[Photography] Show and Tell May '10

400mm F2.8 IS.

I own a 70-200mm F2.8 for indoor sports photography and use a 2x teleconverter on it for certain outdoor shots, but the focus isn't quite as good and I only get F5.6.

I just got the 400mm in the mail today and gotta return it Wednesday, but I'm hoping to shoot a few baseball/softball games with it during that time. I mostly just wanted to get the experience of using a supertelephoto as I've been itching to try it since September.

I highly recommend the 7D, though. It's a nice step down from the 1D for sports photography, and the video on it is great. I'd still like to get the 1D eventually, of course, as my primary body.
 
Koala Bear said:
400mm F2.8 IS.

I own a 70-200mm F2.8 for indoor sports photography and use a 2x teleconverter on it for certain outdoor shots, but the focus isn't quite as good and I only get F5.6.

I just got the 400mm in the mail today and gotta return it Wednesday, but I'm hoping to shoot a few baseball/softball games with it during that time. I mostly just wanted to get the experience of using a supertelephoto as I've been itching to try it since September.

I highly recommend the 7D, though. It's a nice step down from the 1D for sports photography, and the video on it is great. I'd still like to get the 1D eventually, of course, as my primary body.
Click to expand...

Yea, my main focus would be the video aspect, but nowadays, photography has become a growing interest. I'm thinking of getting the following:

Canon 7D w/ Kit (W/15-85 EF-S USM IS)
Prime Lens 50MM/1.4 AF USM

and later on maybe:
70-200 F4 L USM ZOOM LENS

What do you think? Any recommendations?
 
Definitely get a good 50mm. I have the F1.8 and, though it's a much cheaper lens, it still puts out some great video quality and the depth of field is awesome.

With a longer lens, it's not a bad idea to invest in one with IS. I'm a video guy and used to having something a little easier to handhold than an SLR. I have the non-IS version of the 70-200 F2.8 and while the depth of field is great, it is jittery as heck if not on a monopod or tripod zoomed in.

Or you can invest in a decent handheld mount for the camera, if you want. I might end up selling my XL2's (if they're worth anything anymore) and investing in a good mount for it and my XH-A1s.

That said, depending on how you're supporting the camera, you should be able to make it work without IS. If photography is something you're getting more interested in, it may be worth it to splurge for the F2.8. You can always stop down, but you're gonna want the bigger aperture for any indoor photography with less-than-ideal lighting.

And the kit lens will be fine right away. As you grow, you'll probably want a wide-angle one with some better image quality. Small steps :)
 
That lens will be nice. It looks huge though. I have the 400mm f/5.6 and I love it, but do wish it was a little faster.

Gonna get to play with it in the Peruvian rainforest in 3 weeks. Just afraid the canopy will make it too dark for good photos. F/5.6 is (relatively for an L lens) soft, but 6.3 is sharp as a tack.
 
Sorry for the threadjack. Some recent ones.

IMG_9566.jpg


IMG_8599-1.jpg
 
Airplane shots were taken with an iPhone using the ShakeitApp
The rest using a Canon Rebel XS with a 18-200 Sigma lens

Slideshow - there's only about 10 pics

May10
 
Last edited:
Good eye, that is Hidden Valley. Not my favorite spot to climb because I always leave with my hands bleeding quite a bit, but still fun.
 
triQ said:
Yea, my main focus would be the video aspect, but nowadays, photography has become a growing interest. I'm thinking of getting the following:

Canon 7D w/ Kit (W/15-85 EF-S USM IS)
Prime Lens 50MM/1.4 AF USM

and later on maybe:
70-200 F4 L USM ZOOM LENS

What do you think? Any recommendations?
Click to expand...
Check out the 24-70 f2.8 L.. I recently shot with one and I was really impressed by its sharpness and depth of field.. Great focus but you its not quite as sharp at 24mm but its barely noticeable. Its a lens you really should try out.
 
Reverend Zero said:
I don't know, I like the contrast and that you can tell how dark it is outside.
Click to expand...

the lights shining at him fucked with his meter and the camera underexposed by a couple stops. thats all.

no one gets better by being reassured their bad shots are works of art, they get better by learning how to improve.
 
im not being a dick, seriously, i know this is tribalwar but the only way to improve at this is to have other eyes being overly critical of your work.

someone recently told me my portraits were shit because you could see up her nose. i would have never ever caught that on my own. same thing.
 
triple said:
the lights shining at him fucked with his meter and the camera underexposed by a couple stops. thats all.
Click to expand...

i understand that

but photography is a little more than centering your light meter and tripping the shutter. i think the overall dark look of the photo combined with the soft-ish focus paints a certain mood :shrug:

whether he meant it or not is irrelevant. the resulting photo was posted and that's the feeling it elicits. mission complete if you ask me. :)

edit: I know you're trying to help. Maybe he was going for something more lit but I do get something out of the photo he posted, and to me that's what photography is about. I'm definitely not saying every photo can get away with being a few stops short of a balanced exposure. This one in particular can imo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top