I first started this thread as I had borrowed a neighbours Canon camera and lens and I was so impressed that I wanted advice from the forum members on what lens I should buy. I now have 2 choices that I want to have a look at. The thread has now evolved to include everyones favourite lens be it Nikon, Canon, Sigma or any other lens not mentioned. So if you would like to tell us all about your favourite lens just post away.
In the next couple of weeks I would like to head up to one of my local camera shops to have a look at Canon lenses and bodies. I have not wanted to go to a shop until I learn more as I really don't know what I am talking about and I think I will get lost in the lens jargon and leave the shop more confused. I am between the 7d and the body below but that is not really the problem as it will depend if I like the feel of them. I held the Nikon 7000 through the week which I did not like at all. I want to go for Canon simply because of its popularity and the resell value if I want to upgrade later in life!.
Anyway I was spoiled using the Canon EF Ultrasonic 35-350mm 3.5- 5.6 that I had on loan for a few days so I thought I would look in the lenses and see what my choices are available. Remember I am a complete novice and I am going to take my time learning and choosing the right lens. My gosh there are so many to choose from and the prices vary quite wildly. I have decided on what I want my new camera for and what I would really use the lens for giving me shots like the ones below. Not great but I want to practice this more. I have my fuji big zoom and that still gives me the faraway shots and I could not afford the lens that gives me the equivalent in canon terms. My budget on a lens is £1500 but if I can find a lens less I will obviously be pretty happy. I have also decided I would like to stick to a prime lens as I want quality of detail, sharpness and I really want a lens that will give me lovely "Bokeh!" hope I have the terminology is right. I was hoping that someone could point me in the right direction and suggest a few lenses that I could look at in the camera shop. I would like to have the Canon 350mm that I borrowed but maybe one of you experts could suggest a lens that I would like. I don’t really want to go below 300mm so that might mean a second hand lens. Forgot to add that I want that f. number quite high ie 3.5 ish. "Not asking for much eh!"
EF200ml f/2.8L IIUSM £600
EF200ml f/2L IS USM £1400
EF300mm f/4L IS USM £920
EF 300mm f2.8L IS II USM £4589 sadly cant afford this one!
The prices are just a guide and I am sure if I shopped about I could get them cheaper!
Thanks
Keep your eyes open for a Mk2 converter and you'd save even more. The pics above are with Mk2s - the Mk3s have minimal optical improvements over the Mk2s (apparently), most of the differences seem to be electronic (they don't slow AF down as much as the Mk2s when used with some of the newest Big Whites). Mk2s were around the £250 mark when new, you should be able to pick them up for that or less (ie half the price of the Mk3s!)
___
Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index
They were all taken RAW and converted - it's why I did some basic post-processing (in their RAW state they're unsharpened for example). If shooting jpg, the camera does all the processing for you, but the basic principles should be the same. If you'd like some SOOC jpgs I'll have to think of a different subject, the feeder's not in the sun now (tho perhaps a shady series might be interesting too.....)
Good point on the monopod - when walking with the 100-400 I normally have one too - it helps a lot when standing still waiting patiently for the little blighters to come the right side round a tree branch!
The exif info - if you view them on Flickr via the link, you'll see the basic info down bottom right (under "Additional Info"). If you click on that it will give you all sorts of useless info :-) The jpgs on here are compressed - that probably lost the exif. Those on Flickr are full size
Just pixel-peeped the 600mm pics - the difference is visible, I agree. The depth of field is much shallower with the 600mm f/4 though - the 300mm f/4 + 2x loses two stops and therefore becomes an f/8 lens and has more depth of field. I guess a true comparison would be for me to shoot the 600mm at f/8 as well. That's the trouble with this comparison lark - there are too many combinations to try out!
Headache now with info overload. Stop messin, just grab your credit card, buy 7d, 300 f4, and 1.4 converter. Headache over. Lol.
Take care all, Stich.
My gallery Here Flickr Here
Unknown said:The depth of field is much shallower with the 600mm f/4 though - the 300mm f/4 + 2x loses two stops and therefore becomes an f/8 lens and has more depth of field.
No , you're confusing "actual aperture" with "effective aperture". The 2 stops loss is from the extra glass the light has to pass through. The actual aperture doesn't change when you add a converter.
My gallery here
Checkout the forums' Community HOMEPAGE for lots of interesting posts from other members.
Galatas said: No , you're confusing "actual aperture" with "effective aperture". The 2 stops loss is from the extra glass the light has to pass through. The actual aperture doesn't change when you add a converter.
Oooo, now we're going to diverge into some techie stuff aren't we? :-) I agree, it's the effective aperture, however, the net result is that the DoF for the 600 f/4 at f/4 is less than that of the 300 + 2x combo, as can be seen by the two pics. Whilst you were replying, I've popped out to take another couple of pics, this time just with the two 600mm options, this time using f/8 for both (ie 600mm f/4 stopped down, 300 + 2x wide open(effectively also f/8). This time, the DoF looks the same (using the green pole to the left of the feeder as a reference).
Interestingly, these two images also show the other problems you start to get with all that extra glass - CA (purple fringing) on the 300mm combo is starting to be visible now the sun has moved round somewhat and is glinting on the metal. Full size on Flickr again http://www.flickr.com/photos/whistling_joe/sets/72157624539737303/
300mm f/4 + 2x - wide open (f/8)
600mm f/4 (at f/8)
Unknown said:I agree, it's the effective aperture, however, the net result is that the DoF for the 600 f/4 at f/4 is less than that of the 300 + 2x combo, as can be seen by the two pics.
Since I'm not a Canon user I ought to keep out of this discussion , but I'm intrigued by how , in your opinion , the "effective aperture" has produced this extra depth of field. Personally I think you need to look for other factors to explain the differences between the two shots. If I could add a teleconverter , get the extra reach and more depth of field in return for a 2 stop light loss , I'd consider that a worth while trade off.
Galatas said: I agree, it's the effective aperture, however, the net result is that the DoF for the 600 f/4 at f/4 is less than that of the 300 + 2x combo, as can be seen by the two pics. Since I'm not a Canon user I ought to keep out of this discussion , but I'm intrigued by how , in your opinion , the "effective aperture" has produced this extra depth of field. Personally I think you need to look for other factors to explain the differences between the two shots. If I could add a teleconverter , get the extra reach and more depth of field in return for a 2 stop light loss , I'd consider that a worth while trade off. [/quote] It's not unique to Canon, so the more the merrier :-) As I understand it, (and trying to avoid the maths) the DoF is dependent upon the focal length and the aperture in use (so to speak) when you take the picture. Basically, however you get the focal length and the aperture, if they're the same between two lenses, you'll get the same DoF. Soooo, whether it's a 600mm lens or a 300 + 2x, the focal length is 600mm. Whether the aperture is f/8 having been stopped down from f/4 or f/8 having been reduced by the addition of some extra glass (ie the converter), it's still f/8. Ergo, the DoF is the same. So you're not getting EXTRA DoF with the converter combo, the native 600mm lens will give you the same DoF if you stop it down - but the flexibility to have that two extra stops for low light when you need it, plus the reduced CA, faster AF etc is why you fork out for the big gun. Having never actually done this controlled test before, I'm actually quite impressed with the results obtainable with the 2x converter. In decent light and on a subject close by, it looks half decent, even on the 100-400 zoom. I think my poor impression in the past has been from asking it to do too much. It normally only comes out of the bag when the subject is so far away it's a dot on the horizon. Guess what, adding the 2x makes it a slightly bigger dot, but it's still too small for a decent pic. Choose something at a more reasonable distance and you can get a worthwhile image. ___ Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index
I agree, it's the effective aperture, however, the net result is that the DoF for the 600 f/4 at f/4 is less than that of the 300 + 2x combo, as can be seen by the two pics.
[/quote]
It's not unique to Canon, so the more the merrier :-) As I understand it, (and trying to avoid the maths) the DoF is dependent upon the focal length and the aperture in use (so to speak) when you take the picture. Basically, however you get the focal length and the aperture, if they're the same between two lenses, you'll get the same DoF. Soooo, whether it's a 600mm lens or a 300 + 2x, the focal length is 600mm. Whether the aperture is f/8 having been stopped down from f/4 or f/8 having been reduced by the addition of some extra glass (ie the converter), it's still f/8. Ergo, the DoF is the same. So you're not getting EXTRA DoF with the converter combo, the native 600mm lens will give you the same DoF if you stop it down - but the flexibility to have that two extra stops for low light when you need it, plus the reduced CA, faster AF etc is why you fork out for the big gun.
Having never actually done this controlled test before, I'm actually quite impressed with the results obtainable with the 2x converter. In decent light and on a subject close by, it looks half decent, even on the 100-400 zoom. I think my poor impression in the past has been from asking it to do too much. It normally only comes out of the bag when the subject is so far away it's a dot on the horizon. Guess what, adding the 2x makes it a slightly bigger dot, but it's still too small for a decent pic. Choose something at a more reasonable distance and you can get a worthwhile image.
Unknown said: I wondered what you was going to say, i've run it through the translator and it comes out North Korean.
I wondered what you was going to say, i've run it through the translator and it comes out North Korean.
Lol! We have got a bit geeky this afternoon, haven't we? Sorry :-)
Unknown said:Whether the aperture is f/8 having been stopped down from f/4 or f/8 having been reduced by the addition of some extra glass (ie the converter), it's still f/8.
Sorry Joe , I can't accept that. The aperture ie the f number is the size of the hole ( focal length of the lens divided by diameter of the hole ) not the amount of light entering the lens. According to your explanation if I reduced the light by two stops by adding a ND filter the result would be the same. Clearly it would not.
Since further discussion is more suited to a photography website and inappropriate to the other members of this one , I'll leave you to it.