around the nest it will appear to become wider as you see more of it long side.

So you seeing a different perspective on the tree and nest so I't hard to tell what's going on. You really have to do this kind of a test with both shots from exactly the same location. If you do I'm sure you will find that 300mm will get you closer than 200mm.

In the second set the images are physically different sizes and orientations. On my screen the first image is about 6.25" and your husband is about 2.25" tall. So your husband a little more than 1/3 the height of the image.

The second image is about 8.25" wide on my screen and you husband is about 3" tall or a little more than 1/3 the width of the image. So your husband is the same size in both images, if you were to print them out at same size.

In the first image though your husband has more head and foot room so that, along with the image size differences makes him look smaller in the first.

Dogdots wrote:

Any insight, help and suggestions would be greatly appreciated

NeilL

What a beautiful lens you have there, Mary. I am very excited for you! Congratulations! Do you have a St Bernard to go with it? ; ))

I would not be surprised what surprises it came up with, it's big and heavy enough to contain quite a few!!

Wishing you many good things this "big white" season! (It is a Canon, right?)

Neil

Dogdots

ziggy53 wrote:

Hi Mary Kim. If you can supply us with images which contain the EXIF that would help. Alternately just copy the EXIF to text and post that for each image.

As far as the weight of the lens, it is a heavy lens. If I need to shoot for a length of time I generally shoot with the camera and lens off to my left side, resting my left elbow on my hip and forming a triangle with my bent left arm and the lens. This is similar to a hunting stance so you might ask someone who shoots rifles to demonstrate.

A tripod or monopod is a very effective tool for both stabilization and reducing fatigue.

Hi Ziggy

I would like to attach the EXIF, but I dont' know how You said to copy it and attach it -- I'm lost. Sorry about that. Could you give me more details on how to do it. Thanks Ziggy.

Took another look at the photos of the nest and the first photo was taken with a Rebel XTi, but that has the same crop factor as the 40d.

The monopod sounds like a good idea. The book that came with the lens says to use a monopod. Never thought about supporting it with my elbow on my hip. I"m going to have to try that out.

Dogdots

Art Scott wrote:

I have no idea as to why a 70-200 lens would make something look "closer" than a 70-300 @ 300mm......unless you were somewhat closer with the 200 or weren't all the way out to 300.....has me intrigued....

To counter the weight of the heavy lens, I have a 50-500 on one of my cam bodies, I use a really cool strap from Crooked Horn Outfitters....it called a BINO STRAP SYSTEM and I have purchased them at Wal- Mart for under$20....it pulls the cam close to the chest and when you raise the camera to shoot there is a liitle tension to help "stabilize" the cam and lens....also takes the stress off the neck and distributes the weight across your upper back and shoulders.....it is devised for large binoculars but I have used them now for over 4 yrs on all my cameras, especially when hiking and carrying 2 cameras-cam with shortest lens goes on top and one with longest is adjusted to be lower so they do not hit each other.........now with a belt system for my cam bags I only carry one on the harness at a time (the 70-210f2.8 one heavy lens)...................also in the HotShoe Diaries Joe McNally has a couple of pages on cam holding technique for greater stability..........

Howdy Art,

The strap sounds like a winner for any time camera and lens combo. Light weight and cheap too.

Part of my problem may be that I just need to have the shoulder surgery I've been putting off. Its weak which would make for unsteadier support.

HotShoe Diaries????

Dogdots

NeilL wrote:

What a beautiful lens you have there, Mary. I am very excited for you! Congratulations! Do you have a St Bernard to go with it? ; ))

I would not be surprised what surprises it came up with, it's big and heavy enough to contain quite a few!!

Wishing you many good things this "big white" season! (It is a Canon, right?)

Neil

Hi Neil ...

No St. Bernard -- just the 2 old goldens, but that sounds like a good idea. Wonder if I could get one for my birthday -- probably not. I doubt the hubby wants to fork over his paycheck to feed it -- let alone share his bed with 3 big dogs

Yes it's a Canon Just hope I can figure out how to get a good steady photo so I can keep it. It would just make me cry if I needed to send it back.

Dogdots

Dan7312 wrote:

In the case of the tree photos they are taken for really different angles... see how the limb crosses the nest in on but not the other. A long narrow nest will look narrow viewed from it short side. As you walk around the nest it will appear to become wider as you see more of it long side.

So you seeing a different perspective on the tree and nest so I't hard to tell what's going on. You really have to do this kind of a test with both shots from exactly the same location. If you do I'm sure you will find that 300mm will get you closer than 200mm.

In the second set the images are physically different sizes and orientations. On my screen the first image is about 6.25" and your husband is about 2.25" tall. So your husband a little more than 1/3 the height of the image.

The second image is about 8.25" wide on my screen and you husband is about 3" tall or a little more than 1/3 the width of the image. So your husband is the same size in both images, if you were to print them out at same size.

In the first image though your husband has more head and foot room so that, along with the image size differences makes him look smaller in the first.

I see what your saying about the angle of the two photos being different. That could really change it I suppose. I'll try the two lenses with the same subject at the same angle and see if I notice it again. I didn't think that would make much difference.

When I put the 70-200 on I just noticed I had to back up further then I did with my 70-300 when taking a photo. That's when I started questioning the magnification of the 2 lenses. Wondering if they differ evn tho they shouldn't, but maybe with an "L" lens you get a little extra bump in the magnification. Could that be????

craig_d

Dogdots wrote:

I see what your saying about the angle of the two photos being different. That could really change it I suppose. I'll try the two lenses with the same subject at the same angle and see if I notice it again. I didn't think that would make much difference.

When I put the 70-200 on I just noticed I had to back up further then I did with my 70-300 when taking a photo. That's when I started questioning the magnification of the 2 lenses. Wondering if they differ evn tho they shouldn't, but maybe with an "L" lens you get a little extra bump in the magnification. Could that be????

No. A lens being in the "L" series doesn't change its magnification. 200mm is 200mm regardless of what lens you're using. Different cameras can have different fields of view for a given focal length if they have different crop factors, but an XTi and a 40D should be the same.

I think you've got the right idea now -- do some real A:B testing, taking the same photo from the same position with both lenses. Make everything as equivalent as possible. Use a tripod if you have one. Use the same camera. Set both lenses to the same focal length. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO shouldn't matter for magnification, of course, but just for the heck of it you may as well set them the same too -- that way you can compare other aspects of the images, such as sharpness, bokeh, overall image brightness and contrast, and so on.

Dogdots

craig_d wrote:

No. A lens being in the "L" series doesn't change its magnification. 200mm is 200mm regardless of what lens you're using. Different cameras can have different fields of view for a given focal length if they have different crop factors, but an XTi and a 40D should be the same.

I think you've got the right idea now -- do some real A:B testing, taking the same photo from the same position with both lenses. Make everything as equivalent as possible. Use a tripod if you have one. Use the same camera. Set both lenses to the same focal length. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO shouldn't matter for magnification, of course, but just for the heck of it you may as well set them the same too -- that way you can compare other aspects of the images, such as sharpness, bokeh, overall image brightness and contrast, and so on.

So it doesn't make a difference. I just did the test so I'll post it soon.

Dogdots

Ok...I did the test. I set the camera on a tripod. Both lenses were we set to the same 70mm with the test being done on a Christmas ornament. I opened them in Zoombrowers since that's the only way I know how to attach the data with the photos I even included the focal point if the focal point is accurate in Zoombrowers -- not a clue if it is or not, but that is where I pointed it using my 70-200 lens. As for the 70-300 lens...I just mounted it on the tripod and shot. Focal point is where it was as I didn't want to move the tripod at all so it would all be the same.

Photo on the left was taken with the 70-300 and right side is the 70-200. Only difference in setting is the Aperture since my 70-300 goes to only 4.0.

I see a difference. Why is that?

ziggy53

Please redo your test shots but this time be very careful to aim your center focus dot on exactly the same point in the scene. I think you will see a very similar view in the resulting images.

2 lenses of different designs will never have "exactly" the same focal length, even though they might say so. Manufacturers round the numbers for marketing purposes. Still I think you will find the images to be very similar once you aim in the same place with the same focal length selected.

Dan7312

I posterized the images just so I could I could find some details to measure.

The only differences that I see is that the camera was pointed slightly lower in the image on the right and the image on the right has more shadow detail.

The both vertical red lines I added are the same length in both images and show that the toys ornament is the same size in both images.

Both images were shot at 1/1000 sec but the image on the right had 2.8 aperature rather then the 4.0 in the one on the left. The result is there is more shadow detail in the image on the right.

BTW, I think biggest thing Canon bumps up on L lenes is weight

Dogdots wrote:

I see a difference. Why is that?

Dogdots

I'll reshoot and repost

As for the weight -- I agree -- they bump up the weight :cry

Dogdots

I'm getting really frustrated now. My 70-300 hunted out as I call it when the barrel moves out and takes the shot. That happened to me twice when retaking the photos. Now the object in my 70-200 photo looks further away :cry Could that have something to do with the lighting. My lighting is getting less as I'm just using the light coming in my patio door.

Am I just seeing things or just getting in a tizzy over nothing. If so please tell me as I won't be offended. Well..don't use the word "tizzy"

I see my focal point is off a tad -- oops!

Dan7312

There is a slight diff in size... I overlayed one image on the other in photoshop and eyeballed maybe a 2% differrence. Like Ziggy says, 70mm on one lens might not be quite the same as 70% on the other. 2% isn't much.

Dogdots wrote:

I'm getting really frustrated now. My 70-300 hunted out as I call it when the barrel moves out and takes the shot. That happened to me twice when retaking the photos. Now the object in my 70-200 photo looks further away :cry Could that have something to do with the lighting. My lighting is getting less as I'm just using the light coming in my patio door.

Am I just seeing things or just getting in a tizzy over nothing. If so please tell me as I won't be offended. Well..don't use the word "tizzy"

I see my focal point is off a tad -- oops!

craig_d

I think these shots are similar enough that we can see that there isn't a huge difference between them in terms of magnification. We're not seeing the kind of dramatic differences that your first shots showed (the ones that weren't taken at the same time or exactly from the same place).

One thing to remember is that unless the lenses are exactly the same physical length, their views will be slightly different when attached to a tripod-mounted camera. And as Ziggy mentioned, focal length numbers are often not precisely accurate. What one lens calls 200mm may actually be 198mm or 202mm.

Brett1000

Dogdots wrote:

Am I just seeing things or just getting in a tizzy over nothing. If so please tell me as I won't be offended. Well..don't use the word "tizzy"

yes, you're just getting in a 'fizzy' over nothing !

Dogdots

Dan7312 wrote:

There is a slight diff in size... I overlayed one image on the other in photoshop and eyeballed maybe a 2% differrence. Like Ziggy says, 70mm on one lens might not be quite the same as 70% on the other. 2% isn't much.

I think you all are right -- it's not much of a difference. I'll give it a try again tomorrow just for the heck of it. When its sunny my 70-300 doesn't hunt and reach out like it did this last time. I'm assuming when it does that I'm getting more of a reach then the 70mm, but its registering as 70mm. Like you said -- 2% isn't much.

I thank-you Dan -- you've been a big help. Guess I'm the only one out there that noticed this happening since I've not seen anyone else mention noticing it

Dogdots

craig_d wrote:

One thing to remember is that unless the lenses are exactly the same physical length, their views will be slightly different when attached to a tripod-mounted camera.

Now this makes sense to me I never thought of the physical length of the lens...duhhhhh

Still has me puzzled about the photos I posted with the hubby shoveling the snow off the roof. I'm going to go out again tomorrow and retake that photo. Only the hubby won't be shoveling off the roof again -- no way could I get him to do that when it wasn't needed. Even for a photo

Dogdots

Brett1000 wrote:

yes, you're just getting in a 'fizzy' over nothing !

Fizzy -- now that's an acceptable word to use

Thanks -- you made me laugh

mcfang

Dogdots wrote:

Photo on the left was taken with the 70-300 and right side is the 70-200. Only difference in setting is the Aperture since my 70-300 goes to only 4.0.

I see a difference. Why is that?

I believe the true reason is a less advertised factor of lenses: the Maximum Magnification value (MM).

Lenses with a different MM value can have a different fov at the same focal length. The MM value may apply for the whole range of focal lengths or only at a particular focal length - check the detailed specs for your lens to find out.

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS has a MM of 0.17x.
Both of Canon's 70-300 lenses have a MM of 0.25x.

So from this we would expect the 70-300 to look "closer" or "larger" than the 70-200 at the same focal lengths.

craig_d

mcfang wrote:

I believe the true reason is a less advertised factor of lenses: the Maximum Magnification value (MM).

Lenses with a different MM value can have a different fov at the same focal length.

No, I don't think that's the issue. The MM results from the Minimum Focus Distance and the lens's focal length. The closer a lens can focus, the more magnified an image it can create from any given subject. Macro lenses, for example, have very low MFDs and correspondingly high MMs.

In this case:

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM has an MFD of 4.6' and an MM of .17x.
The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM has an MFD of 4.9' and an MM of .25x.

Although the 70-300mm cannot focus quite as close as the 70-200mm, its greater focal length results in a higher MM, very similar to that of the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM.

Dogdots

Craig and mcfang I think I understand what your saying....

Correct me if I've have this wrong, but my 70-300 has a greater magnificaton which is why things will appear closer like in my 2nd posting I took of the christmas ornament. That's when both lenses were set at 70mm.

I wonder why that is??????

craig_d

Dogdots wrote:

Craig and mcfang I think I understand what your saying....

Correct me if I've have this wrong, but my 70-300 has a greater magnificaton which is why things will appear closer like in my 2nd posting I took of the christmas ornament. That's when both lenses were set at 70mm.

I wonder why that is??????

The only reason the 70-300mm has "greater magnification" (that is, greater maximum magnification) is that it can focus on an object 4.9' away at 300mm, while the 70-200mm can focus to 4.6', but only at 200mm. But if you set the two lenses up identically (same focal length, same distance to subject: for example, 200mm, 6' away), then maximum magnification is irrelevant; in theory, you should get pretty much the same image. If you don't, then either the focal length isn't really the same (even if the EXIF data says it is), or the distance to the subject isn't really the same. (Note that the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is about two inches longer than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM, which at close range could make a noticeable difference if the camera body is kept in the same place for both shots.)

cab.in.boston

craig_d wrote:

... or the distance to the subject isn't really the same.

Random question... Is "distance to the subject" measured from the front lens element, the sensor (focal plane), or something in between?

Edit: I assume that minimum focal distance must be from the front element to the subject, as I've seen MFDs that are shorter than the lens' physical length... but I don't know if that's the same as the subject distance measurement.

craig_d

cab.in.boston wrote:

Random question... Is "distance to the subject" measured from the front lens element, the sensor (focal plane), or something in between?

Edit: I assume that minimum focal distance must be from the front element to the subject, as I've seen MFDs that are shorter than the lens' physical length... but I don't know if that's the same as the subject distance measurement.

Well, I'm not completely sure of this, and I'm not sure I'd trust anyone but a lens designer or someone with similar expertise in optics to really answer this (too many photographers think they understand how lenses work, but really don't, probably including me), but I think we're talking about two slightly different things here.

"Minimum focus distance" is measured from the sensor or film plane.

However, what I was talking about was the field of view, which, it seems to me, should be related to the physical length of the lens because a physically longer lens will have light entering it at a different point in space than a shorter lens. My guess is that this is not a completely trivial thing to calculate, since different lenses of the same focal length may differ not only in physical length but in the diameter of their front elements.

Dan7312

It seems not all mfg's use the same terms for their spec's. Canon spec's a "Closest Focus Distance" but doesn't define what it means. For my 180mm macro it's spec'd at 1.6 feet which I know from actual usage is distance from the focal plane, which has a testament mark on the camera body. Also, but not spec'd, the distance from the front of the lens to the subject is about 9", when focused as close as possible, which is a 1:1 magnification ratio.

cab.in.boston wrote:

Random question... Is "distance to the subject" measured from the front lens element, the sensor (focal plane), or something in between?

Edit: I assume that minimum focal distance must be from the front element to the subject, as I've seen MFDs that are shorter than the lens' physical length... but I don't know if that's the same as the subject distance measurement.

cab.in.boston

craig_d wrote:

Well, I'm not completely sure of this, and I'm not sure I'd trust anyone but a lens designer or someone with similar expertise in optics to really answer this (too many photographers think they understand how lenses work, but really don't, probably including me), but I think we're talking about two slightly different things here.

I'd certainly like to understand it, but every time I think I'm "getting it," something comes along and confuses me all over again.

"Minimum focus distance" is measured from the sensor or film plane.

I sit corrected... I had thought I'd seen macro lenses with MFDs shorter than the lens' physical lengths, but looking at specs, I see that I must have been mistaken. For instance, the Nikon 200mm f/4 macro lens (1/1 max reproduction ratio) has MFD of 1.7' and is 7.7" long.

However, what I was talking about was the field of view, which, it seems to me, should be related to the physical length of the lens because a physically longer lens will have light entering it at a different point in space than a shorter lens. My guess is that this is not a completely trivial thing to calculate, since different lenses of the same focal length may differ not only in physical length but in the diameter of their front elements.

I'd think that, in theory, the reason manufacturers use focal lengths in advertising is to relate everything to an equivalent simple lens, and therefore 70mm should be 70mm should be 70mm (give or take rounding a bit for marketing purposes), no matter the lens recipe or aperture, when of course, few of our SLR lenses are actually anywhere near as physically long as the focal length.

I took the following two pictures at 50mm, f/4, 1/13s, ISO200, using TTL bounced flash (cuz it was mounted on the body at the time). One was with my 50mm f/1.8 prime, the other with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The approximate distance from the mounting point to the front element of the lenses is vastly different, about 1.25" on the prime to 4.25" on the zoom.

As you can see, the zoom has quite a bit wider FOV, even though the front element is closer to the subject. The prime also shows a more even exposure, despite being a narrower FOV. That could be due to the flash, I don't know the FV of each shot. I don't know how to pull that data out of the file. But anyway, which is "really" 50mm? I'd trust the Nikkor prime over the Tamron zoom, personally, but they are noticably and rather significantly different. Hmm...

Prime:


Zoom:


These next two are the same Tamron 17-50 compared with my Nikkor 35mm prime. The distance from mount to front element is about 2" on the prime vs. just under 4" on the zoom. In these, the FOV is almost identical, but the distortion is quite different. When I flip back and forth between these two, it's very interesting how they differ from each other. Perhaps that's harder to see in a side-by-side comparison as when going back and forth in a viewer application. Anyway, I guess the moral of the story is that focal length is certainly not nearly the only important factor in lens design. Of course, we all knew that...

Prime:


Zoom: