I got the 50L specially for portraits cos i major in that. 35L is just too short.
canon 70-300mm vs 55-250mm vs 70-200mm F4
- Thread starter magic1980
- Start date
- Status
I got the 50L specially for portraits cos i major in that. 35L is just too short.
Is IS worth the money?
Let's put it this way... How much are we paying for the IS?
Let's take a simple example. The 70-200 f/4L IS. I won't carry anything heavier than that... so f/2.8 is just a white elephant if I were to buy it. The non-IS version is around 1K. The IS version is around 1.9K currently... but if you are clever, you buy it from overseas and pay around 1.6K for it. But let's just say the difference is $900.
Let's say we use the lens for 7-8 years conservatively...
I shoot about 15K frames a year... so let's say I miss 20-30 picture moments a year due to handshake, which is very possible. Let me stress that there are situations where it is not possible to hold the camera tight... even though I presume we all know how to. It's not that hard. [For example, in my earlier years, I used the 24-85mm non-IS, and I messed up some shots due to handshake because I held the camera up high overhead for a different perspective... and because my settings were set for handholding, I did not have the time to react before holding the camera up... and those moments were lost for ever... and I can name many more such moments.]
So, in 7-8 years, I miss at least 150 moments. So, 900/150=6. So, would I pay $6 for each of those lost moments? The answer is yes.
For those people who say that they don't miss shots because of a lack of IS... well, good on you, though forgive me for being a bit skeptical.
For myself, I'm really glad that my lenses are IS, and I will pay for it. In fact, for the benefit, I think IS is cheap.
Let's put it this way... How much are we paying for the IS?
Let's take a simple example. The 70-200 f/4L IS. I won't carry anything heavier than that... so f/2.8 is just a white elephant if I were to buy it. The non-IS version is around 1K. The IS version is around 1.9K currently... but if you are clever, you buy it from overseas and pay around 1.6K for it. But let's just say the difference is $900.
Let's say we use the lens for 7-8 years conservatively...
I shoot about 15K frames a year... so let's say I miss 20-30 picture moments a year due to handshake, which is very possible. Let me stress that there are situations where it is not possible to hold the camera tight... even though I presume we all know how to. It's not that hard. [For example, in my earlier years, I used the 24-85mm non-IS, and I messed up some shots due to handshake because I held the camera up high overhead for a different perspective... and because my settings were set for handholding, I did not have the time to react before holding the camera up... and those moments were lost for ever... and I can name many more such moments.]
So, in 7-8 years, I miss at least 150 moments. So, 900/150=6. So, would I pay $6 for each of those lost moments? The answer is yes.
For those people who say that they don't miss shots because of a lack of IS... well, good on you, though forgive me for being a bit skeptical.
For myself, I'm really glad that my lenses are IS, and I will pay for it. In fact, for the benefit, I think IS is cheap.
Last edited:
I would get a tripod instead. Though not as convenient in IS, but it's the ultimate for camera stability and a lot cheaper too.
I think you already have a tripod... and so do I. But how long do you take to set it up? 10-15 secs? That's 10-15 secs too late for most of the photos I take. I use tripods for posed portraits, landscapes, etc... but most of the time, I shoot on the fly... and when I do that, IS comes in handy.
If you don't already have a tripod, then you should go buy one. As you said... it's the ultimate for camera stability and it is cheaper. I am currently using a Slik, but I am planning to upgrade to a Gitzo.
Last edited:
Actually, why are we even debating whether IS is useful? Maybe you can tell us why you waste money on the 50mm f/1.2L when the 50mm f/1.4 would have done the job in most instances.
You see... different things are useful to different people... at different times... and we all see value in different things.
You see... different things are useful to different people... at different times... and we all see value in different things.
Last edited:
I think you already have a tripod... and so do I. But how long do you take to set it up? 10-15 secs? That's 10-15 secs too late for most of the photos I take. I use tripods for posed portraits, landscapes, etc... but most of the time, I shoot on the fly... and when I do that, IS comes in handy.
If you don't already have a tripod, then you should go buy one. As you said... it's the ultimate for camera stability and it is cheaper. I am currently using a Slik, but I am planning to upgrade to a Glitzo.
Nottipiglet,
The Gitzo is REALLY nice, I have the 1541. Hope u get yours soon.
Because..................... you just need to look at the 50/1.2L's milky way creamy bokeh. Slurrrpppp. The OOF areas are also more well rounded, much better flare resistance, and you get ring-type USM. All these qualities make it a top-tier portraiture lens.
Ugly bokeh spoils good portraits. Here's a humble example taken with my el cheapo nifty fifty.
;(
Now let's leave Snoweagle to tell us why he got the 50/1.2 even though it costs a bomb.
Because..................... you just need to look at the 50/1.2L's milky way creamy bokeh. Slurrrpppp. The OOF areas are also more well rounded, much better flare resistance, and you get ring-type USM. All these qualities make it a top-tier portraiture lens.
Ugly bokeh spoils good portraits. Here's a humble example taken with my el cheapo nifty fifty.
;(
Now let's leave Snoweagle to tell us why he got the 50/1.2 even though it costs a bomb.
Nice capture there. Very powerful. Makes me feel sad.
I think creamy bokehs are overrated... Your picture is nice, as is. As long as there is good bokeh to bring out the subject... that's good enough for most.
They are REALLY expensive though. Most of these days, I don't get to go out because my baby daughter is just 6 months old... so I am holding back this big purchase until I have more time to play.
But the BBB virus is strong in me... :bsmilie:
Just to show the value of IS. This shot of my daughter was taken at ISO400, f/5, 200mm 1/60s:
It was backlit, so I needed to slow the shutter speed to gt the right exposure. I set up my long lens because I wanted to catch her from the side, instead of an aerial perspective. But as you can see, it is sharp even at 1/60s.. at 200mm!
If any of you have experience shooting children... you will know that by the time I set up my tripod, she would have lost patience and stopped smiling... so there was no time to lose. :bsmilie:
It was backlit, so I needed to slow the shutter speed to gt the right exposure. I set up my long lens because I wanted to catch her from the side, instead of an aerial perspective. But as you can see, it is sharp even at 1/60s.. at 200mm!
If any of you have experience shooting children... you will know that by the time I set up my tripod, she would have lost patience and stopped smiling... so there was no time to lose. :bsmilie:
Because..................... you just need to look at the 50/1.2L's milky way creamy bokeh. Slurrrpppp. The OOF areas are also more well rounded, much better flare resistance, and you get ring-type USM. All these qualities make it a top-tier portraiture lens.
Ugly bokeh spoils good portraits. Here's a humble example taken with my el cheapo nifty fifty.
Now let's leave Snoweagle to tell us why he got the 50/1.2 even though it costs a bomb.
Haha....my fave is portraits so i told myself that i'll invest the best for it. At f/1.2 the effects are outstanding in which most lenses cannot do. So that's y i bought it lor.
They are REALLY expensive though. Most of these days, I don't get to go out because my baby daughter is just 6 months old... so I am holding back this big purchase until I have more time to play.
But the BBB virus is strong in me... :bsmilie:
May the FORCE be with you. Actually, my Gitzo is sitting in my car's boot most of the time, unless I do night shoots. Even when travelling, I use only the 17-55 & 10-22 only, emergency (bring along 50 f/1.8 for low light).
My, my, your girl has grown a bit compared to the last photo posted. They grow very quickly until about 3 yrs old, then they learn to start argueing and talking back..... :bsmilie:
I find the 17-55 great for low light. If you have good handholding technique, f/2.8 is already quite big. Then the 3 extra f/stops benefit from the IS lets you take the shutter speed to very low levels.. The benefit of IS is a reality. Just take a look at my shot above. 200mm at 1/60s would not have been possible without IS.... unless you everyday do 'horse stance' to train your handholding technique until you become superhuman. So, I sold my 50mm f/1.8 as well. I like to clear out things I don't need.
But when I was in NZ for holiday, I really regretted not having a tele. All those missed moments... That's why when I got back, I bought a 70-200 f/4L IS... but I have since sold that and got a 70-300mm IS. I find that the picture quality of the 70-300mm is already very very good. I don't think I actually need the extra edge of the L lens.
Another thing about the 70-300mm IS... The early batches of this lens was subject to a recall. So, if you have an early version, you just need to bring it to CSC and they will swap out all the internal parts of the lens... leaving you with virtually a new lens. In short, if you buy a 2nd hand version of this lens... it is more or less guaranteed to be quite new because the recall was around 2006.
My daughter quite big liao right. She looks different every week. Can't get enough of her. She's such a cutie... but I'm probably biased. :bsmilie:
A very interesting thread to read as I am considering an upgrade to the 70-200 f/4 IS from a 55-250 IS. I did some comparison shots in the shop but the differences were only evident when you pixel peep -and that only in a few of the shots where there were very small details.
I read a lot of opinions in this thread but does anyone have any actual comparison shots of the 55-250vs the 70-200 in real(ish) world shooting? I've read many reviews all over the web over and over again and they all talk about how amazing the 70-200f/4IS is (and it had better be for the money) but my big doubt is whether that 'extra' quality you get is worth 5x the price of the 55-250...
Any fellow shooters gone down this path of 55-250 --> 70-200 f4 IS ?
I'm reasonably happy with the 55-250, just looking to improve the quality of my shots. Here is everything I have taken with the 55-250 so far:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26645490@N07/tags/efs55250mmf456is/
I read a lot of opinions in this thread but does anyone have any actual comparison shots of the 55-250vs the 70-200 in real(ish) world shooting? I've read many reviews all over the web over and over again and they all talk about how amazing the 70-200f/4IS is (and it had better be for the money
) but my big doubt is whether that 'extra' quality you get is worth 5x the price of the 55-250...Any fellow shooters gone down this path of 55-250 --> 70-200 f4 IS ?
I'm reasonably happy with the 55-250, just looking to improve the quality of my shots. Here is everything I have taken with the 55-250 so far:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26645490@N07/tags/efs55250mmf456is/
Me too considering an upgrade to the 70-200 f/4 IS from a 55-250 IS (which at time i find abit soft).
There's a comparison between this two lens:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
from the review, the different is obvious but I am not sure if that's the case...
There's a comparison between this two lens:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
from the review, the different is obvious but I am not sure if that's the case...
- Status
