Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Add-On Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 25, 2004, 4:56 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric s
4) APO means that the lenses is specially coated to reduce optical distortions (chromatic aboration, and maybe other things.)
APO means apochromat. This is a type of lens design with which the secondary spectrum is reduced to the point where it is completely negligible. In non-technical words, an APO lens is a lens with an optical design that can bring red, green and blue colors to focus very close to each other. It has nothing to do with lens coating because the APO design appeared much earlier than lens coating.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 User Guide
shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 11:16 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

shene

Are you sure that APO has "nothing" to do with coatings. I thought it included coatings, lens element design and materials... the hole thing. Maybe it didn't start with coatings (I can believe that) but "nothing" is a strong word.

wvyankeegurl

APO means that you won't get as much (or none?) color fringing around the edges of objects, especially areas with high contrast. It improves the quality of pictures, but it costs more. If your standards are high, get it. Personally, I would get lenses with it (but I have the money to say that.)

I looked at your gallery of football shots (football 2.) There are some nice action shots there. That link that cowboy43 posted is a good one. It demonstrates focal length visually. Just image it as an abstract number representing "amount of zoom" (it isn't really abstract, but that doesn't matter right now.) The human eye sees the same as 50mm. So a 100mm lens would "zoom" twice as much as your eye (things will look twice as big.) If you ever use binoculars it works the same. 2x binocs are the same as a 100mm lens (1x binocs would be 50mm.)

Note that this doesn't take into account the smaller sensor the DRebel has, which adds another 1.6x to any focal length. So what I said is true in general, but not true for the DRebel, 10D (or Nikon D100.) To avoid getting to technical, just imagine the focal length as being 1.6x times longer. So a 30mm lens is roughly the same as your vision (31mm x 1.6 = 49.6mm.)

To answer your lens questions.

IS isn't worth it at shorter focal lengths (200mm) unless you are shooting handheld or are amazingly picky about quality. IS removes camera shake. This includes your motion when handholding, wind-induced shake while on a tripod, or motion of the camera/tripod because people are walking up the wooden stands next to you. So it could help. But if you use a good shutter speed and use a monopod, you should be all set. Use a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length (but that doesn't take into account movement of the subject. For that, you'll want at least 1/500 or faster.)

Both Canon 70-200 (with/without IS) are amazingly good lenses. Some say the non-IS is sharper, I don't know. Either way, you'll be very happy with the sharpness, lack of aberrations, and low lens flare. If you want to save some money, you could get the equivalent Sigma lens. Many here like it a lot, and it's a noticeable amount cheaper.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=148317&is=USA

I've never used it, but if I needed something in that range I'd consider it. (Of course, if I wanted IS I wouldn't consider it as it doesn't have it.) It isn't as good as the Canon, but itís very good (and maybe the different is insignificant to you... it's a question of how picky you are.. how high your standards are, and how willing you are to pay the money to match those standards.)

Someone said something that I need to correct. Someone said that as you zoom, the aperture shrinks. That is true on some lenses, but not all. The lenses you've listed (and the one I listed) are internal focusing. What this means is that they have a different method of focusing that keeps the aperture the same across the entire zoom range of the lens. So the aperture doesn't decrease while you zoom (in the lenses you are considering.) They are heavier and generally more expensive, but the constant aperture is very handy.

Considering the results you are getting at 70mm, I think youíll do just fine shooting football with a 70-200 f2.8, and it will also do better indoors with that lens over the other. Realize that youíll grow out of that lens as your kids grow up and start playing on larger fields. But for now, it looks like it will work very well. You should get the Drebel with the kit lens. Itís a handy focal length that the 70-200 wonít cover and itís a fairly good lens. Iíve seen some nice pictures taken with it.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask.

Eric

Ps. Iím with you on all the confusing initials they put on lenses. Some I know (APO, IS, IF, USM) but some I donítÖ XR, DiÖ I just read and learn.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 1:12 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
wvyankeegurl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 356
Default

well i diff. have a lot to think about.
i think ill go look today at the camera shop and see if they have
any of these lenses to just hold the lens and see what i think.
someone put on another site they were getting a 50mm f/1.8.
for basketball shots . This one is pretty expensive too isnt it. When it says just 50mm does this mean it dont zoom at all and is fixed on just that ?
I think i asked this somewhere before but no one put the answer .

You all have helped me so much , by the time i do buy one here soon ill be ready i think.

would that 50mm f/1.8 be worth buying for indoor shots ?
if i got the other lens too.
wvyankeegurl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 2:08 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The 50mm f1.8 is cheap ($60 or so.) Yes, normally lenses with a very large aperture are expensive, but not this one. I've been told it's because camera makers have been making 50mm lenses for year and know how to do it really well. Also, it's fully plastic (which helps keep the cost down.)

I have this lens and it's very nice for what it does. It doesn't have enough reach for what I normally do, but I consider it a special purpose lens. It's a "low light, I want to take a picture now!" lens.

Yes, a lens that doesn't specify a range is a fixed focal length lens. It's 50mm and nothing else. Fixed focal length lenses are cheaper to make, better optically and lighter than their zoom equivalents. (it should be said that zooms are have gotten very good optically in the last several years.)

I'd be surprised that a 50mm lens will have enough reach for sports, but you've shown that a 70mm does... and I wouldn't have though a 70mm would! All depends on how close you get. Games with larger playing fields/courts require more zoom. It is a good lens for indoor shots because of the large aperture (indoors usually has worse light than outdoors) but if it doesn't have the reach you need, then it doesn't matter how big the aperture is.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 5:34 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
wvyankeegurl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 356
Default

ok , so if i had the lens and the Rebel has a 1.3x then you would
have 50mm x 1.3 right = 65 , is that right ?
and the 70-200 would be 260.
I called 2 stores Ritz and they didnt have any 2.8 at all or lower.
Im gonna call this other one its an older store who specializes in camera stuff. Just to look at some.
Im leaning to the 70-200mm f2.8 usm canon prob. and also the 50mm maybe not sure on that one. i think so far. lol
i just baught a magizine it had the rebel with 70-200mm f2.8 shooting racing , they looked pretty good. im glad i have to wait
a week , that way it forces me to check everything out before i buy something.
wvyankeegurl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 7:08 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The DRebel has a 1.6x crop, but other than that, you have the concept exactly.

The 70-200 is a very good lens. Many claim it to be one of the best zooms ever made. So don't worry about its quality, only wonder if it has enough or too much zoom for you. If you are happy with the framing and reach of the pictures you have in your gallery (what I saw was at 70mm) then that combined with the 50mm should suit your needs very well.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 9:27 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wvyankeegurl
Ok so i maybe ill get the canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM around 1050.00

i know the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM is about 700.00 more

Is there a big difference in the two enough to spend that kinda
money on the stabalization. At. least for me a rookie.

should I wait and save up and get it right before football starts when i would use it the most.
i think im repeating myself,lol

I had the opportunity recently to take pictures with the 70-200 f/4.0, the 70-200 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I can assure you that you CAN take sharper handheld pictures at slower speeds than you can without IS. That being said, if you're taking action pictures, slow shutter speeds are going to result in subject blur anyway. You need faster shutter speeds for action, not stabilized lenses at slower shutter speeds. All three lenses were TOP NOTCH!
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2004, 10:32 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
wvyankeegurl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 356
Default

I tried to go look at them both the IS and the USM but no one has them , well im trying a place tomarrow, the last one , if they dont have it , no one will around here.
Id just like to see it in person and feel the weight and stuff.
i like shooting had held in fact i have never shot on a tripod.
I know with these lenses they are heavy so i will get a monopod.
the 70-200 should be plenty of zoom for me at least for a while.

eric thanks for all your help !

ohenry do you think it would be worth it to get the IS for me, this will prob. be the only big lens i buy at least for a while lol.
Since i am a rookie and just moving into add on lenses , do you think i should go for the IS ?


During football season i prob. took over 3000 pics, each sport season i would take a bunch , well they add up quick when you take 15 or 7 fps. I prob. wont take that many now though.
I would sale them at the games , since this was my first at midget league, i took them to walmart printed out 4x6 prints and the parents picked through an album each print 1.00., prob. too cheap but my first doing it through walmart , i also make cologes with around 3 shots of each kid in action on a 8x10 with graphic designs on them and custom cards. So i get my money back usually.
wvyankeegurl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2004, 3:21 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

Eric,

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric s
Are you sure that APO has "nothing" to do with coatings. I thought it included coatings, lens element design and materials... the hole thing. Maybe it didn't start with coatings (I can believe that) but "nothing" is a strong word.
Let us get the terminology correct. APO means apochromatic, which means the lens is capable of focusing the three primary colors (i.e., red, green and blue) as close as possible. Since color dispersion is a glass property, APO or apochromatic design is a lens design characteristic. Note that coating DOES NOT cause light dispersion, it is used to REDUCE REFLECTION and INCREASE LIGHT TRANSMISSION. Therefore, APO is a pure optical design term and was used even before the advent of coating (perhaps in late 19 century). Zeiss used superachromatic for a lens that has no chromatic aberration in 1941, which is also before lens coating. So, APO and superachromatic lens designs HAVE NOTHING TO DO with coating. As mentioned above, please keep in mind that coating is for increase light transmission and reduce light reflection on each lens surface. Good coating does not change the path of transmitting light rays.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam
Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/6700 User Guide
shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2004, 1:43 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
cowboy43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 923
Default

I think the 70-200 will be a good lens for your aplication. I use the Nikon 80-200 all the time for arena shots Baiscly the same as you. make sure it come with a lens colar for mounting a monopod, tripod don't hook this big lens to the camera with no support use your hand for free hand shooting. This camera does not have metal frame so that big lens hanging there can damage the lens mounting hardware in time. I am not sold on lens stabilization for the cost difference, Practice, Breathing techniques, and Monopod, tripods help drammaticly but that is up to you, just my opinion. Good Luck
cowboy43 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:09 PM.