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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 17, 2003, 11:44 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 70
Default "IS" and action shots

Well, I am ready to go SLR but have not decided on a lens to start with. The 28-135 IS would be a nice range for a lot of my shooting, but don't know if the IS would help or hurt or just not be used. I have read lots of post on the advantages of the IS, but am thinking that I would not benefit as much as I would for going to a 28-135 2.8L (not sure if this is the exact specs). I shoot lots of action shots from a moving boat. Moving boat leads me to think the IS would be good. Assuming I have enough light for 1/1000, would the IS help remove and movement from the boat, or will the modest panning required for some shots require the IS to be turned off( so I have read). As the sun starts to go down and light drops, I am thinking the f2.8L would be a much better choice. In reasearching this, I have tried to find out if there is a 2.8L IS lens in the zoom range I would use most. A 70 - 200mm would be nice but it would eliminate any shot of someone in or near the boat without changing lens. Don't know if the 28 would be to much also.

Here some info on how I shoot now. Focus usually is not an issue since my subject is at a fixed rope length(70') I usually use manual on my minolta 7i. I shoot lots of shots on the 7i at full 200mm zoom or I will set it to about 150mm for the big jumpers so they don't get out of frame.

SO if you were going out for a day on a boat to shoot action like the shot below, what lense would you choose or recommend? Brand or length. Heard some about the sigma 50-500. I would like the 1d(8fps) but most likely get a 10d. One thought is to keep the 7i handy for candid shots when I dont want to change a lense.

Ken E is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 17, 2003, 3:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

First off, this lens "28-135 2.8L" doesn't exist. At least I can't find anything about it. It's a nice idea.... but the closes that I know of is the 28-70mm 2.8/L. No IS. That is the lens I wish I had... but it costs about $1,350USD.

Second, if you use 200mm and 150mm, I think the 70-200 is just barely do it. After you take into account the 1.6x multiplier, you'll have a 112-320mm lens. If you really want something wider than 112, then you are sunk. From your description you don't, but you had better be right. For what it's worth, the 28-135 turns into a 44-216mm, which also just barely gets what you want, but from the other end. The 70-200 f2.8 is a better lens, but also much more expensive (if you add IS, which is only fare when comparing it to the 28-135.)

IS is designed to help with things like boats. It definitly won't "hurt" and it could help. Also, you suggest that you should disable IS when panning. That is incorrect. Some versions of IS detect when you are panning and only correct for the motion in one direction. I believe the 28-135 can do this, but you should check that. If you are using a shutter speed of 1/1000, you might not need IS. I don't know enough about IS to know. If you keep taking pictures as the sun is setting, I bet that IS would let you take a picture that you couldn't without it.

From what I understand the 50-500 is a tripod lens. It's fairly heavy and large. Maybe you could do it, but weight/size should be a consideration.

My personal feeling is that the 28-135 will do what you need. It's also much cheaper than the alternative. If you find that it doesn't do what you need, it won't hurt as much to replace it (if you do or don't sell the 28-135.)
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2003, 3:52 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Quick update. I just read on dpreview that IS can *not* be used while panning... an no one corrected the post. I know that the new Nikon VR lens can. I *thought* the second generation IS lens from Canon could (the 100-400 is a 1st generation, for example.) Maybe someone else can step up and answer this (and set us both straight.)

I hope to get my 10D any day now, and I'll be able to test, as I'm getting both the 28-135IS and 100-400L IS. Until then, I can only use my memory... which is not always the best thing.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2003, 7:37 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO if you want wide aperture, 3rd party lenses are more economical than the "L" series. If you go wider aperture you can increase the shutter speed hence lessening the need for IS:
28-105mm f2.8-4, 70-200mm f2.8 & 28-300mm f3.5-6.3

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/zoom_intro.htm

The other benefit of f2.8 is the shallower depht of field that would 'pop' your subject from the out of focus background! 8) 8) 8)
http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...782&highlight=

You can then use all that money that you have saved for that Canon 50mm f1.0 (or 85mm f1.2) for some incredible portrait... :lol: :lol: :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2003, 11:36 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 70
Default thanks

After checking, it was the 70 -200mm 2.8L that had a a IS and a non-IS version. So if I can't pan, not that I pan that much compares to following a race car, would I ever use the IS? I am sure I would any other time like kids concerts at school and the such.

Yes I would like more zoom such as a 28-200 or 300mm. I would also like to get shots that are better then what I do now. I read dpreview alot and all te discussion on lens there, but haven't see a question that combined the sport shooting with a unstable base. This is only part of my shooting, and the kids will be starting baseball soon, so that is another discussion. The 28-135IS has had mixed reviews but still might be the best for my primary use. The minolta 7i is my current experience, with it's 2.8-3.5, 7.2-50.8 (28-200mm) lens. I am limited to by the 200mm if I wanted to really get "in their face" but often I need to back off.
The above shot was:
Original date/time: 2003:01:04 14:47:32
Exposure time: 1/1000 (0.00100)
F-stop: 5.6
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 37.1523 ~150mm

This was a good bright day. Not much problems with light.
I have concidered a 100mm prime as option for a fast lens for just shooting behind the boat. ANy cheep manual focus? They are always at the same distance.

Yes I would like to buy 3 lens instead of just one for the same money, but if all 3 don't give me the shot I want then what good are they. Other sports shooters recommend a 50-80mm and the 70-200mm. I don't need the best lense but don't really want to settle fo just good. A very good is what I want. I don't mind spending the $ if it does the job. I just hate wishing I had bought something else. No real stores in town to shop at either.

Thanks again all. Like I said, "what lens would you take if you could pick any?"
Ken E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2003, 5:26 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI Sigma has a 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS APO that you can pan horizontally (ie it's IS can be set to work in the vertical plane only):
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/news/News.htm
Quote:
Sigma's OS (Optical Stabilizer) system detects camera shake by utilizing two sensors, and then by the movement of an optical stabilizing lens group. It is equipped with two optical stabilizer modes to compensate for image blurring.
Mode 1, determines the camera shake in vertical and horizontal panning and compensates blurring, this mode is effective when shooting static subjects.
Mode 2, detects the vertical camera shake, and overcomes blurring. It is especially effective with moving subjects such as motor sports etc.
But I would go for f2.8 over IS:
1. f2.8 will give you the shallow depth-of-field that you can't get with the D7's... 8)
2. With a wider aperture you can go for faster speed lessening the need for IS!
3. Sometime the weight too is a factor... Have you try handholding a dSLR with an 70-200 f2.8? (You'll wish you had the lightness of a D7i). A tripod may not be a good idea on a wave hopping ski boat... You don't need an IS lens, you'll need a stabilized platform as used by the movie studio to shoot action films!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


Quote:
I have concidered a 100mm prime as option for a fast lens for just shooting behind the boat. ANy cheep manual focus? They are always at the same distance.
... BTW the Canon's 85mm f1.2 is prime for this (ie 85mmx1.6), even with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter you're still below f2.8! (and double as a portrait lens) :P
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2003, 9:09 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Two other things to throw in there. You will probably want a better built, more weather sealed lens. The Sigma EX line offers that in the 70-200, as does the Canon L series lenses. I don't know if its weather sealing is better/worse than the Canon. I'd assume so, just by the nature of economics... Sigma is trying to under cut Canon, while offering something which is "good enough" for most people.

Another thing is lens flare. There are times which you'll want to take the picture where the sun isn't at your back... and becaus you're on a boat, you won't have control over that (until that run ends and they turn.) Usually, the L lenses are better at having less flare than other lenses... as its a aspect of coating and lens material.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2003, 11:10 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 70
Default

Thanks for the info. I agree that I would like to reduce the depth of field. What I don't have a feal for is the DOF in SLRs. How will a 10D with the same settings behave?

Exposure time: 1/1000 (0.00100)
F-stop: 5.6
ISO speed: 100
Focal length: 37.1523 ~150mm

Do I need a 2.8 to get s shollow DOF? Will a f4-5.6 lense work give a shallow DOF due to being a slr?
Ken E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2003, 11:39 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
Do I need a 2.8 to get s shollow DOF? Will a f4-5.6 lense work give a shallow DOF due to being a slr?
The larger the aperture, the shallower is the DOF. This is unrelated to being an SLR, but the bigger CCD also helps! :P

f4-5.6 is better than f8-22, but f2.8 is shallower still, just look at the brackets markings for f-stop on the lens barrel 8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2003, 10:56 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 70
Default

NHL,
What I am really trying to ask is, what are the diferences between the DOF between the 7i and the 10D for the same settings. How much does the larger sensor reduce the DOF for the same settings. Since I know what I am getting with the 7i by looking at the data, I want to base the desision on lens buying on what I know. I also think that the 10D has less DOF at a given setting, but not how much. If I shot the above picture with a 10D at 1/1000 and a f5.6, would the DOF be such that the background it not in focus. I have seen the charts for the 7i and at 20m there is almost unlimited DOF for it. Will the 10D give me less DOF at the same conditions or is a 2.8 lense a must have to get shallow DOF? Will 2.8 be to little? Is there a 10D chart for DOF? I am trying to decide if using lense like the 28-135IS will give me better shots or if 2.8 is a must. There are many other factors but this is just one.
Ken E 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 12:33 PM.