Could someone take this lens (70-200 f/2.8) into a church in the evening and show some pics? I am renting one to do a Baptism but I would like to see results of the ability. I just bought the 70-200 f/4 and went "playing at the church" and all my pictures were terribly grainy. I know it is something I am doing...but have also read that my lens is not a good indoor/low light lens.
I am also trying to learn the custom setting on my camera (Rebel XT), but I am about to just go the "automatic mode" for this event.
Could someone take this lens (70-200 f/2.8) into a church in the evening and show some pics? I am renting one to do a Baptism but I would like to see results of the ability. I just bought the 70-200 f/4 and went "playing at the church" and all my pictures were terribly grainy. I know it is something I am doing...but have also read that my lens is not a good indoor/low light lens.
I am also trying to learn the custom setting on my camera (Rebel XT), but I am about to just go the "automatic mode" for this event.
Thank you very much...
Heather
Here are some shots I did, not with that goal you have of shooting people but only to try the lens:
If you are going to shoot your daughter in a parade and you are going to shoot for the 1.st time with the lens, spend a little more money and rent it one or two days before the real thing.
Thanks for the solid advice. I'll try to do just that.
Could someone take this lens (70-200 f/2.8) into a church in the evening and show some pics?
Practically speaking that lens, especially the IS model, is as good as it gets.
I don't think I have any shots in a church under those conditions, not using available light anyway, but certainly the f/2.8 is going to be a lot better at that than the f/4 -- you get an additional two and a half stops or so. If you can, use the IS variant; it's a huge, huge help. And working at the shorter end of the lens will help a lot with sharpness.
I have shot stuff in an auditorium, using available light, at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Hand-held, 1/80th. I won't lie and say they were great, sharpness was very much an issue, but sometimes the miracle is that you get anything at all.
I just bought the 70-200 f/4 and went "playing at the church" and all my pictures were terribly grainy. I know it is something I am doing...but have also read that my lens is not a good indoor/low light lens.
That's still a nice lens and should work well in moderate light. It's not what I'd choose for evening work. You'll probably find that it works a lot better if you use a tripod or at least a monopod, most of your problem will probably be with camera shake.
If it's really grain that's the problem rather than sharpness you should be aware that the post-processing software you use will make a huge difference in terms of grain and/or noise. I find that for high-ISO (noisy) pictures I get the best results out of Phase One's Capture One. I sometimes augment Capture One with the Neat Image noise filter, but usually only if it's really noisy. Adobe's Capture Raw is not very good at that in my experience.
This page has examples of output from several different RAW processors and filters:
Both taken with a 30D. Here the problem was usually dynamic range (see blown out hair in first shot, but I like it anyway for the reflected light on her face). I did minimal processing on those shots beyond basic conversion.
So: Shoot RAW. Stabilize the camera. Use the IS variant of the lens if you can. Consider different post-processing software.
The last one is very sharp and well focused... and not too close IMHO
You will have to agree that the other two pictures are not so well focused ...
It does happen to me, often.
I have to move to 3 or 3.5 and see what I get.
The day after tomorrow my son invited me to go and photograph kite-surf at the beach.
He has http://galeria.apkite.pt/ here at SmugMug.
This is what I am going to do following the excellent advises you all gave me, which I thank.
Cameras setting: A. 400 ISO B. AI SERVO to follow the subject with the center point retaining the finger at mid course ready to shoot and waisting the battery's camera. C. Evaluative metering D. Speed priority at 2.500 after evaluating if the aperture is good under different scenarios. E. Exposure compensation: None F. May be I'll use the flash with High-speed Sync G. RAW ( JPG ???? ) H. Custom Functions: Long Exposure noise redution OFF
Well, tell me about this if you please.
You are far more experienced than I am and you are gentle people (as myself) who likes to help the others.
Thank you. :
I would bump up the ISO to maybe about 800 to allow you to still use the fatser shutter speeds but get more in focus.
I would bump up the ISO to maybe about 800 to allow you to still use the faster shutter speeds but get more in focus.
It is gone a some time since I told I was going to shoot my son.
As a matter of fact I did not go on that location, but later on and I got these pictures here
When I shot them I understood that I should have done with aperture priority f/4 or f/5. That's what I'll do next time.
Meanwhile, allow me not to agree with you because your solution would bring much noise to the pictures.
I will shoot 200 ISO as I usually do in all the occasions.
Thank you anyway by your advise and opinion.
It was appreciated anyway.
All the best.
--
Here are more shots with this lens. Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3661x2480 Bytes: 4081052 Aperture: f/10.0 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 125mm (guess: 127mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0031s (1/320) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 0 White Balance: auto
for this picture
with this EXIF Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3661x2480 Bytes: 3147495 Aperture: f/5.0 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 90mm (guess: 92mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0006s (1/1600) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 0 White Balance: auto ColorSpace: sRGB
The last one is very sharp and well focused... and not too close IMHO
You will have to agree that the other two pictures are not so well focused ...
It does happen to me, often.
I have to move to 3 or 3.5 and see what I get.
You're right about the focus on the first two, had to shoot thru a chain link fence. Wish I hadn't chopped of the ear in the 3rd picture.
Today I received a most flattering e-mail.
A person, whose ID I promised to keep, wrote:
Antonio,
I hope you don't mind me sending you an email but I wanted to ask you a question or two about the 70-200 IS. I am a member of Dgrin but only lurk! I am a little shy about asking questions in large groups as you guys are much more advanced at this photography stuff than I am.
I just purchased the 70-200 IS a few weeks ago. I had my eye on it but after reading your thread regarding this lens and all the great reviews I decided to take the plunge and go ahead and get it.
I like the lens but the lens is not exactly liking me. I am trying to get use to the weight after shooting mostly with the 50mm and 85mm. Having problems doing handheld shots and steadying the lens. I think that I may get a battery grip with strap. Do you suggest this? I am a small person with small hands and trying to figure out how I can steady this 'big honker'.
The reason for buying the lens is that I would like to get into sports photography in the future. ... When taking these (shots) I do use AE Servo but not sure about my focus points. In taking pics of children I change my focus points but with fast moving subjects I find it is hard to do. Should I use the center point focus for these shots and focus it on the body of the subject. With portraits I go for the eye and get great results.
Sorry for all the questions but you seemed like a nice helpful guy after reading your post so I thought I would pick your brain.
I do have a smugmug site if you are interested in viewing some of my photos. Thanks again Antonio. Hope to hear from you soon.
As you well all (most of us) know here, I am no expert whatsoever in this matter of photography. I am just a committed amateur who is not afraid to confess his ignorance and wish to learn.
It’s curious and normal, how – along the time and through this lines we all write here - we get an idea of how the person on the other side of the line is.
Well, enough of considerations, without any interest for this forum and lets go on with this.
Please, feel free to contradict me, to echo me, to comment me, to applaud me. For the sake of learning !
Having problems doing hand held shots and steadying the lens. I think that I may get a battery grip with strap. Do you suggest this? I am a small person with small hands and trying to figure out how I can steady this 'big honker'.
I shoot hand held most of the time. I am not a fat man and I am 1,80 meters hight and my hands are of normal size. But I have a tripod and a mono pod.
In spite of my interest, I haven’t done much sport photography but so far, I have used the mono pod sometimes in these occasions.
When I was shooting the football (soccer in the US I think) I began with the mono pod but I quickly felt that hand held would give me more flexibility and freedom of movements.
It proved so as I shot more and more.
Jeffro (I think it’s him) thinks so too and he has lots, tons, of practice.
I intend to shoot landscapes with this lens at 200mm and the 1.4 converter some day soon.
I wouldn’t advise the grip because here I don't see the interest ...
Remember the lens and the camera should be carried by the first not the other way around.
It means that if you want to attach the equipment to the mono pod or tripod you should (must) do it with the collar provided in the lens because it is heavy and can harm the camera itself.
I suggest a mono pod. Brand etc. I can’t say. Mine is a Manfroto.
On the other hand a tripod can be useful. Depends on the sport you are shooting and your position...
Practice, practice, shots and shots, tons of shots !!
It's heavy yes. You have to live with it
When taking these (shots) I do use AE Servo but not sure about my focus points. In taking pics of children I change my focus points but with fast moving subjects I find it is hard to do. Should I use the center point focus for these shots and focus it on the body of the subject. With portraits I go for the eye and get great results.
When shooting sports I shoot with AIServo and I use only the central point (thank you Jeffro).
This point is more accurate than the others and even today I was shooting seagulls by the river and I used it. I use it all the times.
It requires, like everything else, some practice because if the seagull is in focus and another one comes in the back the focus runs to the other.
This position requires practice as I said and I am still learning to use it properly.
For portrait I have not used it, yet.
But today I shot the teeth with One Shot and always with the central point.
I think that if I ever shoot a young boy or a dog, both never being quite still, I will use AIServo. (help here Jeffro: is this correct ?)
Well I think That's it.
Please comment (if have read all this and understood my English...)
Regards.
As a relief here is one photo with this lens and the 1.4 multiplier.
Thursday, the 8 th November 2006 - Setubal, Portugal
20 D + Canon 70-200 IS L USM + 1.4 multiplier
All photos with the lens at 200 mm which means: 200 * 1,6 * 1,4 = 448 mm
Kdog,
I'll be very happy to answser that question one day.
I have been thinking about it but I had not the change to shoot one.
I think I can do it with sucess!
These were shot with: 20D + 1,4 Multiplier + 70-200 f/2.8 IS L USM + Rodenstock CPF
Went to a wedding and when the paid for photographer left I was able to put down the video camera and break out the camera gear. The room was dark and had a devil of a time getting the 70-200 to focus. Still got some keepers. Both pictures have made a trip thru PS.
Very nice pictures.
I can not understand why you had so much difficulties on focus ...
Was the flash from the camera ?
I have not - yet - shot with external flash with this lens...
Had to kill a couple hours at LAX on Saturday so went to the top floor of a parking garage and took pictures.
Was trying to get tire smoke but there was too many buildings, planes and light poles between me and the planes. Didn't notice the Hollywood sign in the background till I was editing pictures.
I'm betting that this was not done in-camera. The effect appears a bit "exaggerated".
My guess is that he duplicated the photo onto a new layer in Photoshop, blurred one with Gaussian blur, then sharpened the other layer and masked it so only the eyes, lips, and part of the hair from the sharp layer showed through. (... if the blurring was a lot more subtle, it might pass for a shallow depth-of-field shot)
Canon EOS 7D ........ 24-105 f/4L | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x II TC ........ 580EX
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
I'm betting that this was not done in-camera. The effect is exaggerated enough that it doesn't look "real".
My guess is that he duplicated the photo onto a new layer in Photoshop, blurred one with Gaussian blur, then sharpened the other layer and masked it so only the eyes, lips, and part of the hair from the sharp layer showed through. (... if the blurring was a lot more subtle, it might pass for a shallow depth-of-field shot)
Yes. You are right. That's what I did to the picture.:D
I cloned the neck and the blue of the blouse also.
Comments
I am also trying to learn the custom setting on my camera (Rebel XT), but I am about to just go the "automatic mode" for this event.
Thank you very much...
Heather
Some more here
With little light
In this very thread and I am sure you have seen them: here, here and here .
I hope this helps a bit.
Thanks for the solid advice. I'll try to do just that.
Practically speaking that lens, especially the IS model, is as good as it gets.
I don't think I have any shots in a church under those conditions, not using available light anyway, but certainly the f/2.8 is going to be a lot better at that than the f/4 -- you get an additional two and a half stops or so. If you can, use the IS variant; it's a huge, huge help. And working at the shorter end of the lens will help a lot with sharpness.
I have shot stuff in an auditorium, using available light, at 200mm with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Hand-held, 1/80th. I won't lie and say they were great, sharpness was very much an issue, but sometimes the miracle is that you get anything at all.
That's still a nice lens and should work well in moderate light. It's not what I'd choose for evening work. You'll probably find that it works a lot better if you use a tripod or at least a monopod, most of your problem will probably be with camera shake.
If it's really grain that's the problem rather than sharpness you should be aware that the post-processing software you use will make a huge difference in terms of grain and/or noise. I find that for high-ISO (noisy) pictures I get the best results out of Phase One's Capture One. I sometimes augment Capture One with the Neat Image noise filter, but usually only if it's really noisy. Adobe's Capture Raw is not very good at that in my experience.
This page has examples of output from several different RAW processors and filters:
http://www.frostbytes.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Aperture11Review
I absolutely would not shoot JPEG; the in-camera software is not up to the task and will limit your options in post.
Hmm, now that I think about it I do have some church shots done with the IS variant of that lens, although in the afternoon on a bright sunny day:
(1/400th @ f/4 ISO800, full size at http://www.frostbytes.com/gallery-albums/peryle-90th/MG_8181.jpg)
(1/200th @ f/3.5 ISO800, full size at http://www.frostbytes.com/gallery-albums/peryle-90th/MG_8248.jpg)
Both taken with a 30D. Here the problem was usually dynamic range (see blown out hair in first shot, but I like it anyway for the reflected light on her face). I did minimal processing on those shots beyond basic conversion.
So: Shoot RAW. Stabilize the camera. Use the IS variant of the lens if you can. Consider different post-processing software.
jimf@frostbytes.com
1/1000
f2.8
iso 100
155mm
1/800
f2.8
iso 100
200mm
1/500
f2.8
iso 100
200mm or just a little too tight
You will have to agree that the other two pictures are not so well focused ...
It does happen to me, often.
I have to move to 3 or 3.5 and see what I get.
I would bump up the ISO to maybe about 800 to allow you to still use the fatser shutter speeds but get more in focus.
Canon 40D
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS
http://www.flickr.com/trevaftw
As a matter of fact I did not go on that location, but later on and I got these pictures here
When I shot them I understood that I should have done with aperture priority f/4 or f/5. That's what I'll do next time.
Meanwhile, allow me not to agree with you because your solution would bring much noise to the pictures.
I will shoot 200 ISO as I usually do in all the occasions.
Thank you anyway by your advise and opinion.
It was appreciated anyway.
All the best.
--
Here are more shots with this lens.
Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3661x2480 Bytes: 4081052 Aperture: f/10.0 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 125mm (guess: 127mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0031s (1/320) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 0 White Balance: auto
for this picture
with this EXIF Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3661x2480 Bytes: 3147495 Aperture: f/5.0 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 90mm (guess: 92mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0006s (1/1600) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 0 White Balance: auto ColorSpace: sRGB
You're right about the focus on the first two, had to shoot thru a chain link fence. Wish I hadn't chopped of the ear in the 3rd picture.
I wouldn't about the ear .
I did two things:
light the eyes and re-crop.
How's that ?
time I was using the 1.4 multiplier.
It was bed weather.
A person, whose ID I promised to keep, wrote:
Antonio,
I hope you don't mind me sending you an email but I wanted to ask you a question or two about the 70-200 IS. I am a member of Dgrin but only lurk! I am a little shy about asking questions in large groups as you guys are much more advanced at this photography stuff than I am.
I just purchased the 70-200 IS a few weeks ago. I had my eye on it but after reading your thread regarding this lens and all the great reviews I decided to take the plunge and go ahead and get it.
I like the lens but the lens is not exactly liking me. I am trying to get use to the weight after shooting mostly with the 50mm and 85mm. Having problems doing handheld shots and steadying the lens. I think that I may get a battery grip with strap. Do you suggest this? I am a small person with small hands and trying to figure out how I can steady this 'big honker'.
The reason for buying the lens is that I would like to get into sports photography in the future. ... When taking these (shots) I do use AE Servo but not sure about my focus points. In taking pics of children I change my focus points but with fast moving subjects I find it is hard to do. Should I use the center point focus for these shots and focus it on the body of the subject. With portraits I go for the eye and get great results.
Sorry for all the questions but you seemed like a nice helpful guy after reading your post so I thought I would pick your brain.
I do have a smugmug site if you are interested in viewing some of my photos. Thanks again Antonio. Hope to hear from you soon.
As you well all (most of us) know here, I am no expert whatsoever in this matter of photography. I am just a committed amateur who is not afraid to confess his ignorance and wish to learn.
It’s curious and normal, how – along the time and through this lines we all write here - we get an idea of how the person on the other side of the line is.
Well, enough of considerations, without any interest for this forum and lets go on with this.
Please, feel free to contradict me, to echo me, to comment me, to applaud me. For the sake of learning !
Having problems doing hand held shots and steadying the lens. I think that I may get a battery grip with strap. Do you suggest this? I am a small person with small hands and trying to figure out how I can steady this 'big honker'.
I shoot hand held most of the time. I am not a fat man and I am 1,80 meters hight and my hands are of normal size. But I have a tripod and a mono pod.
In spite of my interest, I haven’t done much sport photography but so far, I have used the mono pod sometimes in these occasions.
When I was shooting the football (soccer in the US I think) I began with the mono pod but I quickly felt that hand held would give me more flexibility and freedom of movements.
It proved so as I shot more and more.
Jeffro (I think it’s him) thinks so too and he has lots, tons, of practice.
I intend to shoot landscapes with this lens at 200mm and the 1.4 converter some day soon.
I wouldn’t advise the grip because here I don't see the interest ...
Remember the lens and the camera should be carried by the first not the other way around.
It means that if you want to attach the equipment to the mono pod or tripod you should (must) do it with the collar provided in the lens because it is heavy and can harm the camera itself.
I suggest a mono pod. Brand etc. I can’t say. Mine is a Manfroto.
On the other hand a tripod can be useful. Depends on the sport you are shooting and your position...
Practice, practice, shots and shots, tons of shots !!
It's heavy yes. You have to live with it
When taking these (shots) I do use AE Servo but not sure about my focus points. In taking pics of children I change my focus points but with fast moving subjects I find it is hard to do. Should I use the center point focus for these shots and focus it on the body of the subject. With portraits I go for the eye and get great results.
When shooting sports I shoot with AIServo and I use only the central point (thank you Jeffro).
This point is more accurate than the others and even today I was shooting seagulls by the river and I used it. I use it all the times.
It requires, like everything else, some practice because if the seagull is in focus and another one comes in the back the focus runs to the other.
This position requires practice as I said and I am still learning to use it properly.
For portrait I have not used it, yet.
But today I shot the teeth with One Shot and always with the central point.
I think that if I ever shoot a young boy or a dog, both never being quite still, I will use AIServo. (help here Jeffro: is this correct ?)
Well I think That's it.
Please comment (if have read all this and understood my English...)
Regards.
As a relief here is one photo with this lens and the 1.4 multiplier.
20 D + Canon 70-200 IS L USM + 1.4 multiplier
All photos with the lens at 200 mm which means: 200 * 1,6 * 1,4 = 448 mm
Are you talking about moon landscapes? :giggle
Cheers,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
I'll be very happy to answser that question one day.
I have been thinking about it but I had not the change to shoot one.
I think I can do it with sucess!
These were shot with: 20D + 1,4 Multiplier + 70-200 f/2.8 IS L USM + Rodenstock CPF
30D
1/60
f2.8
iso 400
135mm
flash on
30D
1/80
f2.8
iso 400
70mm
flash on
I can not understand why you had so much difficulties on focus ...
Was the flash from the camera ?
I have not - yet - shot with external flash with this lens...
Me & my flash setup except the 70-200 replaced the 24-70. Yes it is 7 lbs 6 oz [3.34524373 kg] heavy. Was bouncing a 580 with a big flip it attached.
Two more "good" shots.
1/60
f2.8
iso 400
200mm
flash on
1/80
f2.8
iso 400
200mm
flash on
30D
1/80
f2.8
iso 400
200mm
flash on
30D
1/15
f2.8
iso 400
115mm
flash on
It appears camera shake made it's way into this shot, IS can't save every shot....:cry
Was trying to get tire smoke but there was too many buildings, planes and light poles between me and the planes. Didn't notice the Hollywood sign in the background till I was editing pictures.
If you want me to take it away, please say so.
1/100 | f4.0 | iso 100 | 280mm (70-200 + 1.4x)
My guess is that he duplicated the photo onto a new layer in Photoshop, blurred one with Gaussian blur, then sharpened the other layer and masked it so only the eyes, lips, and part of the hair from the sharp layer showed through. (... if the blurring was a lot more subtle, it might pass for a shallow depth-of-field shot)
Supported by: Benro C-298 Flexpod tripod, MC96 monopod, Induro PHQ1 head
Also play with: studio strobes, umbrellas, softboxes, ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
I cloned the neck and the blue of the blouse also.
C-47
30D | 1/160 | f4.0 | iso 100 | 280mm (70-200 + 1.4x)
Hawker Sea Fury
30D | 1/160 | f4.0 | iso 400 | 280mm (70-200 + 1.4x)