I feel a little unsure buying from FM.. don't ask me why.. probably cos I live here. I think I'm going to buy new from B&H.. then I can set Andy on them if something goes wrong :lol ... now I just have to run it by husband of Lynnma... now where's the wine.... :feelgood
Lynnma,I have bought,traded and sold on FM.
It a great place and you can find some great deals.
Just make sure you check the feedback on the seller.
I have seen the 70-200 f4 go for under $500.00
Now I know why I bought the one I did......those words like under a "grand".
Lynn, I accidentally turned the IS off on both of my lenses, shot without it for who knows how long, finally found out and remedied the situation. Actually didn't notice that much difference. (Don't tell anyone here that I do that kind of stuff). I turned the AF off of my lens today, birds again, once I did that things did go better.
If you have the money, I would go for it. I am going to sit on what I have. Gotta have that 20D. Lynn, do you still have a Rebel? It doesn't shoot birds well, not on autofocus. I missed shots just because it wouldn't fire. I had prefocused and all.
Lynn, it sounds like the 70-200f/4 will fit your needs pretty well. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter you'll only loose one stop so you will be at f/5.6 which isn't bad at that focal length. As has already been said-it's a great lens. Too slow for me at this point, but just a super all around reasonable weight zoom.
I'll throw in a for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 here also. Very fine lens for the money. Heavy? Yes, but great reach decent speed very well built. Brand new from a place called DeltaInternational for $790.00 + S&H. I haven't heard anything negative about them, and my experience was great. I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX TC with good results as well. That's a 672mm (1.6 crop factor) f/5.6 lens. Having the ability to zoom is great for what I use it for (sports action), but probably would be just as handy for birding or wildlife.
If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
Lynn, it sounds like the 70-200f/4 will fit your needs pretty well. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter you'll only loose one stop so you will be at f/5.6 which isn't bad at that focal length. As has already been said-it's a great lens. Too slow for me at this point, but just a super all around reasonable weight zoom.
I'll throw in a for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 here also. Very fine lens for the money. Heavy? Yes, but great reach decent speed very well built. Brand new from a place called DeltaInternational for $790.00 + S&H. I haven't heard anything negative about them, and my experience was great. I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX TC with good results as well. That's a 672mm (1.6 crop factor) f/5.6 lens. Having the ability to zoom is great for what I use it for (sports action), but probably would be just as handy for birding or wildlife.
Thanks for your input Mongrel .. I don't shoot much thats moving too much so I'm not that concerned with speed.. husband says I should sell 75-300 first.. much too sensible..
Lynn, it sounds like the 70-200f/4 will fit your needs pretty well. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter you'll only loose one stop so you will be at f/5.6 which isn't bad at that focal length. As has already been said-it's a great lens. Too slow for me at this point, but just a super all around reasonable weight zoom.
I'll throw in a for the Sigma 100-300 f/4 here also. Very fine lens for the money. Heavy? Yes, but great reach decent speed very well built. Brand new from a place called DeltaInternational for $790.00 + S&H. I haven't heard anything negative about them, and my experience was great. I use this lens with the Sigma 1.4x EX TC with good results as well. That's a 672mm (1.6 crop factor) f/5.6 lens. Having the ability to zoom is great for what I use it for (sports action), but probably would be just as handy for birding or wildlife.
Mongrel..do you have some shots at 672mm to show us ? I would love to see some. What camera ?
And if ANYONE has some good reading site re Lenses....please please post the link.
re: lenses | re: 70-200 f/4 + 1.4 TC
First off, do you have this link already? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/
It is a very good resource for info on lenses
Now, as for that 70-200 lustlustlustlust
I use it extensively on my 20D, with or without the Kenkoo 1.4 TC, I can 'get it done' for instance:
hasn't been cropped and looks very sharp @ full size it is made with the 70-200 and 1.4 TC, granted, I had a lot of light, but this is just ISO 100, had I been a little quicker, I'd have put it to ISO 400 and WHAM purrrrrfect picture.
I hope this helps a bit towards your determination to 'sway the hubby' so to speak Good luck deciding Lynn!
Oh and still life is also 'doable' with the 70-200:
or just some landscapish pitcha:
As some shoeguy said: "Just do it"
Hey Lynn, I'm really gonna throw a fork in the process now. I've researched this range of lenses considerably. For just a little more than the Canon f4, you can have a Sigma f2.8... a lens which has gotten amazing reviews. They go on ebay for $650.
Hey Lynn, I'm really gonna throw a fork in the process now. I've researched this range of lenses considerably. For just a little more than the Canon f4, you can have a Sigma f2.8... a lens which has gotten amazing reviews. They go on ebay for $650.
thanks eric but too late... I've ordered it already and am hooked on the Canon...I mean.. I could go round and round on this...:D
Question! I'm assuming there are folks here who "hand hold" their 70-200 f4 lenses? not everyone uses a tripod right? and I'm hoping I'm going to hear that "yes you can get sharp crisp shots hand held? right? tell me this is so? please?
Question! I'm assuming there are folks here who "hand hold" their 70-200 f4 lenses? not everyone uses a tripod right? and I'm hoping I'm going to hear that "yes you can get sharp crisp shots hand held? right? tell me this is so? please?
Sure at 1/750 or faster:D You CAN get acceptably sharp imaages at 1/60 with IS usually. Depends on how fast the subject is moving too Lynn. Show us some more of your work with your new lens please, Lynn.
Sure at 1/750 or faster:D You CAN get acceptably sharp imaages at 1/60 with IS usually. Depends on how fast the subject is moving too Lynn. Show us some more of your work with your new lens please, Lynn.
I have great plans for that lens but the f4 is'nt IS....:(: now I'm worried.. the first thing my dratted smart kid said when I sent the good news on my lens was "is it IS mom?" when I said no he would'nt reply to me...
Sure at 1/750 or faster:D You CAN get acceptably sharp imaages at 1/60 with IS usually. Depends on how fast the subject is moving too Lynn. Show us some more of your work with your new lens please, Lynn.
I thought the rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should match the focal length? So about 1/200 or 1/250 should be fast enough to hand hold a 200mm lens, no?
I thought the rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should match the focal length? So about 1/200 or 1/250 should be fast enough to hand hold a 200mm lens, no?
does that really work?? I shall try it right now...
Lynn, I have been waiting to use this for a long time. We women can hand hold lenses at a slower shutter speed than the men can, so take what they say with a grain of salt.
We have learned to hold still with every mammogram we have ever had.:roll
We knew if we didn't hold still we would have to have another one.
Yes, you can handhold at 1/250th. I can handhold much slower than that. You learn to brace yourself against posts, fences, people who promise not to breathe, etc. And you take more than one exposure. At least three. If you have to get it, and are comfortable that way, use a tripod. Or I might bunch up my coat and use it as a temp tripod. I get more freedom to maneuver that way. Besides, I don't like tripods.
I have learned that there is a point past which I am not going to be able to hold it, even though I thought I could. I don't remember what that point is as far as shutter speed goes, but it is almost dark. Up to then, I am going to get one out of 5 shots, and before that........ Since I never seem to plan on staying out as late as I do, I will be trying to handhold impossible shots for the rest of my life. If I were being paid, I would not play that game, but I would also be more likely to have planned things out.
Hold your arms close to your body. Try to hold your breath. If there is something to lean on, do that. And see what your limits are.
(Remember, men don't have mammograms, they don't get the practice we do.)
I have great plans for that lens but the f4 is'nt IS....:(: now I'm worried.. the first thing my dratted smart kid said when I sent the good news on my lens was "is it IS mom?" when I said no he would'nt reply to me...
Lynn,
I love that f4 lens. The IS version is much heavier and much more expensive, and if you decide down the line to upgrade, your lens will hold its value very well. But I don't think you should be bemoaning your purchase. It's a great lens.
As for the focal lenght/shutter speed thing, I have a question for y'all. Do you need to factor the 1.6x conversion into that? Meaning if I'm shooting at 100mm on my 20D, is 1/100 a good minimum exposure for handheld, or should it be 1/160?
In my humble opinion it depends on you. To be safe, there would be situations at which you might wish not to handhold at all, even at relatively fast shutter speeds.
You can't get absolutes on something like this. The rule of thumb, on a film camera, was a length of 50 mm meant 1/60th second, etc. You may be able to handhold it at 1/60th of a second, but if something is going horizontal to you at 150 mph, and you can't pan with it, it would be better to have it on a tripod and learn to pan.
If you can do it, whether film or digital with little problem to you, whatever is a problem to you, you can do it. If you need it 100% in focus, and you can do that, then you can do it, at whatever focal length of the lens. If freedom of movement is more important to you, than maybe 1 out of 3 times would be acceptable, then you do what you want. If that is not acceptable, then get out your tripod. And use common sense. If you are going out with Andy to shoot that bridge at dusk and night in SF, you are going to be happier with a tripod, probably.
If you can't hold your elbows in, hold your breath, brace your feet, or find something to lean against, you are going to have more problems hand holding than someone who does that stuff.
Just my opinion in a subject of some disagreement.
Lynn, I plan to buy that lens, too. If you can't handhold it down to 1/30th of a second, ever, please let me know. I planned to use it in place of my 70-300 IS that I dislike so much, but handhold all the time.
And, I know I have said this before, but in my ignorance I had the IS turned off on that lens and on my other IS lens, the 28-135. Probably they were like that for months (I am learning......slower than some), but when I turned them back on, I did not notice anything at all as far as increased clarity. There probably was some, but it was not dramatic. I wouldn't worry about it.
ginger but let me know if it is too heavy to handhold, or something.
I thought the rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should match the focal length? So about 1/200 or 1/250 should be fast enough to hand hold a 200mm lens, no?
You're right Sid about the general recomendation of 1/focal length in mm . Lynn asked for a real CRISP image so I up'd my recx3 to razz her a bit - was meant to be funny I guess I missed the mark. Sorry.
Ginger - I doubt you can get really sharp crisp images at 1/30th at 200mm handheld, even if you are female. But I could be wrong of course. You can handhold at 1/30 and get acceptable images but not the sharpest of images that's all.
Question! I'm assuming there are folks here who "hand hold" their 70-200 f4 lenses? not everyone uses a tripod right? and I'm hoping I'm going to hear that "yes you can get sharp crisp shots hand held? right? tell me this is so? please?
Hi Lynn,
The “theory” of hand-holding lenses is based on some rather simple physics. If the shutter speed is sufficiently short then camera movement will have diminished influence on the resultant exposure. In regular English, for example, if an exposure is established at 1/2000 of a second, then small levels of camera shake will have a diminished effect on the captured image.
Notice the carefully chosen words, diminished effect, there is always some effect; it’s a matter of degree. The shorter the exposure duration, meaning 1/2000sec rather than 1/200sec, or 1/20sec, the level of image “blur” will be reduced to perhaps an acceptable level, not actually eliminated. If there is a high level of camera “shake” then 1/2000sec may not sufficiently reduce image blur. Photographers have said that for an individual to reasonably hold a camera “steady” then a minimum shutter duration of 1/200sec may be short enough for a 200mm focul length, and 1/300sec for a 300mm lens,…etc.
Presently, with the advent of Image Stabilization, IS, these rules are amplified by two or three times. My personal experience is that with Canon “L” lenses, excellent exposures can be obtained at 1/100sec using 400m lenses, assuming the camera is carefully hand-held, holding the equipment as steady as possible. I definitely direct my attention to IS lenses for my kit. And can report that even at 15/sec acceptable results may be obtained in extreme low light candid situations. The extra expense is very well worth the advantages mentioned.
In examination of my inventory of digital images, most if not all imaging is hand-held, except those taken with the 300mm IS f2.8 and the 400mm IS f2.8 lenses, where a mono-pod was used because of combined camera + lens weight. Take a look at these image taken hand-held, and visit www.faudigital.com.
Ginger - I doubt you can get really sharp crisp images at 1/30th at 200mm handheld, even if you are female. But I could be wrong of course. You can handhold at 1/30 and get acceptable images but not the sharpest of images that's all.
Is it heavier than the 70-300 IS? Do you know? Anyone? I could accept the limit of 1/60 th, especially with the 20D camera and higher acceptable ISOs, but I would not like to be restricted more than that. If it is a shot I really want, I just let the camera shoot the shot til it stops, then cull the sharp one. Heck I was going to the book store the other night and ended up at the dock. Just happened to have my camera. Am going to check my settings, I was alternating lenses.
The “theory” of hand-holding lenses is based on some rather simple physics. If the shutter speed is sufficiently short then camera movement will have diminished influence on the resultant exposure. In regular English, for example, if an exposure is established at 1/2000 of a second, then small levels of camera shake will have a diminished effect on the captured image.
Notice the carefully chosen words, diminished effect, there is always some effect; it’s a matter of degree. The shorter the exposure duration, meaning 1/2000sec rather than 1/200sec, or 1/20sec, the level of image “blur” will be reduced to perhaps an acceptable level, not actually eliminated. If there is a high level of camera “shake” then 1/2000sec may not sufficiently reduce image blur. Photographers have said that for an individual to reasonably hold a camera “steady” then a minimum shutter duration of 1/200sec may be short enough for a 200mm focul length, and 1/300sec for a 300mm lens,…etc.
Presently, with the advent of Image Stabilization, IS, these rules are amplified by two or three times. My personal experience is that with Canon “L” lenses, excellent exposures can be obtained at 1/100sec using 400m lenses, assuming the camera is carefully hand-held, holding the equipment as steady as possible. I definitely direct my attention to IS lenses for my kit. And can report that even at 15/sec acceptable results may be obtained in extreme low light candid situations. The extra expense is very well worth the advantages mentioned.
In examination of my inventory of digital images, most if not all imaging is hand-held, except those taken with the 300mm IS f2.8 and the 400mm IS f2.8 lenses, where a mono-pod was used because of combined camera + lens weight. Take a look at these image taken hand-held, and visit www.faudigital.com.
Lynn, I plan to buy that lens, too. If you can't handhold it down to 1/30th of a second, ever, please let me know. I planned to use it in place of my 70-300 IS that I dislike so much, but handhold all the time.
And, I know I have said this before, but in my ignorance I had the IS turned off on that lens and on my other IS lens, the 28-135. Probably they were like that for months (I am learning......slower than some), but when I turned them back on, I did not notice anything at all as far as increased clarity. There probably was some, but it was not dramatic. I wouldn't worry about it.
ginger but let me know if it is too heavy to handhold, or something.
Ginger it's not heavy.. I'll test it out for you but I very much doubt if I can hand hold at 1/30th even at 70mm focal length.. I'll try and see.
G'day jim...im just learning here but from my research (which may well be incorrect)...it appears that most people use a rather slow shutter with larger 400mm zooms etc. Is this a result of something or can these bigger zooms go on up to 1/2000 & beyond to match what a good DSLR can do ?
Ginger it's not heavy.. I'll test it out for you but I very much doubt if I can hand hold at 1/30th even at 70mm focal length.. I'll try and see.
Lynn, I am not positive I can either, I know I can at 1/60th. (But that is only a percentage that get sharp, I hate that lens anyway. Got my first sharp shot with it the other day. It was probably an accident on the lens part.) I got bored looking through my stuff really fast. The other night I was using the shorter lens more often. Got a real good shot at 1/10. I had no idea, I just know it is a good shot. crisp, as they say. But that is my favorite lens and I was probably wedged in somewhere leaning on a fish cleaning table, who knows.
The only thing that would really bother me would be if that lens were much heavier or off balance, or something. I think Andy and all the experts would know that. I know they advised you not to get anything else as it would be too heavy.
If you ever get another tripod, do as Andy says. I get more shake from my tripod than I do from me, so I am kind of messed up. Andy said to get the heaviest one possible. But that is a quandary, I have enough trouble carrying the backpack to say the least of the tripod. And Bill says it hurts his back to carry either. They have a studio tripod I can borrow if I let them know, but I would have to be close to what I was photographing. No trail wandering.
The man in my picture was using a tripod, don't know whether it was a film or digital camera, I do know it would go to 300 as that is all he said. He left before I needed a tripod, and I sure don't know why he needed one when he first got there. I think some of us like them, and some of us don't. It made a better picture for me to have his tripod in it.
later, ginger
might go out to see if birds are anywhere, it is high tide, probably not.
200mm 1/30th handshot
Here ya go Ginger, 70-200 F/4 L handshot @ 200mm shutterspeed 1/30th resize + USM only (camera = 20D), 100% crop included:
I must point out that I do have steady hands as I hear friend-photographers say
Hi Ginger.. I just did these through my window.. too cold to go out.. sorry about the content it's really bad.. nowI'm hoping the wreth was'nt moving.. the fence was not I'm sure..
G'day jim...im just learning here but from my research (which may well be incorrect)...it appears that most people use a rather slow shutter with larger 400mm zooms etc. Is this a result of something or can these bigger zooms go on up to 1/2000 & beyond to match what a good DSLR can do ?
I went to your site. The pics are great.
As to your comment/question, the shutter speed is set on the digital camera, the "f" stop is set through the camera to the lens. So most/all of the lenses discussed in this forum are attached to cameras that have focul/plane shutters which are resident in the camera. SO if your camera can expose at 1/2000sec then you can use that setting assuming you have enough light, etc.
Comments
It a great place and you can find some great deals.
Just make sure you check the feedback on the seller.
I have seen the 70-200 f4 go for under $500.00
Cincinnati Smug Leader
Lynn, I accidentally turned the IS off on both of my lenses, shot without it for who knows how long, finally found out and remedied the situation. Actually didn't notice that much difference. (Don't tell anyone here that I do that kind of stuff). I turned the AF off of my lens today, birds again, once I did that things did go better.
If you have the money, I would go for it. I am going to sit on what I have. Gotta have that 20D. Lynn, do you still have a Rebel? It doesn't shoot birds well, not on autofocus. I missed shots just because it wouldn't fire. I had prefocused and all.
ginger
I'll throw in a
And if ANYONE has some good reading site re Lenses....please please post the link.
First off, do you have this link already?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/
It is a very good resource for info on lenses
Now, as for that 70-200
I use it extensively on my 20D, with or without the Kenkoo 1.4 TC, I can 'get it done'
hasn't been cropped and looks very sharp @ full size
I hope this helps a bit towards your determination to 'sway the hubby' so to speak
Oh and still life is also 'doable' with the 70-200:
or just some landscapish pitcha:
As some shoeguy said: "Just do it"
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Sure at 1/750 or faster:D
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
We have learned to hold still with every mammogram we have ever had.:roll
We knew if we didn't hold still we would have to have another one.
Yes, you can handhold at 1/250th. I can handhold much slower than that. You learn to brace yourself against posts, fences, people who promise not to breathe, etc. And you take more than one exposure. At least three. If you have to get it, and are comfortable that way, use a tripod. Or I might bunch up my coat and use it as a temp tripod. I get more freedom to maneuver that way. Besides, I don't like tripods.
I have learned that there is a point past which I am not going to be able to hold it, even though I thought I could. I don't remember what that point is as far as shutter speed goes, but it is almost dark. Up to then, I am going to get one out of 5 shots, and before that........ Since I never seem to plan on staying out as late as I do, I will be trying to handhold impossible shots for the rest of my life. If I were being paid, I would not play that game, but I would also be more likely to have planned things out.
Hold your arms close to your body. Try to hold your breath. If there is something to lean on, do that. And see what your limits are.
(Remember, men don't have mammograms, they don't get the practice we do.)
ginger
Lynn,
I love that f4 lens. The IS version is much heavier and much more expensive, and if you decide down the line to upgrade, your lens will hold its value very well. But I don't think you should be bemoaning your purchase. It's a great lens.
As for the focal lenght/shutter speed thing, I have a question for y'all. Do you need to factor the 1.6x conversion into that? Meaning if I'm shooting at 100mm on my 20D, is 1/100 a good minimum exposure for handheld, or should it be 1/160?
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
You can't get absolutes on something like this. The rule of thumb, on a film camera, was a length of 50 mm meant 1/60th second, etc. You may be able to handhold it at 1/60th of a second, but if something is going horizontal to you at 150 mph, and you can't pan with it, it would be better to have it on a tripod and learn to pan.
If you can do it, whether film or digital with little problem to you, whatever is a problem to you, you can do it. If you need it 100% in focus, and you can do that, then you can do it, at whatever focal length of the lens. If freedom of movement is more important to you, than maybe 1 out of 3 times would be acceptable, then you do what you want. If that is not acceptable, then get out your tripod. And use common sense. If you are going out with Andy to shoot that bridge at dusk and night in SF, you are going to be happier with a tripod, probably.
If you can't hold your elbows in, hold your breath, brace your feet, or find something to lean against, you are going to have more problems hand holding than someone who does that stuff.
Just my opinion in a subject of some disagreement.
ginger
And, I know I have said this before, but in my ignorance I had the IS turned off on that lens and on my other IS lens, the 28-135. Probably they were like that for months (I am learning......slower than some), but when I turned them back on, I did not notice anything at all as far as increased clarity. There probably was some, but it was not dramatic. I wouldn't worry about it.
ginger but let me know if it is too heavy to handhold, or something.
You're right Sid about the general recomendation of 1/focal length in mm . Lynn asked for a real CRISP image so I up'd my recx3 to razz her a bit - was meant to be funny
Ginger - I doubt you can get really sharp crisp images at 1/30th at 200mm handheld, even if you are female. But I could be wrong of course. You can handhold at 1/30 and get acceptable images but not the sharpest of images that's all.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Hi Lynn,
The “theory” of hand-holding lenses is based on some rather simple physics. If the shutter speed is sufficiently short then camera movement will have diminished influence on the resultant exposure. In regular English, for example, if an exposure is established at 1/2000 of a second, then small levels of camera shake will have a diminished effect on the captured image.
Notice the carefully chosen words, diminished effect, there is always some effect; it’s a matter of degree. The shorter the exposure duration, meaning 1/2000sec rather than 1/200sec, or 1/20sec, the level of image “blur” will be reduced to perhaps an acceptable level, not actually eliminated. If there is a high level of camera “shake” then 1/2000sec may not sufficiently reduce image blur. Photographers have said that for an individual to reasonably hold a camera “steady” then a minimum shutter duration of 1/200sec may be short enough for a 200mm focul length, and 1/300sec for a 300mm lens,…etc.
Presently, with the advent of Image Stabilization, IS, these rules are amplified by two or three times. My personal experience is that with Canon “L” lenses, excellent exposures can be obtained at 1/100sec using 400m lenses, assuming the camera is carefully hand-held, holding the equipment as steady as possible. I definitely direct my attention to IS lenses for my kit. And can report that even at 15/sec acceptable results may be obtained in extreme low light candid situations. The extra expense is very well worth the advantages mentioned.
In examination of my inventory of digital images, most if not all imaging is hand-held, except those taken with the 300mm IS f2.8 and the 400mm IS f2.8 lenses, where a mono-pod was used because of combined camera + lens weight. Take a look at these image taken hand-held, and visit www.faudigital.com.
JimWilson
ginger
The only thing that would really bother me would be if that lens were much heavier or off balance, or something. I think Andy and all the experts would know that. I know they advised you not to get anything else as it would be too heavy.
If you ever get another tripod, do as Andy says. I get more shake from my tripod than I do from me, so I am kind of messed up. Andy said to get the heaviest one possible. But that is a quandary, I have enough trouble carrying the backpack to say the least of the tripod. And Bill says it hurts his back to carry either. They have a studio tripod I can borrow if I let them know, but I would have to be close to what I was photographing. No trail wandering.
The man in my picture was using a tripod, don't know whether it was a film or digital camera, I do know it would go to 300 as that is all he said. He left before I needed a tripod, and I sure don't know why he needed one when he first got there. I think some of us like them, and some of us don't. It made a better picture for me to have his tripod in it.
later, ginger
might go out to see if birds are anywhere, it is high tide, probably not.
Here ya go Ginger, 70-200 F/4 L handshot @ 200mm shutterspeed 1/30th resize + USM only (camera = 20D), 100% crop included:
I must point out that I do have steady hands as I hear friend-photographers say
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
1/200
hand held through rather dirty glass...
I went to your site. The pics are great.
As to your comment/question, the shutter speed is set on the digital camera, the "f" stop is set through the camera to the lens. So most/all of the lenses discussed in this forum are attached to cameras that have focul/plane shutters which are resident in the camera. SO if your camera can expose at 1/2000sec then you can use that setting assuming you have enough light, etc.
JimWilson