Options

New to the Accessories Forum...Accessory reviews

Tim SnowTim Snow Registered Users Posts: 21 Big grins
edited March 31, 2011 in Accessories
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
Montreal Photojournalist
Montreal Wedding Photographer
Montreal Photography Workshops
twitter

Comments

  • Options
    NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2011
    Hi Tim, re your comparison 24-70 vs 24-105...

    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
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Options
    Tim SnowTim Snow Registered Users Posts: 21 Big grins
    edited March 30, 2011
    Hi Neil,
    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 Photojournalist
    Montreal Wedding Photographer
    Montreal Photography Workshops
    twitter
  • Options
    NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2011
    Tim Snow wrote: »
    Hi Neil,
    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

    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
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Options
    Tim SnowTim Snow Registered Users Posts: 21 Big grins
    edited March 30, 2011
    The 24-70 is tack sharp at 2.8...that is if you get a sharp copy. One of my CPS reps told me that the 24-70 is one of the hardest lenses Canon manufactures, which explains it's spotty reputation.
    When shooting boxing or UFC, the faster the shutter speed the better!
    Montreal Photojournalist
    Montreal Wedding Photographer
    Montreal Photography Workshops
    twitter
  • Options
    NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2011
    Tim Snow wrote: »
    The 24-70 is tack sharp at 2.8...that is if you get a sharp copy. One of my CPS reps told me that the 24-70 is one of the hardest lenses Canon manufactures, which explains it's spotty reputation.
    When shooting boxing or UFC, the faster the shutter speed the better!

    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
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Options
    Tim SnowTim Snow Registered Users Posts: 21 Big grins
    edited March 30, 2011
    I use both the 24-70 and the 70-200 side by side (BTW the 70-200 ver. II is insanely sharp!)
    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 Photojournalist
    Montreal Wedding Photographer
    Montreal Photography Workshops
    twitter
  • Options
    Dan7312Dan7312 Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2011
    Even if you stop them down to take a shot an f2.8 lens enables better AF than slower lenses because it provides more light to focus with and there are AF focusing capabilities on some cameras that are not enabled on lenses slower than f2.8
    NeilL wrote: »
    Hi Tim, re your comparison 24-70 vs 24-105...

    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
    Dan

    http://www.danalphotos.com

    http://www.pluralsight.com

    http://twitter.com/d114
  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,871 moderator
    edited March 31, 2011
    Dan7312 wrote: »
    Even if you stop them down to take a shot an f2.8 lens enables better AF than slower lenses because it provides more light to focus with and there are AF focusing capabilities on some cameras that are not enabled on lenses slower than f2.8

    15524779-Ti.gif Absolutely true. An f2.8 capable lens is where the fun starts.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sign In or Register to comment.