Glass Question

Discussions on Equipment, Locations and Tips for getting the photograps you want of Vermont scenes.Note: You must be registered in order to post. If you have trouble registering, use the contact us form on Scenes of Vermont's home page.

Moderators: bm, Andy, admin

Rockwall Tim
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:43 pm
Location: Rockwall, TX
Contact:

Glass Question

Postby Rockwall Tim » Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:00 pm

I'm a new owner of a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 lens. I also own the Canon 70-200 f4. I don't want to bring them both to Vermont on my trip...I've got to keep the gear bag as light as possible since I'll be lugging it through airports and on to planes. The former is rather heavy, the latter rather light. So all things being equal, I'd prefer the latter. So my question for the experts is: which should I take and which should I leave at home? I will be taking my Canon 28-135 kit lens as well...just wondering about which telephoto glass to take. Obviously, 99% of the shots will be foliage shots.
II Cor. 4:17


Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Glass Question

Postby Andy » Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:52 am

Tim: I really think you answered your own question here. The only reason I can think of to even continue to own the f4 version is the "smaller and lighter" part. Personally, I would always carry the 2.8 version and "suffer" under the added weight :lol: . Unless there was a reason that would simply prohibit the 2.8, why not go with the best glass you have?

I appreciate that you will be shooting primarily foliage, and that often means shooting at the f8-f11 aperture ranges. But I used to own a prime 300 f2.8. It was Big and Heavy. The ONE thing I miss is the ability to create those wonderful out of focus backgrounds in some cases. The modern 4.5 max zoom I carry simply doesn't give me that ability. I can think of several instances where I might like that effect in my background.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

Rockwall Tim
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:43 pm
Location: Rockwall, TX
Contact:

Re: Glass Question

Postby Rockwall Tim » Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:28 pm

Andy: Yeah, I once rented that 300 monster to do some aviation photography...I know whereof you speak. Thanks for the input! I'll pack the 2.8 and count it as much needed exercise.

Tim
II Cor. 4:17

deaner1971
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:01 am

Re: Glass Question

Postby deaner1971 » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:58 am

I just acquired the Tamron f2.8 70-200 myself and can sympathize on the weight issue. I had a conference in Southern California last week and wanted to bring it and just that lens and a laptop made my backpack feel like I was stealing gold bars. Anything short of maximum zoom and the lens does make itself worthwhile.

As someone who has also just acquired some "fast glass" can I inquire as to whether or not ND filters take on added importance for stopping down for greater depth of field when you have a faster lens?

Thanks!

Dean

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Glass Question

Postby Andy » Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:07 pm

In my opinion, the answer is: "maybe" :) . "Fast" glass has the benefit of wider apertures, but at the same time, will generally stop down just as far as slower lenses (i.e., they mostly all have similar minimum apertures). So, for overall shooting, it shouldn't make a difference. However, if you are trying to take advantage of the depth of field (or perhaps more correctly, lack of DOF), while shooting something like moving water, for example, then a ND filter may still come in very handy.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

mmvt
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:13 am

Re: Glass Question

Postby mmvt » Fri Sep 23, 2011 6:51 pm

must be the year for new glass.... I just got the Canon 70-300L 4.0. It's not super fast but all of the reviews were really good. I also got a great tripod and new ballhead as a birthday gift. I'm hoping to spend a lot more time taking photos this year as opposed to last!!

Andy
Site Admin
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Glass Question

Postby Andy » Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:41 am

As I read this thread, it occurs to me that I have relied on my "utility" lens (18-200 on the D200 and now 28-300 on the D700) for the vast majority of my shooting. Some of that may just be laziness - don't have to change lenses. What I really find myself missing these days is the ability to use that wide open aperture -- not so much for "speed" but for creativity. My Dream combo would probably be a couple of zooms one in the 15-70 range with a 2.8 aperture and the 70-200 with 2.8 aperture. Unfortunately, that dream would have to be accompanied by a second mortgage on my house :( .

I do need to think about using my 60mm "micro" f2.8 prime a bit more this year. I should be able to create some of those effects, although where they really stand out is at the longer focal lenghts.
Andy

If it sounds too good to be true, its probably . . . .

autzig
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Bloomington, MN
Contact:

Re: Glass Question

Postby autzig » Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:15 pm

Maybe I'm nuts but take all of my glass when I travel. I use a Think Tank roller bag that will fit in the overhead bin of most planes. I also pack my LowePro backpack. It will hold two camera bodies, my 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 180 macro and 400. When full, it weighs about 40 pounds and I carry it with me everywhere. If I'm taking a big hike, I'll leave the 180 and 400 in my roller bag unless I absolutely think I will need them. When I climbed up to Delicate Arch in Utah, 1.5 miles and 1000 foot elevation gain, I left the heavy weights in the Think Tank in the car.



Return to “Vermont Photography Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest