Lets discuss long lenses

Blurmore

I shot a wedding at the US Naval academy chapel last weekend and BOY was I glad I had a sturdy tripod and the 70-200 f4L. The chapel is layed out like a traditional Catholic church, with a narrow approach which widens into a cross. Photogs are not allowed forward of the cross isle, so you are restricted to the side balconies about 150 feet (maybe more) from the action. The 70-200 on the 30D got me to a nice 3 shot with bride, groom and officiant. I lucked out, some of the guys who subcontract for the company I was doing the job for are one lens Larrys, and they would be screwed. This is not the first time I have craved something longer, I am willing to spend up to 1500 dollars, and would like to stay with Canon, but would consider something else if a glowing enough (to outweigh the testers) personal recommendation was given.

So far considered are the 300mm f4 IS USM L and 1.4x TC I'm leaning toward this.

The 100-400 IS f4.5-5.6 L, my fear here is that I will no longer mount my 70-200 f4 L which I love and don't ever want to sell.

The 400mm f5.6 L old and no IS I know but quality glass and great reach.

To give a little info about my shooting style...

I'm a risk taker, and I take IS to the extreme. I'll shoot off of a tripod if I'm going to be stationary, but the monopod thing has never really done it for me on the move. I regularly hand hold my 70-200 f4 L at 200mm and 1/100th of a sec with sharp results, I've even been known to wedge myself into a corner or lean on a doorway and shoot at 1/60th and 200mm. I went to the National Highpower Rifle Matches at Camp Perry Ohio twice as a teenager, and I know how to hold something steady. I'm not Superman though and if I land on the 400mm f5.6 I'll be investing in a monopod.


Any recommendations are appreciated, but especially those from social photographers.

oops I think this might be in the wrong forum...doh

Manfr3d

If you want to keep your 70-200/4 then the
300/4 IS + 1.4x sounds like what you want.
Its better to have 300mm IS and the option
to go 420mm/5.6 IS with the TC than to be limited
to a 400mm/5.6 non IS alone.

If you can part with your 70-200/4 I'd think the
70-200/2.8 non IS with a 1.4x makes a very nice
combination. But without IS and max 280mm/4.
The last option being a bit cheaper.

erich6

How much of a factor is the lens speed in your choice? Given the focal lengths you're wanting to work in it seems that after some point you can't take advantage of the fast speed because the DOF will be too shallow.... Anyone ever investigated this?

Erich

ziggy53

erich6 wrote:

How much of a factor is the lens speed in your choice? Given the focal lengths you're wanting to work in it seems that after some point you can't take advantage of the fast speed because the DOF will be too shallow.... Anyone ever investigated this?

Erich

If you could explain your question another way? I'm just not understanding the relationship between shutter speed and DOF you are questioning?

ziggy53

wxwax

Manfr3d wrote:

If you want to keep your 70-200/4 then the
300/4 IS + 1.4x sounds like what you want.
Its better to have 300mm IS and the option
to go 420mm/5.6 IS with the TC than to be limited
to a 400mm/5.6 non IS alone.

If you can part with your 70-200/4 I'd think the
70-200/2.8 non IS with a 1.4x makes a very nice
combination. But without IS and max 280mm/4.
The last option being a bit cheaper.

That TC will slow the 300 down to what might be an unusable level in an unlit church.

erich6

ziggy53 wrote:

If you could explain your question another way? I'm just not understanding the relationship between shutter speed and DOF you are questioning?

ziggy53

Sorry, not shutter speed but f/# speed. The small f/# will give you less DOF. Compound that with the long focal length and I would think it starts to hurt the DOF. So, to keep the DOF you need you end up having to stop-down anyway so you dont get the benefit of the small f/# lens.

Erich

Blurmore

wxwax wrote:

That TC will slow the 300 down to what might be an unusable level in an unlit church.

This helps, especially if it is given by real world experience. The general exposure rule for churches in the days of film was 1/4 of a sec @ f4 400 iso (on a tripod of course). It was a very safe exposure if you didn't have time to meter before the ceremony. Hasselblad, 150 mm, mirror lock up, cable release, and practice at shooting the still moments of the ceremony were all you needed. Most churches with the 30D I'm at 1/15th to 1/60th f4 @ 800 and 1/30th to 1/100th f4 @ 1600. 3 stops of IS on the 300mm f4 leaves me at around 1/160th f4 @1600 though I think I could hold slower, not optimal for handholding. Getting down under 1/100th on a monopod would be ideal, but how well does the IS like a monopod? Another option with raw is to shoot 2 stops underexposed and push the exposure, at 800 maybe but it would be a mess at 1600. Either way I'm really leaning toward the prime, my opinions of the dust sucker is that it is a major compromise lens which may lull me into settling for using it for all my long work, and achieving only decent results. What would be nice is a 200-400 f4 IS DO L, price it under 1700 and it would sell the pants off the 24-105 f4 L. Won't happen though, most people buying a lens over 300mm are gonna spring for a prime anyway.

gtc

300/2.8
sounds like a job for a 300/2.8 on a monopod or at higher ISO

if your mp is high enough you can crop into the image a fair way to give you something like a 400/2.8 image,albeit at a smaller size.

the 300/2.8 is also very useful for sports and wildlife etc

ziggy53

erich6 wrote:

Sorry, not shutter speed but f/# speed. The small f/# will give you less DOF. Compound that with the long focal length and I would think it starts to hurt the DOF. So, to keep the DOF you need you end up having to stop-down anyway so you dont get the benefit of the small f/# lens.

Erich

Gotcha!

Actually, DOF is one of those wierd things that varies as much with lens construction as it does with the lens focal length.

Almost all modern lenses have f stops calibrated by their ability to transmit light. The most important component is the exposure derived by the combination of ISO, shutter speed and f stop.

The DOF on a 400mm prime is going to be different than that of a zoom with 400mm, partly because of the construction of the lens. The zoom is usually more complicated, with more elements and groups, and more attendant light loss due to internal reflections and the number of refractions in the lens, so the zoom is less efficient at passing light. An f5.6 on a prime is more likely to be a smaller physical aperture than an f5.6 on a zoom, thus a prime typically has more DOF at the same aperture.

Then if you add a telextender, the DOF stays the same as a crop of the same area without the extender, because an extender is really just a means of optically spreading the image. Unfortunately, you also induce light loss in the process, so it affects effective aperture but not really DOF, but you may have to change position to get the appropriate shot, which has a relative effect on DOF (asuming the subjects remain stationary).

Then understand that some people are more sensitive to the "circle of confusion" issue than others, and you start to understand that those supposed DOF calculators are really just guides and starting points.

Anyway, to get back to your question, "at a given f stop and focal length", a prime, by itself, should yield more DOF than a zoom and considerably more than a zoom with converter.

Longer focal lengths "will" have reduced DOF compared to wider lenses, but the selection of a lens really needs to be based on "in camera" composition needs, more than DOF.

It is almost always to your advantage to use the largest aperture lens you can afford, partly because it gives you more options for exposure combinations, and partly because the best resolution of most quality lenses is at the approximate "middle" f stop, but they still tend to be better at the extremes as well (which is why you pay the big bucks for large aperture lenses and especially large aperture, constant aperture zooms.)

I hope you find an answer in here somewhere, 'cause I think I started to drift.:D

Thanks,

ziggy53

gus

Andy & windoze often sell & re-buy a 200mm L F/2 (i think thats what it is) in here...keep an eye out for it.

ziggy53

Blurmore,

Any chance you could rent/borrow some lenses?

You might be able to attend an event like a wedding, at the church, or just stage some stuff, and then you would know if it works, before a paying gig and before feeling compelled to purchase.

ziggy53

pathfinder

A lens that has not been discussed here that I think might meet a wedding shooter's needs for a long lens is the Sigma 120-300f2.8

It does not have IS, but it is about 1/2 the price of the Canon 300f2.8 IS L - That's significantly less moola.

It is sharp, and a constant aperture zoom. It is also black which I like.:):

I do not get to use my wife's lens very often, but this is a frame I shot with it. This is Powell Point in Utah.

Canon 1DsMkll ISO 100 f8 1/400th 300mm

Blurmore

erich6 wrote:

Sorry, not shutter speed but f/# speed. The small f/# will give you less DOF. Compound that with the long focal length and I would think it starts to hurt the DOF. So, to keep the DOF you need you end up having to stop-down anyway so you dont get the benefit of the small f/# lens.

Erich

I understand what you are saying...but I don't see it being a problem for use in a wedding. Ceremony telephoto shots are sniper shots, tight on the hands, tight on faces, details, even in an over the grooms shoulder @f4 focussed on the bride he is blurry but recognizeable. Another plus is the subjects are almost ALWAYS in the same plane even if at opposite ends of the frame. When focussed on the B&G facing each other with the minister 3 feet to the rear the minister is OOF but only slightly.

claudermilk

gus wrote:

Andy & windoze often sell & re-buy a 200mm L F/2 (i think thats what it is) in here...keep an eye out for it.

So they sell it back & forth between themselves? Wouldn't someone else buying it break that chain? What would be the consequences of that?

gus

claudermilk wrote:

So they sell it back & forth between themselves? Wouldn't someone else buying it break that chain? What would be the consequences of that?

Freud left the main body of his work uncomplete...if he had the opportunity to watch these 2 with lenses then im sure he would have realised that he was only scratching the surface.

wxwax

claudermilk wrote:

So they sell it back & forth between themselves? Wouldn't someone else buying it break that chain? What would be the consequences of that?

I have that one now. Well, the 2.8, that is.

gus

wxwax wrote:

I have that one now. Well, the 2.8, that is.

Hey...the world needs second place dont forget mate.

wxwax

gus wrote:

Hey...the world needs second place dont forget mate.

I wouldn't mind playing with a 2.0, it's an amazing lens. But I really can't even think of when I'd actually need that much firepower.

Nikolai

My take on it
I found a combination of 70-200L f/2.8 IS USM, 100-400 f/4.0..5.6 IS USM and TC 1.4x invaluable (for the money, that is).

In essense, I keep TC on 100-400 all the time (pins taped). That gives me a focal length range of 70-200 and 140-560. I can also always take TC off and use 100-400 in its original state if it provides enough reach.

Of course, churches and other dark halls are challenging light-wise, but that's why you have Canon and its increadibly usable high ISO range. Plus, RAW can also halp you with some f/stops.

Surely, having and ultra-fast ultra-long lens would solve the problem, but it gets expensive really fast...

Bottom line: 70-200 is not a rival for 100-400, they are more like partners...

gtc

tokina atx 300/2.8
i know most people shudder at the name tokina but their 300/2.8 atx-sd manual focus lens is supposed to be pretty good- i know that it comes in a contax mount that can be adapted-keh have one for $889-or you may be able to find it in other mounts-this would give you a fair amount of shutter speed with shallow DOF to separate the subjects from the background-

ian408

Somebody mentioned the rental thing and that's really a great idea. Especially
when you're looking at those nice fast and long lenses.

Ian

howard

Given the lighting conditions you describe I'd recommend the 300/4 with a 1.4x as an option rather than the 400/5.6. My 400/5.6 is sharper than my 300/4 with 1.4x but of course only when I can keep it steady. In terms of practicality you should be able to use the 300/4 in the same light as you currently use you 700-200 at 200 maybe even in 1ev less because of the IS. Having said that if you need flexability the 100-400 must be a tempting proposition, though I can't speak from experience it gets very high complements from most users.

erich6

ziggy53 wrote:

Almost all modern lenses have f stops calibrated by their ability to transmit light. The most important component is the exposure derived by the combination of ISO, shutter speed and f stop.

The DOF on a 400mm prime is going to be different than that of a zoom with 400mm, partly because of the construction of the lens. The zoom is usually more complicated, with more elements and groups, and more attendant light loss due to internal reflections and the number of refractions in the lens, so the zoom is less efficient at passing light. An f5.6 on a prime is more likely to be a smaller physical aperture than an f5.6 on a zoom, thus a prime typically has more DOF at the same aperture.

I hope you find an answer in here somewhere, 'cause I think I started to drift.:D

Thanks,

ziggy53

Ziggy,

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. It makes total sense! I hadn't thought about the lens calibration being normalized to f-stop for exposure's sake. Do you know how much of an effect does each extra element have on f-stop? I'd guess that these elements are all highly transmissive so the effect on DOF due to extra elements is fairly small right? Either way, it obviously is a factor...and all else being equal a prime will generally give you better DOF at a given focal length than a zoom.

I guess I'll start looking at those #-of-elements stats on lenses before I buy one again. Thanks!

Erich