canon 70-300mm vs 55-250mm vs 70-200mm F4

[nottipiglet]

I'm fine for handholding lenses up to 300mm. Even doing macros on mine is no problem as u'll require flash coupled with fast shutter speeds.

No lah... flash light is not flattering most of the time. Flash cannot replace IS. You will get the pictures sharp, but they won't be nice most of the time. Not unless you plan for the direction of light to be right... like bouncing it off some wall/ceiling, etc. But we cannot always find a good surface to bounce. Then there is also the problem of temperature. If we shoot in tungsten environment, the flash will intruduce composite lighting... and you will have to spend many hours at photoshop to clean it up (if even possible).

 

[Snoweagle]

No lah... flash light is not flattering most of the time. Flash cannot replace IS. You will get the pictures sharp, but they won't be nice most of the time. Not unless you plan for the direction of light to be right... like bouncing it off some wall/ceiling, etc. But we cannot always find a good surface to bounce. Then there is also the problem of temperature. If we shoot in tungsten environment, the flash will intruduce composite lighting... and you will have to spend many hours at photoshop to clean it up (if even possible).

I disagree. For the case of macro, flash is essential.

Here's an example taken with my Sigma 70-300. No PP was done to the pic except resizing and bordering. No cropping done too.

 

[ditikolon]

I disagree. For the case of macro, flash is essential.

Here's an example taken with my Sigma 70-300. No PP was done to the pic except resizing and bordering. No cropping done too.

Agree. I daresay almost all serious macro shooters use flash. It's just a matter of timing your exposures and adjusting your flash output. Fill is definitely important.

Besides shooting in a low-light tungsten environment I would opt for a fast primes like 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135L. Having just one of these would help significantly. I shoot often in a low-light tungsten location (churches) so owning 1 or 2 fast primes is absolutely essential for me.

If the lighting gives me about 1/30 with f/4, I'd opt for flash photography. I'll just meter for the background light, cut it by 2/3 stops and use fill flash. If I insist on not using flash, I'd get dark pictures with motion blur, esp on a slow lens like 70-300 with f/5.6 on the long end....

 

[nottipiglet]

Agree. I daresay almost all serious macro shooters use flash. It's just a matter of timing your exposures and adjusting your flash output. Fill is definitely important.

Besides shooting in a low-light tungsten environment I would opt for a fast primes like 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135L. Having just one of these would help significantly. I shoot often in a low-light tungsten location (churches) so owning 1 or 2 fast primes is absolutely essential for me.

Of course... but we are talking about a tele zoom here. It is meant for more versatile usage rather than just shooting macro. In macro photography, flash is necessary. I use the 100mm macro if I want to take macro.

We are talking about a general tele zoom here... and we are saying that IS is very helpful. Then you guys say that a zoom is useful for macro as well... and flash is useful/necessary for macro... and when you flash, IS is not necessary. You see the flaw in the argument? Flash is not necessary for most shots if you understand lighting and exposure. IS is helpful in that it increases the instances where flash and tripods are not necessary.

I know that a lot of photographers in Singapore use flash indiscriminately for some reason. They fire flash at almost all instances. It should be the case that flash is used only when necessary to create a creative effect (and yes, flash is good for macro) and flash should be used with good understanding of the effect of flash. It should not be used as a sorry replacement for the photographers lack of understanding of existing light, and hence use the flash to mask out existing light.

And let's not bring in primes into the picture. Primes are great, but everytime you go for a shoot, you look like Doraemon with a bunch of tricks in his bag.... fishing out prime after prime and switching lens. Really troublesome. Admittedly, I used to do it when necessary... but it has very little relevance to the usefulness of the IS on a tele zoom.

I take mainly people, family portraits, family events and travel pictures... and I suspect most photographers here are the same... and IS is very very useful. If macro is your thing... then I really suggest the EF 100mm f/2.8 macro, and a macro ring light.

 

[nottipiglet]

If the lighting gives me about 1/30 with f/4, I'd opt for flash photography. I'll just meter for the background light, cut it by 2/3 stops and use fill flash. If I insist on not using flash, I'd get dark pictures with motion blur, esp on a slow lens like 70-300 with f/5.6 on the long end....

Just to OT a bit... since this is not really about how useful the IS on a tele is...

If the lighting gives me about 1/30 with f/4, I would mount the flash. But I do not fire the flash on all shots... like I know some photographers do. If you can get the shot without flash, it is in most instances more natural looking... but it also takes some skill. Under such conditions, I would prefer to work with a zoom with f/2.8. I find that most dinner at restaurants can be shot with f/2.8, ISO800, 1/30s. If you bump the ISO up to 1600, you can get 1/60s, which is quite good to work with. I would then switch between the 2 settings... depending on how fidgety the subject is. But if I get harsh shadows, then I would reluctantly use the flash, and look for good bounce surfaces. Of course, if I just fire the flash away (like most people), I will get all the shots... but at the price of quality (which begs the question... how many bad pictures do we need?). If you can get the flash off camera, then it would be really great... since you can place the light at ideal locations... but then I'd need an assistant to hold the light, or get a lightstand... which is too impractical to be considered.

If you don't have a zoom with f/2.8, then it is better to work with a prime. My prefered prime for dinners was the 35mm f/2, but I have since sold it after I got a f/2.8 zoom at the shorter end.

Dinners at restaurants are really tricky....

And just to add... in the above scenario, IS is also very useful. I can safely shoot at 55mm at 1/30s with IS if the subjects are not fidgety. Without IS, I would probably have to set it at 1/50s... or fire the flash (which I again stress is not always ideal).

 

[ardnirun]

i think in my opinion..the 70-200 produces excellent images...does it state anywhere that lenses do play a part when taking pictures using ISO 1600-3200?

i've noticed that noise tends to be very tolerable with my 70-200..

 

[Snoweagle]

i think in my opinion..the 70-200 produces excellent images...does it state anywhere that lenses do play a part when taking pictures using ISO 1600-3200?

i've noticed that noise tends to be very tolerable with my 70-200..

Never heard of that though. All i know is that the camera matters when it comes to noise handling.

 

[calebk]

Well... IS is very important for teles... unless you plan to tripod your teles most of the time.

I've used a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS on multiple occasions with shutter speeds as slow as 1/50s with good results.

This is one on the 70-200 non-IS, at 120mm, 1/100s, f/2.8, ISO 1600:

This is from a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 with no IS or OS or any stabilizer available on it. While it is shot at 1/800s, framing it is still a "problem" since there is no stabilizer, but anyway, I got this and cropped to square only to get rid of unwanted space to the left of frame. This was my intended framing.

This is one of my very old works, with a Sigma 100-300 f/4 also. This was shot at 1/80s, f/5.0, 137mm, ISO 400:

...Then there is also the problem of temperature. If we shoot in tungsten environment, the flash will intruduce composite lighting... and you will have to spend many hours at photoshop to clean it up (if even possible).

There's this simple solution called colour correction gels.

 

[nottipiglet]

So... IS is important right? Only the last shot was shot without IS at a slow shutter compared to the focal length.

 

[calebk]

So... IS is important right? Only the last shot was shot without IS at a slow shutter compared to the focal length.

Nope. I'd say developing a good handholding technique is better than having to splurge that extra dough on IS. If you read carefully, only the sparrow shot was at a shutter speed faster than the focal length.

 

[Snoweagle]

So... IS is important right? Only the last shot was shot without IS at a slow shutter compared to the focal length.

IS is only convenient in limited situations.

 

[nottipiglet]

Nope. I'd say developing a good handholding technique is better than having to splurge that extra dough on IS. If you read carefully, only the sparrow shot was at a shutter speed faster than the focal length.

Though I agree that handholding technique is important, I won't go as far as to negate the usefulness of IS. The extra dough is nothing, compared to the increased number of keepers you get.

I'm sure you have a vast portfolio. But of the 3 shots you showcase your handholding technique, of which one is within the focal length, shutter speed ratio. The one with the funny singer is borderline. 1/120s at 100mm is quite safe if you hold the camera properly. Only the 3rd can be attributed to superior handholding technique.

Of course, within all my shots, I have many that are well within the shutter speed, focal length ratio... but I cannot use them to boast my handholding technique because most of my recent shots are shot with IS... and I consciously try not to go below the ratio when I use primes because I want a higher percentage of keepers. If you shoot many many shots, of course some will be good even though the shutter speed is slow... but sometimes, it's just luck. I try not to rely too much on luck.

 

[nottipiglet]

IS is only convenient in limited situations.

Well... it's difficult to get scientific about this... but if you take enough pictures of people in real live situation, you will realise that it is not always possible to get in a nice stable position if we want to have a unique composition. If you are a little bit off balance, like propped in a corner of a room... jostling amongst a group of people... kneeling down, etc... the IS helps a great deal.

Of course, if you are always taking pictures seated nicely in a church... or taking pictures of XMMs in a controlled environment with lots of strobes... or if you fire flash indiscriminately... or you always take those less original face level pictures in a nice standing position with perfect handholding technique as per the photography textbook... then IS is 'convenient in limited situations' for you... because you don't get yourself into the situations where IS is necessary.

So, only you know if IS is good for you. To me, it is very useful.

 

[ditikolon]

Well... it's difficult to get scientific about this... but if you take enough pictures of people in real live situation, you will realise that it is not always possible to get in a nice stable position if we want to have a unique composition. If you are a little bit off balance, like propped in a corner of a room... jostling amongst a group of people... kneeling down, etc... the IS helps a great deal.

Of course, if you are always taking pictures seated nicely in a church... or taking pictures of XMMs in a controlled environment with lots of strobes... or if you fire flash indiscriminately... or you always take those less original face level pictures in a nice standing position with perfect handholding technique as per the photography textbook... then IS is 'convenient in limited situations' for you... because you don't get yourself into the situations where IS is necessary.

So, only you know if IS is good for you. To me, it is very useful.

Wot you sayin? :dunno:


Snoweagle&Calebk: Anyway IS = useful for me. I like. ^_^ But I'm trying to handhold more these days, try to be vintage like Ansel Adams, Annie L....

 

[nottipiglet]

Wot you sayin? :dunno:


Snoweagle&Calebk: Anyway IS = useful for me. I like. ^_^ But I'm trying to handhold more these days, try to be vintage like Ansel Adams, Annie L....

Let's put it in layman terms. If you don't get lucky very often, then condom is not useful to you. :bsmilie:

Different things are useful under different conditions. I am saying, if you are always taking pictures in situations where the lighting is so strong that the shutter speed can be kept high, then IS is not useful. Also, if you are always taking pictures in comfortable positions, then you can handhold tightly and IS is not always useful. If you only take landscapes and tripod all the time, then IS is completely useless to you. But to get exciting compositions, we sometimes need to get into uncomfortable positions where it is not possible to handhold tightly like they teach us in photography textbooks. Then IS is useful.

 

[Snoweagle]

Well... it's difficult to get scientific about this... but if you take enough pictures of people in real live situation, you will realise that it is not always possible to get in a nice stable position if we want to have a unique composition. If you are a little bit off balance, like propped in a corner of a room... jostling amongst a group of people... kneeling down, etc... the IS helps a great deal.

Of course, if you are always taking pictures seated nicely in a church... or taking pictures of XMMs in a controlled environment with lots of strobes... or if you fire flash indiscriminately... or you always take those less original face level pictures in a nice standing position with perfect handholding technique as per the photography textbook... then IS is 'convenient in limited situations' for you... because you don't get yourself into the situations where IS is necessary.

So, only you know if IS is good for you. To me, it is very useful.

I've tried several IS lenses before including the 24-105 and 70-200 f/2.8. Though IS is useful for lower lighting conditions but i find that it's not a must. IMO no point spending so much extra just for IS.

 

[Snoweagle]

Wot you sayin? :dunno:


Snoweagle&Calebk: Anyway IS = useful for me. I like. ^_^ But I'm trying to handhold more these days, try to be vintage like Ansel Adams, Annie L....

To each his own but i still train myself to handhold more steadily.

 

[ditikolon]

To each his own but i still train myself to handhold more steadily.

You're right, there's a technique to it. I've been working on it and I realized that while it is useful, I'm not that dependent on IS, so I'm getting rid of my 55-250 and possibly getting a 135L or 70-200 f/2.8 in the near future.

 

[Snoweagle]

You're right, there's a technique to it. I've been working on it and I realized that while it is useful, I'm not that dependent on IS, so I'm getting rid of my 55-250 and possibly getting a 135L or 70-200 f/2.8 in the near future.

That's why u see that i still don't own any IS lenses. No point wasting extra money on things which are not necessary to u. I'm even moving away from Ls except for my 50mm.

 

[ditikolon]

That's why u see that i still don't own any IS lenses. No point wasting extra money on things which are not necessary to u. I'm even moving away from Ls except for my 50mm.

You have to keep the 50L! It's just too amazing. Sure you don't want to get a 35L? ^__^