#21  
Old 11-09-2009, 12:38 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by RB View Post
Jason don't forget, your not actually getting extra reach because it's a crop body, it just means your imaging a smaller portion of the imaging circle compared to 35mm FF camera.
Amen that someone else understands how it works! I've been saying this for a long while now, it's amazing how few people actually comprehend it.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-09-2009, 01:34 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Yep, I understand that, maybe I should have said 'field of view'.

From what I've been reading, the 70-200 f2.8 L-series is not very well regarded, whereas the f4 version is very highly regarded, some say it's the best tele-zoom available. What about this beastie, with the 1.4x teleconverter?

God, this is all too hard!!!

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-09-2009, 01:54 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 22,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by koputai View Post
From what I've been reading, the 70-200 f2.8 L-series is not very well regarded, whereas the f4 version is very highly regarded, some say it's the best tele-zoom available. What about this beastie, with the 1.4x teleconverter?
Cheers,
Jason.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is very highly regarded.
The f/4 has a slight edge over it since it's not a 2.8.
I prefer the f/2.8 since I can use the extra ap for astro work.

I was going to suggest the 70-200 f4 + 1.4x if your budget can stretch.

See this link for prices:
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canonlenses.htm
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-09-2009, 02:59 PM
dugnsuz's Avatar
dugnsuz (Doug)
to baldly go...

dugnsuz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by koputai View Post
Yep, I understand that, maybe I should have said 'field of view'.

From what I've been reading, the 70-200 f2.8 L-series is not very well regarded, whereas the f4 version is very highly regarded, some say it's the best tele-zoom available. What about this beastie, with the 1.4x teleconverter?

God, this is all too hard!!!

Cheers,
Jason.
Stand strong Sir Jason!!!

The canon 70-200mm L range all get a good rap.
I picked the f4L (non IS version) as I primarily wanted an astro lens.
It has performed very well in both it's daytime and astro roles - very happy with it. And, it's relatively cheap in comparison with the rest of the L lenses.
I also used it with the 1.4x extender - once again, very nice. No CA or aberrations noticeable with this combination. I used the 70-200mm f4L +1.4x ext for much of the stuff on my photobucket page - in fact the Eta HaRGB which got a honourable mention in the 2009 Malins was taken with this combo.
I recently bought a 300mm f4L to extend my range + extender to 420mm. I found this combo nowhere near as nice as the 70-200+ext - the stars showed a bit of CA and astigmatism.

So, I can recommend the 70-200mm f4L/1.4x Extender combination from personal experience. Both are within your 2k top limit. $1292 for both on ebay!

Good Luck
Doug
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-09-2009, 09:59 AM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Whoah there lad. The 70-200 f2.8 L (non IS) is reputed as one of Canon's best lenses, along with the 300mm f2.8 IS. The IS version is just as sharp but with IS. Of course, wide open, it will lose some edge definition, that's pretty much unavoidable in any lens, but stopped down to f8 or so and it's *really* sharp. The same goes for any lens imho - f8 is generally the sweetspot. You'll find that the f2.8 lens is just as sharp at f4 as the f4 version is, what you're paying for is the extra stop, which can and does come in handy. I have an original 70-200 f2.8 non IS and it's my fave lens (after my macro lens that is). I find the f4 version just too light and not good enough build wise in my hands, but that's me. I prefer a 1 series body over a consumer body for exactly the same reasons - soliditity.

I really would be considering the 300mm f4 + 1.4TC. I think that will be the best and most versatile combination. I don't think anything shorter than 300mm for Safari will be of much use, at least animal wise. For general shooting, it would be good to at least have a nifty 50. Remember, zooms make you lazy. Learn to use your feet and you'll get better with composition and subject spotting imho.

Dave

Quote:
Originally Posted by koputai View Post
Yep, I understand that, maybe I should have said 'field of view'.

From what I've been reading, the 70-200 f2.8 L-series is not very well regarded, whereas the f4 version is very highly regarded, some say it's the best tele-zoom available. What about this beastie, with the 1.4x teleconverter?

God, this is all too hard!!!

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:39 PM
dugnsuz's Avatar
dugnsuz (Doug)
to baldly go...

dugnsuz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,200
Agreed Dave - you must have found one of the very few bad reviews of that lens Jason.

Got to add to my last post (Dave jogged my memory)...the 300 f4L + extender was absolutely great for daytime stuff (no observable IQ degradation), it was only on the stars that the aberrations become more pronounced.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:50 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
I think that's a lot of lenses probably Doug. The Canon 300mm f2.8 seems to be very good quality for astro imaging, flat across the field, or as flat as. One day I'll get that lens, but for now, the 500mm f4 is more of a priority over the next few years - at least for me, since my primary interests with that lens would be motorsports and birding.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-09-2009, 03:46 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Aaaarrgghhh!!! This choice is not getting any easier, but thanks for all the info and opinions.

I think I still like the zoom over a prime lens, just makes things more versatile. I, nor the missus, will ever be a pro photographer, we just want to take good happy snaps, rather than "See that black dot, that's a rhino!" type of stuff.

Here's two reviews of the 70-200 f2.8, both say it has less resolution and more chromatic aberation than the f4 version, at the same aperture.
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/199-ca...report--review

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

And here's the f4
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/196-ca...report--review

The 2.8 appears to have a lot more chromatic abberation across the board. The f4 also has better IS than the f2.8

Cheers,
Jason.

Last edited by koputai; 16-09-2009 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13-09-2009, 09:25 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
OK, so if I may just throw this in to the mix......

Is it worth getting an IS lens over a non-IS lens?

Thanks,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 13-09-2009, 10:01 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Personally, I'd say no. But many here swear by IS. It's far better to use a monopod or tripod than IS. You'll get sharper shots every single time. IS is a temporary attempt to fix hand holding issues, it's not a cure all. Many users today do not practice good photography - they do not hold the body or lens correctly, their footwork is bad, and they do not learn how to control their breathing to reduce shake. I've taken a few shots with my Sigma 150mm at 1/15 second that look OK, and don't look unsharp unless you look at them 100% in Photoshop. That's significantly under what is recommended for hand holding. And that lens doesn't have IS. I have a bit of an advantage here, since I'm primarily a macro shooter, and that means very steady hands as a rule.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 16-09-2009, 01:27 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Well guys, I just took posession of a nice new Canon 70-200 f4L IS USM, plus a 1.4x Canon Extender.
I decided on the f4 for a few reasons:
1) Every review I found says the f4 is superior in both resolution and chromatic aberation than the f2.8 at equal apertures.
2) The f4 has 3rd Generation IS, whereas the f2.8 has 2nd Gen.
3) The f4 is half the weight (not that that really matters)
4) I could get the f4 plus the 1.4x Extender for $400 less than the f2.8 alone.
5) Doug's images !!

Thanks again for all your advice, no doubt I'll be asking again about other focal lengths.......

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 16-09-2009, 01:51 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Jason,

Congratulations. Great lens.

Though, for the layman, the sharpness between the f/2.8L and f/4L would only really be noticeable upon pixel peeping, or if you stand with your nose 1 cm away from a print on the wall. Just my opinion.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 16-09-2009, 03:41 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Congrats Jason - I'm sure both you and your wife will enjoy it, it is an excellent lens. I also agree with H about the difference in sharpness. Digital is great, but too many people pixel peep these days.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 16-09-2009, 03:57 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Hehehehe, I'd never heard of 'pixel peeping' before. I like the analogy of the hypocondriac with his own MRI machine. Yes, you're probably right about the 2.8, but the $800 saved can now go towards other bits.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 16-09-2009, 04:14 PM
dugnsuz's Avatar
dugnsuz (Doug)
to baldly go...

dugnsuz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,200
Nice one Jason - I'm sure you won't be dissapointed with the lens.
Post some of the safari pics soon please!!
Doug
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 05:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement