Which lenses do you own/need

[Ian_H]

The 70-200 f2.8L is lens is probably one of my most used lenses for rallying and some circuit work where you can get pretty close to the action, I tend to leave it on mode 2 IS 99% of the time. The beauty about it is there is not that much difference in quality when you use it with the 1x4 convertor (Canon) which give you the extra reach but only looses one stop.
This was panned with the 70-200 at 115mm at f/9 1/60 with IS on mode 2



Edited to add click on the photo to see the unsquashed version

>> Edited by Ian_H on Saturday 11th February 14:42

[UKBob]

Ian_H said:

The 70-200 f2.8L is lens is probably one of my most used lenses for rallying and some circuit work where you can get pretty close to the action, I tend to leave it on mode 2 IS 99% of the time. The beauty about it is there is not that much difference in quality when you use it with the 1x4 convertor (Canon) which give you the extra reach but only looses one stop. This was panned with the 70-200 at 115mm at f/9 1/60 with IS on mode 2 Edited to add click on the photo to see the unsquashed version

Thats a really nice photo. Im really looking forward to using that lens when I buy an SLR, and suspect it will also be one of my most used lenses.

[poah]

is that knockhill Ian - looks like it was taken at the same corner lol

[simpo two]

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm pretty sure you could have taken that or something remarkable close to it using a normal (non-IS) lens as long as you got the shutter speed right.

[Ian_H]

poah said:

is that knockhill Ian - looks like it was taken at the same corner lol

Yes it was Knockhill, I forget the name of the corner but it's at the far side after the chicane and in front of the "cow sheds"

[Ian_H]

simpo two said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm pretty sure you could have taken that or something remarkable close to it using a normal (non-IS) lens as long as you got the shutter speed right.

I wouldn't disagree with that, just showing that IS can be used when panning a moving subject.

[poah]

simpo two said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but I'm pretty sure you could have taken that or something remarkable close to it using a normal (non-IS) lens as long as you got the shutter speed right.

mine was taken without IS

[poah]

Ian_H said:

poah said: is that knockhill Ian - looks like it was taken at the same corner lol Yes it was Knockhill, I forget the name of the corner but it's at the far side after the chicane and in front of the "cow sheds"

yip same corner lol

[Tuna]

I didn't say IS doesn't work. My main lens is IS and it's excellent. As people have shown, it can help get a stunning photo. However, if IS is your only lens (as Bob is planning) you find that it doesn't help in all circumstances. It's particularly galling to find you've spent a few grand on a camera and lens, and indoor photos of your mates are worse than with a cheap compact.

Bob, I'll repeat what I said about spending a fortune on your first lens. You're right about the reviews of the 70-200 (I'm currently reading up on similar lenses). However, I'd worry that if you're planning on lots of telephoto work (motorsport and so on) that you'll find it's a little short at the long end.

[UKbob]

Tuna said:

I didn't say IS doesn't work. My main lens is IS and it's excellent. As people have shown, it can help get a stunning photo. However, if IS is your only lens (as Bob is planning) you find that it doesn't help in all circumstances. It's particularly galling to find you've spent a few grand on a camera and lens, and indoor photos of your mates are worse than with a cheap compact. Bob, I'll repeat what I said about spending a fortune on your first lens. You're right about the reviews of the 70-200 (I'm currently reading up on similar lenses). However, I'd worry that if you're planning on lots of telephoto work (motorsport and so on) that you'll find it's a little short at the long end.

Thanks for the comments. 200mm with 1.6 crop factor and a 1.4x TC is 448mm. That should be ok for most motorsport and wildlife stuff, though, surely? From what ive read, quality loss really isnt a problem with the 1.4x TC, so its all good stuff, right?

I do plan on getting other lenses of course, in roughly this order:
24-70
Macro
10-22 (A little later on)
MONSTER zoom! (A LOT later on)

I got the impression that for low light use, the 70-200 was particularly fast at low ISO settings with the IS, and the F2.8.

I cant afford to buy all the lenses Id want on day one, and although its probably not the done thing, I just thought Id start out with the 70-200 - I cant fathom why it would be worse than a cheap compact, though?

>> Edited by UKbob on Monday 13th February 11:41

[simpo two]

UKbob said:

I got the impression that for low light use, the 70-200 was particularly fast at low ISO settings with the IS, and the F2.8.

The f2.8 aspect is the important part which determines 'speed'; ISO is just a function of the camera. All f2.8 lenses are the same speed (max aperture) regardless of ISO.

UKbob said:

I just thought Id start out with the 70-200 - I cant fathom why it would be worse than a cheap compact, though?

I think he meant that for a group shot of your mates indoors, a 70-200 will be completely unsuitable because, assuming the average-sized roo, it's too long to get more than 2-3 of them in. I bet you 50p that within a very short time of getting a 70-200 as your sole lens, you'll be wishing you'd got a mid-range zoom as well/instead

(Edited to say that I meant 'room' and any reference to a kangaroo is entirely coincidental!)

>> Edited by simpo two on Monday 13th February 12:40

[UKbob]

simpo two said:

I think he meant that for a group shot of your mates indoors, a 70-200 will be completely unsuitable because, assuming the average-sized roo, it's too long to get more than 2-3 of them in. I bet you 50p that within a very short time of getting a 70-200 as your sole lens, you'll be wishing you'd got a mid-range zoom as well/instead (Edited to say that I meant 'room' and any reference to a kangaroo is entirely coincidental!)

I reckon I could get by with the 70-200 for a month or two before buying my next lens. The body is going to cost me, and I probably wont have the cash to buy 2 lenses.

Besides, I'll have my G5 for wide angle shots

If your 50p is still on the table, are you betting "instead of" or "as well as" - You cant bet both ways simpo

[simpo two]

UKbob said:

If your 50p is still on the table, are you betting "instead of" or "as well as" - You cant bet both ways simpo

Simpo Rule #4: 'Never get into something without making sure you can get out again'

[UKbob]

simpo two said:

UKbob said: If your 50p is still on the table, are you betting "instead of" or "as well as" - You cant bet both ways simpo Simpo Rule #4: 'Never get into something without making sure you can get out again'

Thats the intellectual equivalent of saying "my lens will always be bigger than yours"

[_dobbo_]

Bob, the way I see it, assuming the 30D (or whatever) comes out a 12mp, with a shorter focal length you can crop out 50% and still have 6mp, suitable for up to an A2 print with negligible loss of quality. Assuming you don't want massive prints of cars at trackdays you can crop 90% and still have a good enough print or web site image.

You can also take pics of stuff that's less than 15 feet away.

With a 70-200 you wont need to crop as much (if at all) for the longer stuff, but lose all the shorter stuff. In short, with one you get to photograph in any situation, with the other you don't.

I'd say get a good quality shorter length lens instead of the 70-200. Add the 70-200 as and when you can.

Just my 5p worth.

[simpo two]

UKbob said:

Thats the intellectual equivalent of saying "my lens will always be bigger than yours"

You know your camera bag is too small when you have to remove the bag of silica gel to get your new lens in...



But it does allow me to do this:



And its spiritual cousin the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 does this:



(both taken from the basic JPG)

[_dobbo_]

mmmmm tasty new lens simpo. what did it end up costing you? (if you don't mind me asking)

[simpo two]

_dobbo_ said:

mmmmm tasty new lens simpo. what did it end up costing you? (if you don't mind me asking)

Thanks to Andy M who said:

Andy M said:

Contact Ian Kerr at: kerso1123 at msn dot com. His lenses are sent from the US (with US/worldwide warranty) to a relation in Scotland, and then sent to the buyer (therefore no taxes to pay). He's usually a lot cheaper than UK prices, and only a little more expensive than grey market goods. I've bought a couple of lenses off him now, and have found him to be very trustworthy.

Andy M was completely right; Warehouse Express £979, Ian £749. Excellent service and he also made two calls from the US to let me know how it was going. The intenational warranty covers the UK although it would have to go back to Nikon UK (as opposed to a retailer).

I am now 'lensed out'... as for the next step, well, a camera that gets the exposure right first time would be handy.

[Andy M]

Excellent, glad you were able to come to a deal

[UKbob]

_dobbo_ said:

With a 70-200 you wont need to crop as much (if at all) for the longer stuff, but lose all the shorter stuff. In short, with one you get to photograph in any situation, with the other you don't. I'd say get a good quality shorter length lens instead of the 70-200. Add the 70-200 as and when you can. Just my 5p worth.

I agree with everything you've said, and I understand what limits starting out with a 70-200 lens will give me. I have choice here, and would really rather have the 70-200 to start with, long before the summer is in full swing I'll have bridged the gap and bought another lens. Its just the way I want to get started