PDA

View Full Version : Canon 350D




abrooks
Nov 27, 2005, 12:32 PM
I'm about to purchase a Canon 350D with the whole works for a really good price, it comes with a 18-55mm lens.

I'd like to know any extras I'll be needing or any I should just have for the hell of it. In particular the best lenses to get.



BakedBeans
Nov 27, 2005, 12:45 PM
I'm about to purchase a Canon 350D with the whole works for a really good price, it comes with a 18-55mm lens.

I'd like to know any extras I'll be needing or any I should just have for the hell of it. In particular the best lenses to get.


If you want it to fit in your hand better (its a little on the small size) the grip is always advisable.

as for lenses, i always say that a perfect 'starter' set up is the cheap but good quality (and fast at f1.8) thrifty fifty ( canon 50mm f1.8 mk2) for indoor shooting and a 70-200 f4 for super sharp distance.

just about as good a starter set-up as you can get

350d + grip
18-55
50mm f1.8
70-200 L


of course, it depends how much you have to spend and what you want it for :)

edesignuk
Nov 27, 2005, 12:56 PM
I'm kinda in the same situation....I have the 350D + kit lens and nothing else. I've just found the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for 69, so that's not going to break the bank. But how about this "70-200 L"? Ideally something that wont break the bank either :D :o

BakedBeans
Nov 27, 2005, 01:11 PM
I'm kinda in the same situation....I have the 350D + kit lens and nothing else. I've just found the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for 69, so that's not going to break the bank. But how about this "70-200 L"? Ideally something that wont break the bank either :D :o

This is the second lens i ever got, its about 399 (which is breaking the bank to some, but in terms of value its getting a powermac dual 2ghz for about 200quid...a bargain). its sharp and contrasty.

ive got a sample shot from it.

70-200 f4 L + 20D

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/5277/eaglestare0ek.jpg

Abstract
Nov 28, 2005, 06:13 AM
****, did you take that photo ?:eek:

efoto
Nov 28, 2005, 08:23 AM
****, did you take that photo ?:eek:

I'm pretty sure not....I've seen that series elsewhere on demo sites and sample galleries. I wouldn't be too surprised if it came from the 70-200 f4 L though, as I have heard/seen great things from it.

If you go to a camera shop and check out the 70-200 lineup (f4, f2.8, f2.8 IS) you can quickly see and feel the differences in size/weight, and someone can inform you of the performance aspects. If you are mainly planning on using the 70-200 outdoor, the f4 should be fine in most moderately lit situations. The f2.8 model produces a nicer bokeh but that is due to the added stops, as both have an octagonal aperture if I remember correctly so the 'quality' of the bokeh is the same, just more out of the f2.8 model. The 2.8 is brighter as well, but depending on your application that may not justify the added cost.

OutThere
Nov 28, 2005, 08:31 AM
I'm kinda in the same situation....I have the 350D + kit lens and nothing else. I've just found the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II for 69, so that's not going to break the bank. But how about this "70-200 L"? Ideally something that wont break the bank either :D :o

L glass will break the bank...but it's good stuff...:D

edesignuk
Nov 28, 2005, 09:59 AM
Well I've ordered that Canon 50mm thing, and it's shipped today! Also FINALLY bought a case for the 350D....it's just been sitting on my desk up to now :o

Think the bank breaking L glass can wait a while...:eek:

BakedBeans
Nov 28, 2005, 10:11 AM
Shti, did you take that photo ?:eek:

Yeah just a snap i taken at a hawk place a while back.

Its a good lens, the 1.2 stop difference between the f4 and the f2.8 just isnt worth it, a boost from iso 100 yo iso 200 gives about the same.... you would never know the difference between the two lenses by the bokeh, never in a million years.

BakedBeans
Nov 28, 2005, 10:17 AM
I'm pretty sure not....I've seen that series elsewhere on demo sites and sample galleries.

any chance of telling me where? I highly doubt that you've seen it on a demo site or sample gallery (unless i posted it there of course ;) ), if you have they are infringing my copyright.


If you go to a camera shop and check out the 70-200 lineup (f4, f2.8, f2.8 IS) you can quickly see and feel the differences in size/weight, and someone can inform you of the performance aspects

yeah, you should check them out, the 2.8 and 2.8 Is are alot heavier and alot bulkier than the f2.8. the IS is a great lens but its thousands more expensive. The f4 is actually a little sharper than the other two - again, i doubt you could tell the difference.

The f2.8 model produces a nicer bokeh

no it doesnt. the shape and smoothness is exactly the same afaik. the background will be very slight more OOF though.

efoto
Nov 28, 2005, 11:51 AM
any chance of telling me where? I highly doubt that you've seen it on a demo site or sample gallery (unless i posted it there of course ;) ), if you have they are infringing my copyright.

Must be my mistake. I recall seeing images exactly like that (a series of them) for an eagle observatory out west here in the States....but I guess two different eagles can look similar.

yeah, you should check them out, the 2.8 and 2.8 Is are alot heavier and alot bulkier than the f2.8. the IS is a great lens but its thousands more expensive. The f4 is actually a little sharper than the other two - again, i doubt you could tell the difference.

The 2.8 isn't that much heavier than the 4 in my opinion, but the 2.8 IS adds in on without hold for sure. The OD on the 2.8 is larger than the 4 though, if that matters. I really have only seen sharper images from the f4 at f5.6 or higher, whereas the 2.8 (IS) can give sharp images at f4, so you do gain in aperture/sharpness by a nudge, if that matters to you.

no it doesnt. the shape and smoothness is exactly the same afaik. the background will be very slight more OOF though.

"Another way to get a more diffusely blurred background is to use a lens with a long focal length such as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens used for the above Monster Buck picture. It will be much more difficult to blur a background with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Lens. All focal lengths yield the same depth of field when used at the same aperture setting and subject framing. But, the image compression a telephoto focal length provides magnifies the already blurred background. The result is a background that appears more diffusely blurred." taken from here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Backgrounds.aspx) halfway down, under the buck picture.

Perhaps you don't think a more diffused blur is useful, but many others do, and consider that to be more admirable bokeh. They share focal lengths so for that argument they are tied, but I don't see how you can say that f4 produces the same bokeh as f2.8. I said they do share the same octagonal bladed aperture, so the quality is the same, but based on the DOF the 2.8 can produce a superior bokeh, perhaps more than you want, but I would prefer that option if the choice was given to me.

BakedBeans
Nov 28, 2005, 11:59 AM
Must be my mistake. I recall seeing images exactly like that (a series of them) for an eagle observatory out west here in the States....but I guess two different eagles can look similar.

no worries, i didnt think my eagle show would be anywhere else



I really have only seen sharper images from the f4 at f5.6 or higher, whereas the 2.8 (IS) can give sharp images at f4, so you do gain in aperture/sharpness by a nudge, if that matters to you.

its not my opinion, the f4 is a sharper lens than both the f2.8 versions, check out canons charts. and just for the record the f4 is extremely sharp wide open. the reason you dont always see sharp shots at f4 or f2.8 is because the DOF is so damn shallow that lots of photographers mis the focus and ruin the shot. this (http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/5921/baldeaglehead7ox7lw0lk1qk.jpg) shot is at f4, albeit a touch over exposed



"Another way to get a more diffusely blurred background is to use a lens with a long focal length such as the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens used for the above Monster Buck picture. It will be much more difficult to blur a background with the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Lens. All focal lengths yield the same depth of field when used at the same aperture setting and subject framing. But, the image compression a telephoto focal length provides magnifies the already blurred background. The result is a background that appears more diffusely blurred." taken from here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Backgrounds.aspx) halfway down, under the buck picture.

i was talking about bokeh, which is different from OOF back ground. you will get marginally more OOF from the 2.8 but not noticeable really.

Perhaps you don't think a more diffused blur is useful, but many others do, and consider that to be more admirable bokeh.

They share focal lengths so for that argument they are tied, but I don't see how you can say that f4 produces the same bokeh as f2.8. I said they do share the same octagonal bladed aperture, so the quality is the same, but based on the DOF the 2.8 can produce a superior bokeh, perhaps more than you want, but I would prefer that option if the choice was given to me.

i think you are getting a little mixed up, bokeh isnt the amount of DOF you can get or the more out of focus something is.

the bokeh is the same on both. you seem to be basing your argument on DOF and OOF areas

Abstract
Nov 28, 2005, 01:46 PM
Must be my mistake. I recall seeing images exactly like that (a series of them) for an eagle observatory out west here in the States....but I guess two different eagles can look similar.


Yeah, I've seen eagle photos from a camera site before, and I thought that photo was taken from there.

efoto
Nov 28, 2005, 02:51 PM
i was talking about bokeh, which is different from OOF back ground. you will get marginally more OOF from the 2.8 but not noticeable really.

i think you are getting a little mixed up, bokeh isnt the amount of DOF you can get or the more out of focus something is.

the bokeh is the same on both. you seem to be basing your argument on DOF and OOF areas

Bokeh (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=bokeh) is the quality of the OOF areas, so yes I'm basing my argument on that. Perhaps I mis-worded in the beginning a few posts back, but I was attempting to state that quality of the bokeh is similar (based on an 8-bladed aperture instead of a 5 in many lenses) which allows a high quality (read: nicer looking and more consistent) bokeh.

I've read at a few places that DOF factors into bokeh, but if you're certain it doesn't then fine.

Regardless, I'm bowing out of this 'discussion' as I hate arguing over this s***, takes all the fun out of anything camera for me.

BakedBeans
Nov 28, 2005, 03:05 PM
Bokeh (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=*&q=bokeh) is the quality of the OOF areas, so yes I'm basing my argument on that. Perhaps I mis-worded in the beginning a few posts back, but I was attempting to state that quality of the bokeh is similar (based on an 8-bladed aperture instead of a 5 in many lenses) which allows a high quality (read: nicer looking and more consistent) bokeh.

I've read at a few places that DOF factors into bokeh, but if you're certain it doesn't then fine.

Regardless, I'm bowing out of this 'discussion' as I hate arguing over this s***, takes all the fun out of anything camera for me.

that isnt an accurate definition of true bokeh, bokeh is actually the rendition of out-of-focus points of light

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm


Im not arguing, im just telling you something. Regardless, you wont be able to tell the difference in the bokeh... both are fantastic.

-hh
Nov 29, 2005, 09:22 AM
The 2.8 isn't that much heavier than the 4 in my opinion, but the 2.8 IS adds in on without hold for sure.

I just went and looked up the respective weights...

f/4 = 1.56lbs
f/2.8 = 2.8lbs (+1.2lbs)
f/2.8 IS = 3.2lbs without tripod collar (+0.4lbs)

For comparison, The OD on the 2.8 is larger than the 4 though, if that matters.

The f/4 takes a 67mm filter, whereas the f/2.8 takes a 77mm filter.

Setting aside respective costs for polarizer filters and the like, I don't think that the difference between 67mm vs 77mm will make too much of a difference when it comes to camera stowage - - most of the "standard" lens bags I've seen/used over the years are set up for a 58mm diameter lens, so the f/4's 67mm will probably be too big, and you'll then have to move up to the "pro" lens bags whose diameters support a 77mm lens.

BTW ... see my "PS".

However, when shooting, it functionally is that extra +10mm of diameter in the glass that affords the faster glass. YMMV if you need it, but in my personal view (note: I just picked up the f/2.8 IS), it is when you get into lowlight conditions ... sunrise/sunset golden hour ... that you get frustrated at a system that's no faster than f/5.6 after you've put on a 1.4x teleextender and/or polarizer.


...but I would prefer that option if the choice was given to me.

Everything is always going to be a trade-off, but I've found that having limited options is generally what drives one back to B&H to go buy something better...but its not really that its "better", but is a different trade-off. For example, the f/2.8 IS is a really fast system for low light conditions (especially after a high ISO is dialed in with a dSLR), but the trade-off is that it is an expensive and heavy lens. Sometimes, you'll want to stick with the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS because its much lighter (and less expensive too).

-hh

PS: I've been having some challenges getting a camera bag to fit my new system, and as a result, I now have a brand new Lowepro "Off Trail 2 Camera Beltpack" that won't fit lenses larger than 58mm in its outer pockets. If anyone's interested in it, let me know. Otherwise, its going to have to go back to B&H as a used item...I'd keep it for my old 35mm system, as my 75-300 will fit, but my wide angle lens is 77mm, which doesn't. Argh.

Bibulous
Nov 29, 2005, 09:55 AM
I recently purchased the 70-200L f/4 and agree that it is hard to get sharp hand held shots in mid to low light conditions. I find that I also end up using the ISO 400 setting to offset the added length with my 20D.

But when the focus and camera stability right, this is an outstanding lens. Sure I would love the f/2.8 IS model, but the price is of the f/4 is hard to beat. Plus it fits nicely in my Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home bag.


/bokeh is subjective and I think over rated
//yes, it is

efoto
Nov 29, 2005, 10:03 AM
I just went and looked up the respective weights...

f/4 = 1.56lbs
f/2.8 = 2.8lbs (+1.2lbs)
f/2.8 IS = 3.2lbs without tripod collar (+0.4lbs)

Wow, I guess I never realized the differences like that. When I went to my local retailer to mess around with these for research I noticed a difference between the 2.8 and 4, but I guess the 2.8 IS seemed heavier (more so) than it proves to be over the non-IS version. Thanks for the numbers, enlightening.

The f/4 takes a 67mm filter, whereas the f/2.8 takes a 77mm filter.

Setting aside respective costs for polarizer filters and the like, I don't think that the difference between 67mm vs 77mm will make too much of a difference when it comes to camera stowage - - most of the "standard" lens bags I've seen/used over the years are set up for a 58mm diameter lens, so the f/4's 67mm will probably be too big, and you'll then have to move up to the "pro" lens bags whose diameters support a 77mm lens.

I do like that all/most of the L glass uses the same 77mm filters though, makes sharing expensive ones a little nicer for those of us you can't afford multiple $120 filters :p

You may want to take a look at the SlingShot 200 bag from LowePro. I had my local store order a few so I could check them out, but they look interesting and should support a 77mm tipped lens on the body in the 'quick-stow' area. The Nova 5 also holds a lot of large stuff pretty easily. I had a 20D w/ vert grip attached, w/ 24-70 f2.8 on it stowed face-down in the 'quick' slot, and a 70-200 f2.8IS in the side pocket still with room for another 2 or 3 lenses and a flash or two.

As long as I can afford it, I'll always buy the best I can simply for those situations where that single stop or two may make a big difference.

However, when shooting, it functionally is that extra +10mm of diameter in the glass that affords the faster glass. YMMV if you need it, but in my personal view (note: I just picked up the f/2.8 IS), it is when you get into lowlight conditions ... sunrise/sunset golden hour ... that you get frustrated at a system that's no faster than f/5.6 after you've put on a 1.4x teleextender and/or polarizer.

Do all polarizers snag a stop? I know that the 1.4x Teleconverter grabs one, but do the polarizers too? (can you tell I haven't opted cash for one yet?)

Everything is always going to be a trade-off, but I've found that having limited options is generally what drives one back to B&H to go buy something better...but its not really that its "better", but is a different trade-off. For example, the f/2.8 IS is a really fast system for low light conditions (especially after a high ISO is dialed in with a dSLR), but the trade-off is that it is an expensive and heavy lens. Sometimes, you'll want to stick with the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS because its much lighter (and less expensive too).

Of course, that is why there are different offers both in lenses and bodies for unique applications and users. I would love to have large, bulky, fast lenses, but someone else may love compact, light, moderately speedy lenses even though you could argue they are sacrificing things. Perhaps if more and more lenses continue to become offered as DO lenses (diffractive optics) and maintain a certain level of speed then we will see a movement to DO as a new 'standard'.

1200mm DO lens still 30" long :rolleyes: :p

edesignuk
Nov 29, 2005, 12:41 PM
The 50mm f1.8 arrived this morning, just took two very quick shots all on fully auto with the stock lens, the the 50mm f1.8, really surprising (to me) how much extra light the new lens sucks in.

http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/stockV50mm.jpg

efoto
Nov 29, 2005, 01:29 PM
The 50mm f1.8 arrived this morning, just took two very quick shots all on fully auto with the stock lens, the the 50mm f1.8, really surprising (to me) how much extra light the new lens sucks in.

[IMG]http://upload.yo-momma.net/uploads/forums/stockV50mm.jpg[IMG]

Awesome comparison, thanks for posting that edesignuk. What aperture settings was your stock lens at when at 50mm?

edesignuk
Nov 29, 2005, 01:32 PM
Awesome comparison, thanks for posting that edesignuk. What aperture settings was your stock lens at when at 50mm?er....good question, and I don't know. It was all on fully auto :o

BakedBeans
Nov 29, 2005, 01:33 PM
er....good question, and I don't know. It was all on fully auto :o

photoshop>file>info>advanced>exifproperties>aperture value

;)

efoto
Nov 29, 2005, 02:48 PM
er....good question, and I don't know. It was all on fully auto :o

:), quite alright. It seems that the BakedBeans posted should work, at least I assume so.

I'm just curious to see what that value is, all other things equal. The results obviously speak for themselves (quite obvious your kit lens isn't shooting f1.8 at 50mm) with the brighter being the 50 f1.8, I'm just curious what value the kit lens is at.

What is the overall aperture range on that lens? You are talking about the 18-55 right??

Assuming it is indeed this (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=10512) lens you are using, it has a f3.5-5.6 range, which would make me assume that it's using something around f5 @ 50mm
Can these cameras (meaning dslr.s) use non-standard aperture jumps? Basically, can you use something like 5.3 vs. 5.6??

benpatient
Nov 29, 2005, 03:29 PM
yes, they will use non-standard aperture jumps. It's fun to watch what my 50 f1.4 lens will do when I've got the shutter speed locked and the aperture set to "auto."

I get some apertures my old B&W photography professor would be fuming over....

1.6, 2.2, 3.2, 7.1, 20, etc.

efoto
Nov 29, 2005, 03:59 PM
yes, they will use non-standard aperture jumps. It's fun to watch what my 50 f1.4 lens will do when I've got the shutter speed locked and the aperture set to "auto."

I get some apertures my old B&W photography professor would be fuming over....

1.6, 2.2, 3.2, 7.1, 20, etc.

Is that a function of specific dslr bodies or is it a function of the lens? I'm not sure all bodies can do this do they? :confused:

-hh
Dec 1, 2005, 09:49 AM
When I went to my local retailer to mess around with these for research I noticed a difference between the 2.8 and 4, but...

FWIW, I'm still trying to get used to the 2.8 versus the lens I was using as its predecessor, the (old style) 75-300mm IS. IIRC, the latter's only a ~1lb lens.

You may want to take a look at the SlingShot 200 bag from LowePro.

I'm currently configuring two carrying systems: an airline transport system, and a "carry it around" system. For the former, I've got one of the Tamrac 'backpack' types that includes a sleeve that carries my 12" PB. For the latter, I had solicited advice on <rec.photo.digital.slr-systems> and was pointed to the Kinesis system.

The key to my requirements was in wanting a holster case that would swallow the 20D with both the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x teleextender attached ... the latter adds roughly an extra inch, which is what made the Lowepro "Off Trail 2 Camera Beltpack" I had picked up just a smidge too short (the zipper would close, but it was too tight). The Kinesis "c580" holster case is around an inch deeper and provides nice clearance:

http://www.kinesisgear.com/c.html#c580

Between the case, a heavy-duty belt, two lens cases and a dozen other little widgets (its a modular system), it has set me back another $300, but as a carrying system, it will most definitely do the job and the construction is top notch, so it will last for a decade or longer.

Do all polarizers snag a stop? I know that the 1.4x Teleconverter grabs one, but do the polarizers too? (can you tell I haven't opted cash for one yet?)

I'm pretty sure that they all do.

All in all, I generally value a polarizer more for wider angle shots, so I don't have to worry too much about the speed loss on a telephoto. Plus, I already have a 77mm for my WA lens, so if I do ever want to throw it on the 70-200 f/2.8, I'm covered.

<On Trade-Offs> Of course, that is why there are different offers both in lenses and bodies for unique applications and users. I would love to have large, bulky, fast lenses, but someone else may love compact, light, moderately speedy lenses even though you could argue they are sacrificing things.

Agreed. Even had I had the 2.8 last year when we went to Peru, there's simply no way that I would have lugged a lens that heavy with us on our hike of the Inca trail. Every extra pound on a 3 day / 20-25 miles (yeah, we took the "easy, short" route ... a lot lower elevation too: 8,000ft versus 11,000ft) hike is a trade-off. As it was, I left my 28-135mm IS behind.

The trade off is that when you do get lucky, the results can be less than stellar. There's a lot of frustrating fuzz in the below image, but there may be some hope for it, since its from only a 6MP scan a 35mm film original:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2004/peru/SV_cock-of-the-rock_c2_(24_0445).jpg

Peru's National Bird ("Cock of the Rock") taken with a 35mm Canon EOS Elan IIe and 75-300mm IS @ 300mm. Handheld; unknown f/shutter (shaded forest canopy, so probably f/5.6 and ~1/90sec) Film original scanned as 6MP JPEG; cropped ~75% (net effective focal length approx. ~1000mm).

But at least I have this shot :)

Perhaps if more and more lenses continue to become offered as DO lenses (diffractive optics) and maintain a certain level of speed then we will see a movement to DO as a new 'standard'.

1200mm DO lens still 30" long :rolleyes: :p

Agreed. The 400mm f/4 IS DO (my "wish" lens) is a good example: its only 9.2" long and 4.3 lbs. Plus when you add a 1.4x and a 20D the stack makes it effectively a 900mm f/5.6 IS, which at a 33% crop should give you the equivalent of a 6MP @ 1200mm f/5.6 IS

Despite the :eek: $5300 sticker it comes with, in comparison to the custom-order 1200mm f/5.6 (reported MSRP is $120,000), it can be considered "affordable".


-hh

amin
Dec 1, 2005, 06:41 PM
its not my opinion, the f4 is a sharper lens than both the f2.8 versions, check out canons charts.
I think you are misinterpreting Canon's MTF charts. The chart shows greater resolution of the f/4 lens at f/4 than for either f/2.8 lens at f/2.8. However, the f/2.8 lens at f/4 is sharper (more contrasty with greater resolving power) than the f/4 lens at f/4, albeit not by much. The chart doesn't tell anything about the f/2.8 lens abilities at f/4. The same can be said for the 300/2.8 versus the 300/4 as well. The trade-off is size/weight and price. For these reasons, I chose the 70-200 f/4 lens over the f/2.8 version. If money were not an issue, I would have the f/2.8 IS version. Semantics aside, the ability to shoot a stop faster does result in smooth backgrounds in some circumstances that would be impossible with a slower lens, not to mention obvious advantages in low light action photography (basically any candid photography of children). One of my favorite photos of my son is one I took using a borrowed 70-200/2.8 IS. This was shot at f/2.8 and the background would have been more distracting at f/4. Also, I'm not sure I could have gotten a clear shot of my son on the move holding my father's hand without the extra light. There's some banding on the background in the resized JPEG which isn't present at all on a nice large print:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/51/1435172-25aa8764cefb78ac.jpg

efoto
Dec 1, 2005, 08:45 PM
I think you are misinterpreting Canon's MTF charts. The chart shows greater resolution of the f/4 lens at f/4 than for either f/2.8 lens at f/2.8. However, the f/2.8 lens at f/4 is sharper (more contrasty with greater resolving power) than the f/4 lens at f/4, albeit not by much. The chart doesn't tell anything about the f/2.8 lens abilities at f/4. The same can be said for the 300/2.8 versus the 300/4 as well. The trade-off is size/weight and price. For these reasons, I chose the 70-200 f/4 lens over the f/2.8 version. If money were not an issue, I would have the f/2.8 IS version. Semantics aside, the ability to shoot a stop faster does result in smooth backgrounds in some circumstances that would be impossible with a slower lens, not to mention obvious advantages in low light action photography (basically any candid photography of children). One of my favorite photos of my son is one I took using a borrowed 70-200/2.8 IS. This was shot at f/2.8 and the background would have been more distracting at f/4. Also, I'm not sure I could have gotten a clear shot of my son on the move holding my father's hand without the extra light. There's some banding on the background in the resized JPEG which isn't present at all on a nice large print:
[img]http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/51/1435172-25aa8764cefb78ac.jpg[img]

WOW :eek: Amazing shot amin, simply stunning.

What you wrote seems to match what I trying to get at from what I had heard....that the 2.8's were sharper (at least as sharp) at f4 as the f4 was at f4. Anyway, I'm going back to jaw-dropping that shot, just amazing! Photography aside, you have an adorable son!! :)

amin
Dec 2, 2005, 12:03 AM
efoto, thank you for the very kind words about my son oliver and the photo!

BakedBeans
Dec 2, 2005, 02:20 AM
Amim, nice capture, shame about the cropped out hands outherwise it would have been near perfect - IMO the extra stop doesnt make a big difference to depth of field, not much difference but some.

I took the 2.8 IS out and loved it, I ordered one and then cancelled it because the price is horrific. The low light capabilities is awesome. I do find my F4 is great outdoors and is fast, sharp and contrast (im sure you find the same)

Im trying to find the MTF chart because im sure overall the lens is a touch sharper (although, not noticeably)

efoto
Dec 2, 2005, 07:47 AM
I took the 2.8 IS out and loved it, I ordered one and then cancelled it because the price is horrific. The low light capabilities is awesome. I do find my F4 is great outdoors and is fast, sharp and contrast (im sure you find the same)

Im trying to find the MTF chart because im sure overall the lens is a touch sharper (although, not noticeably)

The f2.8 is brighter which I believe to be the major selling point, not whether it is more or less sharp. Not to mention, starting low at f2.8 allows you to stick a 1.4x tele-converter and still have your f4 at a range of 98-280 (before camera mag if applicable), I think THAT is a major selling point as well.

I think the real gross upgrade is the IS. Canon charges over $500 for IS (on the 70-200), whereas the same IS is found on lenses costing below $500 retail. It makes me wonder how much IS costs (because I doubt that it is that much more in depth on a 70-200 compared to a 28-135 ($419 retail)).

BakedBeans
Dec 2, 2005, 07:52 AM
The f2.8 is brighter which I believe to be the major selling point, not whether it is more or less sharp.

brighter? faster do you mean.

Not to mention, starting low at f2.8 allows you to stick a 1.4x tele-converter and still have your f4 at a range of 98-280 (before camera mag if applicable), I think THAT is a major selling point as well.

yeah, your spot on with that, that is a huge selling point. the f4 is OK with it but not great but the 2.8 (IS esspecially) is awesome with the teleconverter on it.

-hh
Dec 2, 2005, 10:31 AM
I think the real gross upgrade is the IS. Canon charges over $500 for IS (on the 70-200), whereas the same IS is found on lenses costing below $500 retail. It makes me wonder how much IS costs (because I doubt that it is that much more in depth on a 70-200 compared to a 28-135 ($419 retail)).

I think the arguement that Canon will make is which "Generation" of IS is on each lens, which then justifies whatever price differential they're trying to get away with.

In general, my 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS both have IIRC "1st Gen" IS systems which basically have just an on/off setting. If you need to pan on a moving subject (birds, etc), you're supposed to turn them off.

Their L glass has (at least) 2nd generation IS, which has a switch that allows panning shots.

In reading the documentation, its my impression that all that that this switch *might* be doing is to leave the Y-axis (vertical) gyroscope turned on and to turn off the X-axis (horizontal axis) gyroscope.

It sounds like this approach would work for panning across the frame, but not for going against the grain (ie, rotated to a vertical composition, but panning horizontally).


There's also some inference of a claim about it also somehow being able to sense if you're mounted on a tripod and it will disable itself...? I'm still trying to sort this one out, as well as to try to figure out how the system knows what to do - - I'm wondering if its a simple switch that senses if the tripod ring mount is present, which means that I have to remove the tripod ring mount in order to get IS when in handheld mode...? I currently have the ring mount on, since that way I won't lose it :)


-hh

efoto
Dec 2, 2005, 01:59 PM
brighter? faster do you mean.

f2.8 lets in more light than f4 right? all other settings and conditions equal....

I think the arguement that Canon will make is which "Generation" of IS is on each lens, which then justifies whatever price differential they're trying to get away with.

Right, and I knew this but I didn't have the technical knowledge/specs to cite an example or proof, so I left it out. I figured the 70-200 2.8 IS has the latest, whereas the "budget" IS lenses are at one of the earlier versions, but I didn't know for sure.

As far as that auto-sensing thing, the crew at my camera store said that the 70-200 2.8 IS has v.3. This latest version has .off, .on (fully), .on pan modes, so three settings. I guess v.2 had this as well, but v.3 has simply been upgraded for speed and accuracy.

amin
Dec 2, 2005, 08:40 PM
Amim, nice capture, shame about the cropped out hands outherwise it would have been near perfect - IMO the extra stop doesnt make a big difference to depth of field, not much difference but some.
I find that background blur is noticeably different. Here's a duck at f/4:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/44/74/1537444-8e10ac7b29dc8ed7.jpg
Basically same shot at f/2.8:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/56/52/1535256-aaac036755f4a343.jpg
Then again, even at f/4 you can always work the DOF by moving closer:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/41/1524172-0dc0fa91a713150e.jpg
I took the 2.8 IS out and loved it, I ordered one and then cancelled it because the price is horrific. The low light capabilities is awesome. I do find my F4 is great outdoors and is fast, sharp and contrast (im sure you find the same)
I agree that the f/4 is a great outdoor lens. Here's a squirrel shot I grabbed with it in my backyard:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/55/87/1518755-70cdbbfa399e8751.jpg

amin
Dec 3, 2005, 04:11 PM
Im trying to find the MTF chart because im sure overall the lens is a touch sharper (although, not noticeably)
The MTFs are available here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=150
Here are the MTFs for the f/2.8 IS:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28ismtf1.gif
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28ismtf2.gif
Here are the MTFs for the f/2.8 non-IS:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28mtf1.gif
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_28mtf2.gif
Here are the MTFs for the f/4 lens
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_4mtf1.gif
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_70-200_4mtf2.gif

Comparing line for line, the f/4 lens may look like it should be sharper. Again, this is because one is comparing the f/2.8 lens wide open to the f/4 lens wide open when the fair comparison is the f/2.8 lens stopped down to f/4 versus the f/4 lens wide open. The MTF charts can't tell you that, but most folkd agree the faster zoom is the sharper one, by a touch.

efoto
Dec 4, 2005, 04:43 PM
I find that background blur is noticeably different. Here's a duck at f/4:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/44/74/1537444-8e10ac7b29dc8ed7.jpg
Basically same shot at f/2.8:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/56/52/1535256-aaac036755f4a343.jpg
Then again, even at f/4 you can always work the DOF by moving closer:
http://photos.photosig.com/photos/72/41/1524172-0dc0fa91a713150e.jpg

I agree that the f/4 is a great outdoor lens. Here's a squirrel shot I grabbed with it in my backyard:
[img]http://photos.photosig.com/photos/55/87/1518755-70cdbbfa399e8751.jpg[img]

That freaky squirrel, trying to get all up on your fence like that :rolleyes:

Great shots yet again amin. Do you have an online gallery or work posted anywhere else? I'm quite impressed with the shots you have, I'd love to see more ;)

amin
Dec 4, 2005, 08:58 PM
Funny, I'll never look at that squirrel shot the same way again =].

I have posted some shots online, mostly family snapshots, zoo pics, backyard birds, and the like. Nothing too original. Thank you for the nice compliment though!

Dr_Maybe
Jan 7, 2006, 01:33 AM
350d + grip
18-55
50mm f1.8
70-200 L

That's excactly what I got just recently, except for the battery grip!

Best bang for the buck must be the 50mm. It is very sharp. The 70-200 lens is a nice piece of quality equipment, but I haven't used it a lot yet :rolleyes:

I got the camera with the 18-55mm kit lens because i wanted something wide without spending to much money. It is versatile because of the zoom range, but not very fast or super sharp. But it's OK, you can still take good pictures with it.

In the US you can get a good rebate since the Rebel XT (aka 350d) and 70-200L are included in the rebate program that expires January 15, 2006.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 7, 2006, 08:13 AM
I got the camera with the 18-55mm kit lens because i wanted something wide without spending to much money. It is versatile because of the zoom range, but not very fast or super sharp. But it's OK, you can still take good pictures with it.

Good choice here for the short term. At PMA in February and at Photokina in October (?), you will see most likely a few fast, sharp 18-55 zoom lenses announced from maybe Canon, Tamron, and others.

Yogurt
Jan 19, 2006, 07:51 AM
shame that i missed the great off from canon (where they offered 100 discounts on this if purchased by the end of last year!)

mate has got one! result is just truely amazing, especially for the price! !

Mike Teezie
Jan 24, 2006, 07:36 PM
A little off topic, but I finally got my 70-200 f/4 L in a few weeks back

http://mnjordan.com/images/misc/mr/lglass.jpg.

Now I just have to snap a shot of my girlfriend holding it, eh efoto?

:D

xPismo
Jan 24, 2006, 07:50 PM
Is that a function of specific dslr bodies or is it a function of the lens? I'm not sure all bodies can do this do they? :confused:


Yeah. Shutter priority should relegate aperature values to the 1/2 or 1/3 stop values you set in the settings. Not sure how Nikon plays this game, but I'm rather sure its the same. (I'm a Canon user).

Aperature values are just human concepts anyway. :D The lens dosn't really care.

(edit, whoops sorry. discussion was a page back.)

jared_kipe
Jan 24, 2006, 08:39 PM
Couple of problems here. Firstly, the difference between 2.8 and 4 is 1 stop, not 1.2 stops. ;) By construction, what we call 1 stop means the loss or gain of twice as much light (light and all other bosons are linear symmetric).

Meaning if you meter something at shutter speed of 1/100th of a second at f4, then at f2.8 you'll meter 1/200th second.

ALL polarizing filters loose 1 stop for this very definition. A polarizer cuts exactly 1/2 the incoming unpolarized light. UNLESS the light is already polarized at which point the angle matters and it goes from letting 100% of the light through to 0%.

And lastly the lens does care about its fstop number, because that number is a ratio between the opening of the lens (and how much light it lets through) to its focal length. Thus its easier to have a fast lens when its focal length makes it possible to be big diameter, like around 50-85mm. Too wide, and you have to shape the light so much you will end up taking too many big lenses to do it effectively. And to long and the glass has to be HUGE to be a good ratio to how long the focal length. And thus from using the ideology from the earlier game we played, when you cut the radius of the opening of a circle in half then you loose one stop of light and the number displayed on the camera must indicate this based on its starting aperture value. PHEW. You can figure out what number is one stop using wide aperture lenses by checking if your camera is set to 1/2 or 1/3 stop intervals and going to aperture priority and change the aperture smaller 2 or 3 times respectively.

Lastly (really this time) you don't need L glass when you are starting off or even if you're a pro. Check out sigma lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM, which is comparable in performance to the canon 70-200mm 2.8 L but comparable in price to the canon 70-200mm 4 L. And even consumer grade lenses can take good pictures, heres something I shot with my Canon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM II. (for sale if anyone is interested $200 shipped PM me :))
http://www.sailbyair.com/lake.jpg

jared_kipe
Jan 24, 2006, 09:18 PM
I recently had to do a archive and install to fix a hard drive problem, and ever since reinstalling CS2 the "save for web" feature seems to desaturate the crapola out of my images, as can be seen by this one. ^^

ziwi
Jan 25, 2006, 12:19 PM
I recently purchased a 350D - and love it. Took advantage of the rebate program, but now I am in need of something on the longer end - I purchased the 17-40 for the travel lens as the wide side really does come in handy. I also purchased the 50 1.4 for the low light conditions during normal use - I don't know what to do for the longer side - debating between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f4 L. Similar price, but the IS intrigues me. Any thoughts on this? Can the 70-200 good hand held? Or will I lose too many shots?

oblomow
Jan 25, 2006, 12:49 PM
same here. I just purchased a 350D with a 17-40L (still have some focus trouble at infinity, but that must be me) and I am considering a small
tele too. Perhaps just a fixed lens. 85 or 135. Before I went digital I had a
pentax SLR with a 24mm and a 135. that was enough for most of my needs.

jared_kipe
Jan 26, 2006, 09:04 AM
I recently purchased a 350D - and love it. Took advantage of the rebate program, but now I am in need of something on the longer end - I purchased the 17-40 for the travel lens as the wide side really does come in handy. I also purchased the 50 1.4 for the low light conditions during normal use - I don't know what to do for the longer side - debating between the 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f4 L. Similar price, but the IS intrigues me. Any thoughts on this? Can the 70-200 good hand held? Or will I lose too many shots?
I'd get the 70-300, almost as good optically much better than the old 75-300mm. Its quite a bit longer, and its only 1 stop slower on the light scale. But IS gives you 2-3 stops , so its actually more like a f2.8 or f2.0 for hand held situations. Of course you won't get as shallow DOF (maybe at 300mm) and it will be 1 stop slower on the "freeze motion" scale. Plus its way smaller.

ChrisA
Jan 26, 2006, 01:16 PM
same here. I just purchased a 350D with a 17-40L (still have some focus trouble at infinity, but that must be me) and I am considering a small
tele too. Perhaps just a fixed lens. 85 or 135. Before I went digital I had a
pentax SLR with a 24mm and a 135. that was enough for most of my needs.

The 85mm is great. (I have Nikon gear but I'm sure Canon is the same here) My 85mm opens up to f/1.8 I can't can't get a 135mm f/1.8 lens With the smaller format of d350 vs. 35mm film the 85 acts like a 135mm f/1.8 lens

All this talk about I don't need a fast lens I have "IS". Well, if you use a flash for daytime fill in light to control shadow depth you DO want a fast tele. The effective range in feet of a strobe depends on the f-stop. Shooting animals at the zoo in bright daylight, a fill flash helps but at 50+ feet you'd need a studio strobe setup if the lens can only do f/5.6

Just one more thing to concider

-hh
Jan 26, 2006, 02:17 PM
I recently had to do a archive and install to fix a hard drive problem, and ever since reinstalling CS2 the "save for web" feature seems to desaturate the crapola out of my images, as can be seen by this one. ^^


I've been hitting the same problem, but I've not tracked it down yet.

I *think* that its probably related to the color space definition - - sRGB or whatever - - as I suspect that what is happening is that the 'save for web' is eliminating the color space adjustments in order to "bland-ize" the .JPG.


For example, the RAW was a faithful rendition, but this (http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/hawaii/diamond_head_sunrise.jpg) saved-for-web JPEG of a pre-dawn view of sunrise is easily a full stop lighter than what IMO it "should be", which resulted in a loss of colors.


-hh

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 26, 2006, 08:50 PM
The 85mm is great. (I have Nikon gear but I'm sure Canon is the same here) My 85mm opens up to f/1.8 I can't can't get a 135mm f/1.8 lens With the smaller format of d350 vs. 35mm film the 85 acts like a 135mm f/1.8 lens

You can get a 135mm f2.0 Nikkor however (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=113487&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation)

All this talk about I don't need a fast lens I have "IS". Well, if you use a flash for daytime fill in light to control shadow depth you DO want a fast tele. The effective range in feet of a strobe depends on the f-stop. Shooting animals at the zoo in bright daylight, a fill flash helps but at 50+ feet you'd need a studio strobe setup if the lens can only do f/5.6

Good point. And the other aspect is being able to have less DOF in order to separate your subject from the background.

kwajo.com
Jan 27, 2006, 03:14 PM
I recently had to do a archive and install to fix a hard drive problem, and ever since reinstalling CS2 the "save for web" feature seems to desaturate the crapola out of my images, as can be seen by this one. ^^


same thing for me too, it's very very annoying

jared_kipe
Jan 27, 2006, 09:29 PM
Have you found the problem with it yet? I guess it will only matter if it does it on my new imac, which I'm installing software on now (except aperture cause Apple is greedy about the Pro apps and want to force everyone to pay $50 per app again to have it run on new machines, which should be illegal).

EDIT: This is gonna be one hell of a machine once everything gets universal and compiled properly, 2GB ram, 256VRAM, 2GHz Core Duo.. mmm

Abstract
Jan 28, 2006, 06:14 PM
Good point. And the other aspect is being able to have less DOF in order to separate your subject from the background.

Yeah, but with the 70-300 mm IS you'd have a comparably small DOF anyway when compared to the 70-200 mm, even at f5.6 at the 300mm end, no?

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 28, 2006, 09:13 PM
Yeah, but with the 70-300 mm IS you'd have a comparably small DOF anyway when compared to the 70-200 mm, even at f5.6 at the 300mm end, no?

I hope I have my math right.

If you focus at a subject at 300mm at 20 feet at f/5.6 your depth of field would be 19.9 feet to about 20.1 feet (.2 feet of DOF). In order to get the same FOV at 200mm you would need to reduce your distance to 26 feet (33% difference in focal length). In order to get the same field of view (FOV) with the 200mm compared to the 300mm, you need to get 33% closer. In this case I rounded that to 26 feet for the example below.

The DOF though changes due to the closer focus distance. In this case at f/5.6 the DOF at 200mm at 26 feet the DOF is 25.5 to 26.6 feet (1.1 feet of DOF). But at f/2.8 that becomes 25.7 to 26.3 feet (.6 feet of DOF).

But that does not factor in the differing perspective change. And that perspective is why some would choose 300mm (more compressed at a given distance) or visa verssa by going to 200mm (less compressed) with the same FOV.

Edited to correct for bad data, thanks Abstract! Relooked at all numbers and made the corrections above. Hope it is more clear now.

jared_kipe
Jan 28, 2006, 09:54 PM
Depth of field is such a subjective quantity because it all depends on what you consider your circle of convergence to be in the first place. Its pretty easy to get a blurry backgroud, but its very hard to get a very diffuse looking background. In fast this is a question on compression, and not DOF. The longer the lens is, the less of the background there will be to blur, thus a more diffuse blurry looking background. This and working distance are the two reasons to get a longer macro lens.

eXan
Jan 29, 2006, 03:51 AM
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/5277/eaglestare0ek.jpg

Nice photo! Though the end of bird's beak is slightly out of focus, it's still a good pic :)

Abstract
Jan 29, 2006, 04:03 AM
The DOF though changes due to the closer focus distance. In this case at f/5.6 the DOF at 200mm at 26 feet the DOF is 25.8 to 26.2 feet. But at f/2.8 that becomes 25.1 to 26.1 feet. Not much in this instance, but at closer distances it becomes more apparent.

When your subject is 26 feet away, why would the depth of field range increase from 25.8 to 26.2 feet (a range of 0.4 feet) at f/5.6, to a DOF of 25.1-26.1 feet (or a range of 1 ft) when changed to f/2.8?? Shouldn't the focal range decrease as the aperture is increased (when subject distance and focal length are kept constant)?? :confused:

Sorry, just trying to learn something from someone who obviously knows what he's doing.

groovebuster
Jan 29, 2006, 10:01 AM
I bought my EOS 350D in Oktober and I am very satisfied with it... I think I know a little bit more about photography than the average guy, but the "expert talk" in here is a little bit too much for me... I don't really enjoy going on and on about technical things for hours.

groovebuster

http://www.kleberg.net/download/pictures/shot1.jpg
http://www.kleberg.net/download/pictures/shot2.jpg
http://www.kleberg.net/download/pictures/shot3.jpg

-hh
Jan 30, 2006, 11:42 AM
When your subject is 26 feet away, why would the depth of field range increase from 25.8 to 26.2 feet (a range of 0.4 feet) at f/5.6, to a DOF of 25.1-26.1 feet (or a range of 1 ft) when changed to f/2.8?? Shouldn't the focal range decrease as the aperture is increased (when subject distance and focal length are kept constant)?? :confused:

Sorry, just trying to learn something from someone who obviously knows what he's doing.

FWIW, I'm confused too - - - I think there's something wonky in those numbers that's either a typo, or we've missed some aspect of the explanation that Chip NoVaMac was trying to provide.

I do know that the general rule of thumb is that depth of field (DOF) will decrease with faster f/stop ... but this is a when "all other factors are equal" rule.

What I think was the additional complexity here was a "not all other factors equal" type of question. If I was following correctly, I think the basic question was:


"If I have a DOF of "A" @ 300m f5.6 at subject distance of 40ft, what happens when...?"

The first Option is:

"...when I have a 200mm lens and I choose to move closer to the subject until the field of view (FOV) is the same. At this point I'll then be at "X" feet (26ft?), and at f/"Y", my DOF will be "Z".


DOF "Z" versus DOF "A" is ______, which means _______.


-hh

-hh
Jan 30, 2006, 12:01 PM
...I think I know a little bit more about photography than the average guy, but the "expert talk" in here is a little bit too much for me... I don't really enjoy going on and on about technical things for hours.


Some of it can very easily go overboard into esoteric ...I've seen some stuff that gets down into the minutia of quantum mechanics on photons received per receptor as it relates to digital camera noise levels, etc. Heavy stuff.

The level of 'appropriate' technical detail is one of personal preference. For me personally, I'm of the opinion that having a better understanding of how your equipment works can only help you to take better images overall. From there, its only a question of "how deep" you want to dig on a particular topic to get good enough comprehension as to what's going on.

For example, knowing that depth-of-field descreases with faster f/stops is a good-to-know and isn't IMO all that technically "deep". Exactly why this is, I'll skip for now, thanks ("deeper" than I probably need to know right now). But it is also useful to then take this factor into account when trying to compare the DOF of a 300mm lens versus a 200mm lens, particularly if/when that starts to lead towards a purchase decision.

Yes, its starting to become a more complicated question, but since it costs us all real money out of our own pockets, it is usually good for us to have a basic idea what the trade-off's are, before we buy ... instead of discovering it afterwords, for the latter would be a "planning to not plan" approach.


-hh

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 30, 2006, 12:26 PM
When your subject is 26 feet away, why would the depth of field range increase from 25.8 to 26.2 feet (a range of 0.4 feet) at f/5.6, to a DOF of 25.1-26.1 feet (or a range of 1 ft) when changed to f/2.8?? Shouldn't the focal range decrease as the aperture is increased (when subject distance and focal length are kept constant)?? :confused:

Sorry, just trying to learn something from someone who obviously knows what he's doing.

Sorry to leave you confused. It was a mistake on my part from using the DOF Calculator here (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html). Evidently you need to refresh before each calculation.

I now know that I will need to double and triple check my number when posting.

ChrisA
Jan 30, 2006, 12:29 PM
Is that a function of specific dslr bodies or is it a function of the lens? I'm not sure all bodies can do this do they? :confused:

The best answer is "It depends"

The newer SRL bodys allow you to set to f-stop from a control dial on the body. You can set it by either 1/3rd or 1/2 stops. (You can choose either 1/3 or 1/2 per "click") Also when the body is set to shutter priority or auto the system may select an f-stop that is acurate to the nearest 1/3rd stop. But if you use the lens ring that ring it clicks is full stops (or 1/2 stops in some cases). But note that on some camera you must lock the lens ring

Typically on the high-end bodies you can use the ring on the lens. With Nikon the answer varies a lot because you can use the old manula focus lenes on the new bodies and there are 100 possable combinations of bodies and lens types.

This subject is not specific to digital cameras and applies to film as well. It's justthat the film camera don't record the odd ball f/7.8 stop and 1/133 shuter so you son't notic it later.

I whish they'd make a digital back for my Nikon F2. I stil like the way the F2 handles

-hh
Jan 30, 2006, 12:58 PM
Sorry to leave you confused. It was a mistake on my part from using the DOF Calculator here (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.

Nice tool.

Here's some numbers that I think helps to illustrate the general questions.

Measurement of merit for each is "Total Depth of Field"

35mm, 300mm f/5.6, focus distance 40ft: 1.79 ft
35mm, 300mm f/4.0, focus distance 40ft: 1.27 ft
35mm, 300mm f/2.8, focus distance 40ft: 0.9 ft

35mm, 200mm f/5.6, focus distance 40ft: 4.08 ft
35mm, 200mm f/4.0, focus distance 40ft: 2.88 ft
35mm, 200mm f/2.8, focus distance 40ft: 2.04 ft


Given: a 200mm lens at 26.55 ft produces the same field of view as a 300mm lens at 40ft.

35mm, 200mm f/5.6, focus distance 26.55ft: 1.78 ft
35mm, 200mm f/4.0, focus distance 26.55ft: 1.26 ft
35mm, 200mm f/2.8, focus distance 26.55ft: 0.89 ft


Okay, now this is interesting, for this suggests that the DOF is nearly identical at the same f/stop and field of view. As such, if you have a situation where you can't change your f/stop, if you need more DOF, you can back off the focal length ...and recompose later by cropping it in. Of course, you'll lose some image resolution (pixels and/or grain), but it at least affords the option of starting out with more (ALL?) of the subject actually in focus. Correct?


-hh

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 30, 2006, 02:58 PM
Nice tool.

Here's some numbers that I think helps to illustrate the general questions.

Measurement of merit for each is "Total Depth of Field"Okay, now this is interesting, for this suggests that the DOF is nearly identical at the same f/stop and field of view. As such, if you have a situation where you can't change your f/stop, if you need more DOF, you can back off the focal length ...and recompose later by cropping it in. Of course, you'll lose some image resolution (pixels and/or grain), but it at least affords the option of starting out with more (ALL?) of the subject actually in focus. Correct?


-hh

But in doing the 350D:

350D, 200mm f/5.6, focus distance 26.55ft: 1.13 ft
35mm, 300mm f/5.6, focus distance 40ft: 1.79 ft

The differences between formats IIRC is due to the Circle of Confusion (COC).

So note that both of the respective focal lengths for a given format will give the same FOV; but at the telephoto end one would have less DOF in the 350D in this example.

You had me look at the wide angle end.

350D, 18mm f/3.6, focus distance 7.98ft: 10.8 ft
35mm, 28mm f/3.6, focus distance 6ft: 3.14 ft


But the opposite is true when looking at the wide angle end.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 30, 2006, 04:03 PM
Thanks to OutThere for a great link showing what focal lengths do to perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28caused_by_camera_to_subject_distance%29

-hh
Jan 30, 2006, 04:24 PM
But in doing the 350D:

350D, 200mm f/5.6, focus distance 26.55ft: 1.13 ft
35mm, 300mm f/5.6, focus distance 40ft: 1.79 ft

The differences between formats IIRC is due to the Circle of Confusion (COC).

I think we'll need to have a workshop on Circle of Confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion) to help us all understand it a lot better.

In any case, I'm not sure that its appropriate to use the 26.55ft focus distance with the 350D. For one thing, I was assuming that both the 200mm and 300mm lenses were being used on the "same camera" (and that it was 35mm) when I derived where the 26.55 ft distance came from...

Since I didn't document it, bascially, what I did was a straight trigenometric calculation based on a 35mm's 300mm having a defined horizontal coverage of 6.8673 degrees, and a 200mm being 10.2855 degrees. These two values came from Rui Salgueiro's field-of-view calculator (http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html). The resulting formula was then:

40ft * TAN(6.8673)/TAN(10.2855) = distance = 26.55ft

In looking at this specific to the 350D, since due to its 1.6x crop factor, wouldn't this suggest that a 200mm would be an effective 320mm for field of view, and that we would need to take this into account? If so, this would suggest that for purposes of varying distance-to-subject to match what the 35mm with 300mm sees, the 350D with 200mm should then end up needing to be be slightly further away than 40ft, not closer.


You had me look at the wide angle end.

I'll try to look at this tomorrow.

-hh

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 30, 2006, 04:48 PM
I think we'll need to have a workshop on Circle of Confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion) to help us all understand it a lot better.

I will look at that later.

In any case, I'm not sure that its appropriate to use the 26.55ft focus distance with the 350D. For one thing, I was assuming that both the 200mm and 300mm lenses were being used on the "same camera" (and that it was 35mm) when I derived where the 26.55 ft distance came from...

But in the discussion of the effect a lens has in 35mm vs lets say the 350D has on DOF; it is important. For the 26.55 ft distance is what a 350D would need to focus at with a 200mm lens in order to equal the FOV of a 35mm camera with a 300mm lens at 40 feet.

The smaller sensor has a cropping factor as called by some, the more proper phrase would field of view (FOV).

In looking at this specific to the 350D, since due to its 1.6x crop factor, wouldn't this suggest that a 200mm would be an effective 320mm for field of view, and that we would need to take this into account? If so, this would suggest that for purposes of varying distance-to-subject to match what the 35mm with 300mm sees, the 350D with 200mm should then end up needing to be be slightly further away than 40ft, not closer.

Right you are. I used the easier method of using a FOV factor 1.5x, figuring differences would be small between FOV factors of 1.5x and 1.6x when compared to the 35mm format.




I'll try to look at this tomorrow.

-hh[/QUOTE]

scu
Feb 1, 2006, 06:19 PM
After reading most of this thread, I am no closer to figuring out which lens to buy. I own a Rebel which I love, but would like to buy a new zoom lense and a better regular lense. Any recommendations.

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 1, 2006, 06:40 PM
After reading most of this thread, I am no closer to figuring out which lens to buy. I own a Rebel which I love, but would like to buy a new zoom lense and a better regular lense. Any recommendations.

Depends on your total budget.

scu
Feb 3, 2006, 11:37 PM
Depends on your total budget.

My friend recommended this lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=149629&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

What do you think?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 12:01 AM
My friend recommended this lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=149629&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

What do you think?

The 28-135IS is a great lens. But with a DSLR it covers a range 45 to 216mm in 35mm FOV. It may not cover the wider FOV that you desire for general picture taking. For about $100 more (US) a better choice may be the 17-85IS (28-135 -35mm FOV).

Abstract
Feb 4, 2006, 09:34 AM
Anything that starts from 28 mm isn't useful, IMO. If it goes from 28-135mm, it isn't wide enough at 28 mm to be useful. I actually don't have a problem with the 135mm part of the lense, but the "28 mm" part stands out for me. Either own a wide angle lense and a separate telephoto lense, or get a single lense that starts from 17 or 18 mm and goes up from there, like that 17-85mm that Chip suggested.

arogge
Feb 4, 2006, 12:12 PM
The Canon 28-135 is a good lens. It isn't really wide-angle, but it has IS and a short telephoto length for a low price. What focal lengths and apertures do you need, and what is a "regular" lens?

Chip NoVaMac
Feb 4, 2006, 05:55 PM
Anything that starts from 28 mm isn't useful, IMO. If it goes from 28-135mm, it isn't wide enough at 28 mm to be useful. I actually don't have a problem with the 135mm part of the lense, but the "28 mm" part stands out for me. Either own a wide angle lense and a separate telephoto lense, or get a single lense that starts from 17 or 18 mm and goes up from there, like that 17-85mm that Chip suggested.

It depends on ones "personal vision". Some see "wide angle" others see more telephoto. [In SF I found my most used lens was a 12-24 Tokina on my XT (35mm FOV of a 19-38mm). So on my up coming trip, it will be interesting to see how I make out with a 35mm FOV of 27-300mm on my D50 + my 10.5 fisheye.] I have had many customers totally happy with their use of the 28-135IS on the DSLR's.

Clix Pix
Feb 4, 2006, 06:09 PM
It depends on ones "personal vision". Some see "wide angle" others see more telephoto. [In SF I found my most used lens was a 12-24 Tokina on my XT (35mm FOV of a 19-38mm). So on my up coming trip, it will be interesting to see how I make out with a 35mm FOV of 27-300mm on my D50 + my 10.5 fisheye.] I have had many customers totally happy with their use of the 28-135IS on the DSLR's.


In my recent trip to SF, I used the 18-200mm lens the most, but definitely found that there were times when the wider 12-24 really fit the bill. Certainly if anyone were traveling and touring museums and such, that wider lens would be so good to have!

-hh
Feb 6, 2006, 10:48 AM
It depends on ones "personal vision". Some see "wide angle" others see more telephoto. [In SF I found my most used lens was a 12-24 Tokina on my XT (35mm FOV of a 19-38mm). So on my up coming trip, it will be interesting to see how I make out with a 35mm FOV of 27-300mm on my D50 + my 10.5 fisheye.] I have had many customers totally happy with their use of the 28-135IS on the DSLR's.


I have a 28-135 IS that I've been thinking about selling...although this was still when I was using film...I've not yet tried it on my 20D.

For the most part, my 'retirement' of it was for what Chip refers to with "personal vision": I was very frequently using the lens either all the way in or all the way out.

What took this lens's place was a 19-35mm and a 75-300IS, and due to travel weight restrictions to Peru in 2004, I stopped carrying the 28-135IS entirely. I don't think I miss it, although I do know that if I really needed between 35mm and 75mm, I could use our {4MP} P&S backup camera.

Now that I've gone to the 20D, I am concerned that I'm not going to be wide enough (19mm*1.6 = ~28mm) for my vision, so that's an item on my "to think about what to do about it" list...I have to wait until my wife recovers from me buying a 70-200 f/2.8 IS w/1.4x to replace the 75-300IS, and then decide if I'm going to sell off the 75-300IS too.

If I had to take a stab at it right now for what I think that I'd want to have as my personal 'perfect' focal lengths, without any restrictions on cost or reality, I'd say that my greatest interests would be for (in 35mm equivalents) a 12-35mm WA, and a 200-600 f/fast+IS. It shouldn't be too surprising that this is a "wider than what I have now" and a "longer than I have now"...I think I see a pattern! And of course, it also would need to be lightweight, compact, highest quality and inexpensive. :-)


-hh

scu
Feb 8, 2006, 03:45 PM
Thank You guys. You gave me a great deal to consider. I am off to the camera shop to buy a remote for mine.