Choosing 70-200mm F 2.8 Zoom Lens
Jun 30, 2016 20:29:29 #
PaulR01 wrote:
Frank don't be afraid to run a higher ISO. As long as you are not blowing up pictures poster size. 12,800 will look good with the 70 D. Your shots are in focus but a little under exposed. My worst 2A field in Texas I shoot every other year I find my self at 16,000 ISO with a 680 shutter speed with a 5Diii. You can get away from the 1/1000 sports standard for motion in the stands because of the distance but 1/500 is pushing the envelope.
You are correct. All my pictures were underexposed and I had to lighten them using PS 11. I was afraid to use a higher ISO because I was making some 8x10 prints for some of the players. These 8 man football teams have some really good football players. One player on the blue team is headed to the University of Wisconsin this fall. He is 6'8" tall and weighs in at 280lbs and he will probably be 300+ after he is in college for a year or two. Also, thanks for the tip I will try a higher ISO for the upcoming football season.
Jul 1, 2016 14:53:34 #
I have the 70-200 f/4L Canon and love it....it can also be used with the 1.4X or 2.0X converters. The f/2.8 version is considerably more expensive and HEAVY. If you don't have to have the wide aperture you might be better off with the f/4 version.
Jul 1, 2016 17:25:09 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Budnjax wrote:
I have the 70-200 f/4L Canon and love it....it can also be used with the 1.4X or 2.0X converters. The f/2.8 version is considerably more expensive and HEAVY. If you don't have to have the wide aperture you might be better off with the f/4 version.
I've got the IS version. Wonderful lens. Its true we lose a stop of light, but its just about as sharp as the f/2.8 version and is almost half the weight as well as almost half the cost.
Jul 1, 2016 17:50:30 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
SharpShooter wrote:
No brainer?!?!
Tamrons are black......, what if someone mistook it for a Nikon?????
He would not be able to live that down without BURNING the lens in question!!!
SS
Tamrons are black......, what if someone mistook it for a Nikon?????
He would not be able to live that down without BURNING the lens in question!!!
SS
Jul 2, 2016 06:58:56 #
hj wrote:
Save big bucks without IS. Of course there are always those who think spending lots of money on equipment equates to better results. Not so.
Disagree. Am 74 years old with on-set of Parkinson's disease. Must have VR on all my Nikon lenses if I want to hand hold the lens, especially at slower shutter speeds. Of course, VR wouldn't be necessary if I used a tripod 100% of the time. Years ago I would have probably agreed with you, but not today. I have/had several non VR lenses but found that I just couldn't hand hold them any more unless I was shooting at a very fast shutter speed which wasn't always an option.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.