|
nateyoun
Sep 22, 2005, 6:41 PM
Post #1 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2003
Posts: 73
|
I am going to be getting a new zoom lense for shooting skiing and snowboarding this winter. But I want to make sure it's good for climbing too. These are the two lenses that I am concidering. I realize that the zoom range is not the same, so for the 70-200 I would be getting a 1.4x converter.
I have read/seen evidence that a 2x converter on the 70-200 is less clear than the 100-400. Do any of you have any experience of having the 1.4x converter on the 70-200? and comparing that to the 100-400?
Also, my concern with the 100-400 is that it is not as fast. And shooting climbing in the summer might be tough since we tend to climb in the shade.
I was hoping there might be some photographers who have had experience with these two lenses.
Thanks
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 23, 2005, 4:04 AM
Post #2 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I have the 70-200 F2.8L (non-is), and it rocks. Very, very sharp and contrasty. I end up using it wide open alot while shooting in the shade. I am planning on adding the 1.4x as well for 280 at F4.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Sep 23, 2005, 5:10 AM
Post #3 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
From a lot of reading I have done on this...
The 70-200/2.8 with the 2x TC will not perform as well as the 100-400 in any respect - speed, focus speed, sharpness, color, contrast, etc. The 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x TC is a very good performer. One thing you didn't mention is the camera you're using. Is it a digital? Crop factor? Don't forget to consider that if it is...
Your best bet for first-hand info would be to post at the Canon SLR Lens forum at www.dpreview.com
|
|
|
|
|
rjavery10
Sep 23, 2005, 5:18 AM
Post #4 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2004
Posts: 105
|
I work at a large camera store in the Los Angeles area. I sell these lenses everyday and they are meant to meet different purposes.
The 70-200 2.8 IS is designed for sports where a high shutter speed is needed. Thus the 2.8 gives you the shutter speed you need.
The 100-400 was designed for bird photography and other situations where the shutter speed is not as important as focal length.
Having said these, I think NIETHER lense is a good choice for your situation. I shoot climbing all the time and my lense of choice for DIGITAL ONLY is the 70-300 DO IS. This lense is optimized for digital for brighter colors by the element design. The big advantage is that it wieghs roughly half of the other choices and gives you a happy medium for range. The downside is that it costs $2200 and is for digital only.
PM me if you need any further advice.
Happy Shooting,
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
nateyoun
Sep 23, 2005, 5:32 AM
Post #5 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2003
Posts: 73
|
Thanks guys for the advice.
I am shooting film, with a Canan Elan 7e, for the record.
I am concerned about shutter speed. Both for climbing and for Skiing. But the 2.8 is more critical for climbing. While shooting in the shade , I've found my self using my fixed 50mm to get the shutter speeds I want. That's why the 70-200 was appealing.
but for skiing I've been craving being able to have the longer focal lenght, with out loosing quality (or not that much). I typically shoot f5.6 1/1000 when I'm shooting skiing, so the 100-400 seems to be the winner for that.
I have a 70-300 sigma zoom lense. but the image quality is lacking.. the images aren't as sharp as I'd like, especially at 300. So I was looking for an upgrade.
Thanks for the advice.
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
Sep 23, 2005, 7:06 AM
Post #6 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
I was in a similar situation and in thinking about it, I think it comes down to trading off convenience versus image quality and speed.
If you want the best image quality then you get the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. You can supplement that with the 1.4x teleconverter. It does degrade image quality, but as long as you stop it down a bit it does very well. If you need longer then you add a 300 f/4L IS, which also works well with the 1.4x TC. If you need longer still then the options aren't so great. The 400 f/5.6L would be nice if it had IS. All the other options are large and expensive. For something fast moving like skiing, IS probably doesn't matter so much, but for long distance more static shots of climbing it's very nice to have IS.
If you want compact, then the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS does a pretty good job of covering the range of the 70-200, 300 and 400. The image quality isn't quite as good but it's certainly not bad. You can use a TC with it too, but you will loose autofocus on the long end unless you have a pro body that will focus at f/8.
If you want even more compact, then the 70-300 DO IS looks very tempting.
I currently use a 1.6x crop factor camera and find 200 mm quite useful for climbing. So on a full frame or film camera I think I'd want a 300 mm or longer lens to match that.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 23, 2005, 1:34 PM
Post #7 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
I don't think I would bring a lens slower then F4 (at it's slowest) climbing, unless it was somewhere really open and bright. F5.6 isn't going to stop action in the shaded areas. IS is cool, but, for me, fast glass is better. I still end up with shutter speeds less then 1/200th, even at iso 800/1600 sometimes, even at F2.8
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
Sep 23, 2005, 3:54 PM
Post #8 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
Wes, you must be shooting in near total darkness!
I would guess that 80+% of my climbing shots are at ISO 100, f/4-f/8, with shutter speeds between 1/100th and 1/500th.
|
|
|
|
|
johnhemlock
Sep 23, 2005, 4:09 PM
Post #9 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2004
Posts: 311
|
Hi Nate,
I shoot slides with the Canon Elan 7e with a 70-200 2.8 and a teleconverter. I rarely carry it on climbs but I shot 500 slides with it in Peru this summer (nice having a burro to carry your gear) for an online climbing guide to the Cordillera Huayhuash I'm working on. I have been pleased with the route / mountain images I get - nice and contrasty. I think they are sharp enough even with the TC. I'm too dumb to figure out how to post pix in a forum or I would show some samples. What I haven't shot much are "action" images, so I can't testify to how this rig works if you're taking shots of people hucking cliffs or dynoing on climbs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 23, 2005, 4:16 PM
Post #10 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
In reply to: Wes, you must be shooting in near total darkness! I would guess that 80+% of my climbing shots are at ISO 100, f/4-f/8, with shutter speeds between 1/100th and 1/500th.
Have you ever been to the Southeast? Rhodo jungles, trees, etc. It isn't like shooting at Indian Creek or the buttermilks!
Plus I generally like to really a lot of Brokah, and the 70-200 is amazing at 2.8-4.0.
|
|
|
|
|
trenchdigger
Sep 23, 2005, 4:26 PM
Post #11 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2003
Posts: 1447
|
In reply to: I work at a large camera store in the Los Angeles area. I sell these lenses everyday and they are meant to meet different purposes. The 70-200 2.8 IS is designed for sports where a high shutter speed is needed. Thus the 2.8 gives you the shutter speed you need. The 100-400 was designed for bird photography and other situations where the shutter speed is not as important as focal length. Having said these, I think NIETHER lense is a good choice for your situation. I shoot climbing all the time and my lense of choice for DIGITAL ONLY is the 70-300 DO IS. This lense is optimized for digital for brighter colors by the element design. The big advantage is that it wieghs roughly half of the other choices and gives you a happy medium for range. The downside is that it costs $2200 and is for digital only. PM me if you need any further advice. Happy Shooting, Ryan
I agree that the 70-300mm DO IS would be a great choice (barring the ridiculous price), but I'm confused as to why you consider it a "Digital Only" lens. The only "Digital Only" lenses Canon sells are the EF-S series lenses whose primary difference is that they've eliminated the extra glass that smaller digital sensors don't use. The 70-300mm DO IS is definitely a full-frame, film capable lens.
Check this link out for a comparison of the 70-200/2.8, 75-300/IS, and 70-300/DO IS.
http://www.photo.net/...ment/canon/70-300do/
|
|
|
|
|
roshampo
Sep 23, 2005, 4:32 PM
Post #12 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Posts: 65
|
I'm with Wes, i rarely shoot slower than f/4 or f/5.6, and usually shoot most of my lenses wide open. I often even have to bust out the fixed 20mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.4. I also rarely shoot above 70mm. I've used a friends' zooms in the range you're looking at, but really couldn't use them much for climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
rjavery10
Sep 24, 2005, 6:52 AM
Post #13 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2004
Posts: 105
|
In reply to: In reply to: I work at a large camera store in the Los Angeles area. I sell these lenses everyday and they are meant to meet different purposes. The 70-200 2.8 IS is designed for sports where a high shutter speed is needed. Thus the 2.8 gives you the shutter speed you need. The 100-400 was designed for bird photography and other situations where the shutter speed is not as important as focal length. Having said these, I think NIETHER lense is a good choice for your situation. I shoot climbing all the time and my lense of choice for DIGITAL ONLY is the 70-300 DO IS. This lense is optimized for digital for brighter colors by the element design. The big advantage is that it wieghs roughly half of the other choices and gives you a happy medium for range. The downside is that it costs $2200 and is for digital only. PM me if you need any further advice. Happy Shooting, Ryan I agree that the 70-300mm DO IS would be a great choice (barring the ridiculous price), but I'm confused as to why you consider it a "Digital Only" lens. The only "Digital Only" lenses Canon sells are the EF-S series lenses whose primary difference is that they've eliminated the extra glass that smaller digital sensors don't use. The 70-300mm DO IS is definitely a full-frame, film capable lens. Check this link out for a comparison of the 70-200/2.8, 75-300/IS, and 70-300/DO IS. http://www.photo.net/...ment/canon/70-300do/
You are correct that the 70-300 DO lense will work on a film camera or full frame digital but I don't think I was clear with my reasons. The 70-300 DO is digital only because the difractive optics are designed to work with digital imaging sensors. When you shoot this lense with film you will notice signifcant fringing on the edges of your subjects.
The EF-S lenses are great for digital, its a shame they don't make one thats worth a damn except the 17-85.
--Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Sep 25, 2005, 9:18 PM
Post #14 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
In reply to: In reply to: Wes, you must be shooting in near total darkness! I would guess that 80+% of my climbing shots are at ISO 100, f/4-f/8, with shutter speeds between 1/100th and 1/500th. Have you ever been to the Southeast? Rhodo jungles, trees, etc. It isn't like shooting at Indian Creek or the buttermilks! Plus I generally like to really a lot of Brokah, and the 70-200 is amazing at 2.8-4.0.
Here is the EXIF info for this shot, not the best photo in the world, but one that wouldn't have happened without fast glass.
Camera Model Name
Canon EOS 20D
Shooting Date/Time
08/09/05 17:12:12
Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Photo Effect Mode
Off
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/400
Av(Aperture Value)
2.8
Metering Mode
Evaluative
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
800
Lens
70.0 - 200.0mm
Focal Length
90.0mm
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=59447
|
|
|
|
|
nateyoun
Sep 27, 2005, 4:40 PM
Post #15 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 5, 2003
Posts: 73
|
Lots of great info guys. and great opinions.
From this thread I have thought about the fact that I too don't use my zoom for climbing all that much.. The times that I use it the most are when I'm in an area that is wide open and normally sunny. I am living in Utah now, and winter time is coming up, so we'll be climbing/bouldering in the sun mostly which would allow me to shoot at f5.6 and still have a fast shutter speed. We do climb in the shade in the summer, but I have 7 months to not spend any money and save up for a faster lense.
For skiing, the 100-400 seems to be ideal from what I've heard. I normally shoot at f5.6 1/1000th, so the fast lense is not an issue. I rarely shoot when the sun isn't out. And zoom is critical to get those great shots.
I've decided to get the 100-400, and mainly use it as a skiing/ sunny climbing lense. I've also decided that people (magazines, catalogs) will have to buy some of my images so that I can get more lenses. I haven't figured out how to make that work out just yet.
Just a funny not about what the two lenses were made for (by not means am I saying anyone is wrong in their statements), If you go to the canon website, and you look at the sample image for these two lenses, the 70-200 is a bird and the 100-400 is a motocross sports event.
Thanks guys.. When I get some of my images back once I buy the lense, I'll try to post some on here.
Nate
|
|
|
|
|
alexc
Oct 2, 2005, 5:06 PM
Post #16 of 16
(4341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 15
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Wes, you must be shooting in near total darkness! I would guess that 80+% of my climbing shots are at ISO 100, f/4-f/8, with shutter speeds between 1/100th and 1/500th. Have you ever been to the Southeast? Rhodo jungles, trees, etc. It isn't like shooting at Indian Creek or the buttermilks! Plus I generally like to really a lot of Brokah, and the 70-200 is amazing at 2.8-4.0. Here is the EXIF info for this shot, not the best photo in the world, but one that wouldn't have happened without fast glass.
Haven't shot much in the shade under trees, but you are correct that the light level is much lower there. Mottled shade is really tough to deal with too. Very difficult shooting conditions!
Things look quite bright in your example shot, but things can be deceptive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
