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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 22, 2006, 10:07 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7
Default

Before reading posts on this forum, I was perfectly content with the 18-55 kit lens. That isuntil Iviewed John G's baseball photography. Funny how the in focus background never bothered me before (ignorance truly is bliss). So I broke down and ordered the Canon 70-200 f2.8. I will use it primarily for baseball, for which I know it will work perfectly.

I live in Florida and I love fishing 20+ miles offshore. How do you think this lens will work for action shots of fish jumping out of the water? Keep in mind the boat is rocking in 3 foot seas, you don't know if and when the fish will jump, or where it will jump. I havelost some great shots when the fish did'nt jump where I expected and it was out of focus.I am sure thatit's my lack of skill, but I prefer blaming the fish. Driving the boat, managing 6 lines, and taking pictures is not easy.

Anyway, how practical do you think this lens will be for catching shots of fish (sorry for the pun). Since I already ordered it for baseball, its time to start thinking of the next lens. So if you have a suggestion for the best lens for this application, I am all ears.

Thanks for any input.


gator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 22, 2006, 10:44 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

I would think that 200mm is short for baseball.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 10:48 AM   #3
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

You'll certainly get the DOF your looking for with a 2.8 but I'd stop it down to a 4 if your looking for a shot just a bit sharper plus your focus peramiter is just a bit wider around the subject. Apperture, DOF and"the fish" is a tricky thing when you want a clear shot of thesubject but don't know where it's going to jump out of the water plus you only have a fraction of a second to capture the "million dollar photo". You have no room for lag time here.

The smaller the apperture, the more clearer the subject is and theless DOF you get butdepending on how close you are to your subject, shooting at 2.8 gives you only several inches of "focus clarity" grace around the focus point withgood DOF but shooting atf10 or higher will give you several feet of "focus clarity" grace around the focus point with poor DOFbut thiscan be blurred out in PS later.

You may find that being outside in the bright daylight, you may not be able to shoot at 2.8 unless you adjust your ISO's down a lot. Not sure what your equipment your shooting withor how fast your shutter can be but if you can get a 1/6500 or 8000 shutter it won't matter how rocky your boat is. I've shot senic pics out of a bus window driving over frost heaves on the highway doing 100km with a 1/4000 shutter and every detail in the pic was clear.


spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 11:12 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7
Default

I agree200mm would be short, but its just my kids little league games. I coach so I let my wife in the dugout to take pictures. I have not told her about the extra 3 lbs she will be carrying.

I have a 20d so 8000 shutter speed is tha max. The DOF issue you raise is exactly what I was thinking. I will just have to play around with it to find a middle ground.

Thanks for the input.
gator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 12:26 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Gator12,

Congratulations on the new toy! Yes, you're going to see a huge difference from the kit lens. Depending on how steady your wife is I might recommend using a monopod. Yes a 70-200 2.8 is hand-holdable. But, a monopod will be a huge help if she's not used to a lens like that. And, after an hour and a half, believe me she'll be feeling it. Eventually she may get used to it and decide not to use the monopod. But in the mean time it will help her concentrate on focusing and not worry about keeping it steady.

As for focal length - you may be surprised. Little League is on a smaller field, true, but the players are also smaller. So, you'll find that it's a bit short to shoot the opposite base and for outfield shots. If you can save up some $$$ I would recommend getting a 1.4x TC for it. That's the great thing about that lens - it has 2.8 but also takes a TC very well so you'll be able to get more reach.

You'll want to shoot the baseball at 2.8 to get the shallow DOF, but as mentioned using a narrower DOF will probably work better for the fish. I would think the tough thing about the fish would be the angle. I have no idea how high they jump (not a fisherman myself) but as with anything else, it will be a better picture if you're shooting strait at or up at the fish and not down on them. But the lower you go the less you can rely on your legs to absorb the motion so it will be interesting. Still, it should be great fun trying. Be sure to post shots of both activities and let us know how the fishing thing goes. I always like to pick up nuggets of info - even if I'm not currently shooting something like that I like to hav that info in my brain - then if I'm ever in that situation I can benefit from your experience

Congratulations and enjoy the new toy!!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 22, 2006, 12:48 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
AlpineMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 357
Default

My only concern is holding a heavy lens like the 70-200mm f2.8L in a rocking boat. I can just see the thing now being accidentally dropped on the boat, or worse...the water. Knock on wood!
AlpineMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2006, 5:52 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

You could always add a tele converter to get more range.

A 1.4x or a 2x tele.
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 10:04 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 23
Default

What results shall I get by using the IS feature while shooting action sports with a high or fast shutter speed as compared to not using the IS feature?THANKS.



Killer Angel
Killer Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2007, 10:31 AM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Depending on the lens- you won't see any benefit. Unless it's a Canon 300mm 2.8 or 400mm 2.8 (which are very heavy) the IS won't benefit you one bit at high shutter speeds. So if you're using a 70-200 2.8 IS, 70-300 IS, 100-400 IS, etc - you won't see any benefit from using IS (assuming you are achieving your 1/500 shutter speeds).
JohnG 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 8:31 AM.