New to the Accessories Forum...Accessory reviews
Tim Snow
Registered Users Posts: 21 Big grins
Hello everyone,
I am pretty new to D-Grin (though have been a SmugMug user since 2006!)
I have just written several entries titles Toy Stories which are mini-reviews of the little accessories that have big impact on how I work.
I would love some feedback, the page can be found here: www.newwindworkshops.com
My latest post on Carabiners is here: http://newwindworkshops.com/2011/03/25/toy-stories-carabiners/
I am really trying to make the workshop page a viable resource for photo enthusiasts, any feedback is appreciated!
Cheers,
Tim
I am pretty new to D-Grin (though have been a SmugMug user since 2006!)
I have just written several entries titles Toy Stories which are mini-reviews of the little accessories that have big impact on how I work.
I would love some feedback, the page can be found here: www.newwindworkshops.com
My latest post on Carabiners is here: http://newwindworkshops.com/2011/03/25/toy-stories-carabiners/
I am really trying to make the workshop page a viable resource for photo enthusiasts, any feedback is appreciated!
Cheers,
Tim
0
Comments
Your only reason for preferring the 24-70 is f2.8. My doubt is whether f2.8 on this lens always gives you the sharpness you need. If you have to stop down from f2.8 to get usable sharpness, then the advantage you talk about diminishes accordingly. My copy of the 24-105 is sharp wide open. I'd say the best lens for the situation you describe would be the 70-200 f2.8L IS. That of those 3 lenses offers the most help to get a sharp result in low light.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Thanks for checking out the site and writing.
I loved my buddy's 24-105 when I borrowed it, but the deciding factor for me was 100% the extra stop of light the 24-70 gives me.
When shooting sports, I see a huge difference between 1/250th and 1/500th!
I will admit that the 24-105 would be much better for backpacking and hiking due to the lower weight, but since I could only afford the one...
Thanks again!
Tim
Montreal Wedding Photographer
Montreal Photography Workshops
twitter
Yeah Tim that's unarguable - that is if you can get sharpness at f2.8 with the 24-70.
f4 is not one stop difference if you have to use f3.5 for eg on the 24-70 to get sharpness.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
When shooting boxing or UFC, the faster the shutter speed the better!
Montreal Wedding Photographer
Montreal Photography Workshops
twitter
It's that "if" that I think must be built into your comparison, I believe. From all that I've read, and my own experience (I had the 24-70, and now have the 24-105), the 24-70 is more likely to need to be stopped down for sharpness than the 24-105. For the purposes you describe, ideally I wouldn't use the 24-70, I'd use the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The 70-200 is great for UFC and most other sports, but the 24-70 is crucial for boxing due to the smaller ring.
I guess it's a 6 of one half a dozen of the other thing!
Montreal Wedding Photographer
Montreal Photography Workshops
twitter
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
Absolutely true. An f2.8 capable lens is where the fun starts.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums