Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 5, 2013, 9:16 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
you get 2.8 all the time.
That's what I'm looking for.

It's $824 @ B&H, plus filters, etc.
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 10:51 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

You're shooting outdoors. You sure don't need f/2.8 for the exposure.

And if more of your shots were at 50mm or less, why are you shopping for something other than the Sigma 17-50/2.8 you already have?

Of the street photography shots you took with your 18-200, what focal lengths did you use most often?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 11:05 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
And if more of your shots were at 50mm or less, why are you shopping for something other than the Sigma 17-50/2.8 you already have?

Of the street photography shots you took with your 18-200, what focal lengths did you use most often?
I do like the blurred background I get @ f2.8. I guess that's why I got hung up on the f2.8

Really, I started out looking to upgrade the 17-200. But I don't go near the long end of that too often--usually not too much higher than 100mm. I just clicked thru 136 of what I consider the best shots I took in Russia and Lithuania last summer. They were almost all under 50mm and only about 10 were over 100mm.

I might not need anything...

Last edited by dg27; Mar 5, 2013 at 11:14 AM.
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:24 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

You do not need 2.8 to get a blur black ground. Getting good a long zoom like the 28-135 can actually do that at 5.6. It is how you use the lens. The shot I posted was taken at F8, and the back ground has some blurring. At 5.6 I would have gotten more blur. It is all about how to get separation between where you are focusing and the background.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:32 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
You do not need 2.8 to get a blur black ground. Getting good a long zoom like the 28-135 can actually do that at 5.6. It is how you use the lens.
You're absolutely correct and I actually noticed that after I posted, looking at some shots I've taken (I never scrutinized with that in mind before).

If I get anything, it looks like the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM might be the best bet:

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...uct/139/cat/11

I would hope that the IQ would be @ least as good as I get with my Sigma 17-50mm.
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:38 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

There is also couple more thing to take into account when shooting outdoors at 2.8, it you have good lighting, you will over expose constantly at 2.8. That you will need to stop down to F4 allot of time on a sunny day. Also with the longer 2.8 say at 70mm the dof can be to thin and you will actually have part of the persons face blurred as well at 2.8.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:41 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
There is also couple more thing to take into account when shooting outdoors at 2.8, it you have good lighting, you will over expose constantly at 2.8. That you will need to stop down to F4 allot of time on a sunny day. Also with the longer 2.8 say at 70mm the dof can be to thin and you will actually have part of the persons face blurred as well at 2.8.
Yes--the other thing I noted when looking at the metadata for pictures I have taken that I like is that even when I was using my f/2.8 lens, I did stop down quite often. Very few were actually shot @ f/2.8. I do like having that capability though since I do shoot indoors occasionally.
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:50 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

ef 28-135 at 800iso 90mm at f5.6 1/25 -1/3 ev.
The background is completely blur and part of the piggie is blurred.

Second shot bad lighting high iso at F4, 1600iso, -67ev, 1/20 with the ef100 2.8 macro.

The blur indoors has the same rule as outdoors when deploying a longer lens, you can separate you can get blur with a long zoom.
Attached Images
  
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 12:57 PM   #59
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
There is also couple more thing to take into account when shooting outdoors at 2.8, it you have good lighting, you will over expose constantly at 2.8. That you will need to stop down to F4 allot of time on a sunny day. Also with the longer 2.8 say at 70mm the dof can be to thin and you will actually have part of the persons face blurred as well at 2.8.
Both these points are a bit over-exaggerated. At 1/4000 shutter speeds and ISO 100 it takes some exceptional lighting conditions to be overexposed. So the notion that you will "Constantly overexpose" is an exaggeration.

As for DOF at 70mm and 2.8 it really depends. I shoot a lot at 200mm or 300mm 2.8 and there's plenty of DOF at distances I'm shooting at.

You have to be cognizant of your DOF but I don't see the above 2 situations being at all troublesome.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 1:02 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

On a sunny day, just walking around, with a camera that is at 1/4000. It really does not take to much to have to stop down from 2.8. Not talking about walking along the beach in miami, just around NYC.

I personally would get a 24-70 2.8 for what the OP wants to shoot. As I find that the 24-70 range to be ideal for street shooting. But it is not budget. So I through out all possibilities for the OP to consider. And as the OP has been reviewing his photo data, he should weigh everything and decide which is the best option for his needs and budget.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle 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 2:05 PM.