Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Nick (humboldtboarder)      Join Date: Sep 2005       02-27-2007, 11:01 AM Reply   
I recently purchased a new Canon Rebel XTi, and am trying to decide on a lens. I've narrowed it down to these two: 70-200 f/4L USM or 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. I was set on the L lens for wakeboarding shots, but after doing some research, the IS sounds good for everything else. How will the 70-300 take wake shots? I know the IS won't help for wake shots, but I want a good lens for travel, nature, etc. If you think I should look at another lens, keep in mind that my budget is around $600, so the L series with IS is a little too high for me.
Old    LKA (lka__supra24ssv)      Join Date: Jan 2007       02-27-2007, 1:15 PM Reply   
I am getting ready to purchase the XTI myself and I have been looking at lenses as well. I have been talking with Rich Dykmans offline and he is a wealth on knowledge. At this time I can't afford two lenses, so I am looking at one decent all around lens. I am currently looking into the Tamron 18-250, that Rich suggested. I will let you know what I decide.

(Message edited by LKA__SUPRA24SSV on February 27, 2007)
Old    Eric Silva (getssum)      Join Date: Jul 2005       02-27-2007, 1:47 PM Reply   
I'd say go with the 70-200 F4L as it will be around in your photo bag for a LONG time. (or at least until you upgrade to a 70-200 2.8).

That lens has a great reputation, great user review, and most of all great pictures.

If you go to FredMiranda.com (you'll have to register) check out their buy/sell page. As far as I can remember retail for the 70-200 F4 is about 599$ and used ones typically go for 525ish.

I haven't read as favorable of reviews regarding the 70-300, and I do know that the 70-300 dosen't hold its value as well as the 70-200.

Hope this helps a little bit.

eric
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-27-2007, 2:07 PM Reply   
The 70-200L will focus fast and is tack sharp so it's the clear winner when it comes to wake shots.

The IS will only help when your shooting @ slower shutter speeds.

The L lens hold there value really well too.
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-27-2007, 2:11 PM Reply   
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&added TroughType=search

Buy a filter too.
Old    Swami (swami)      Join Date: Apr 2006       02-27-2007, 3:02 PM Reply   
a UV filter right?

the 70-200L is a good rig to have. Honestly, if you are worrying about getting the IS for low light, I would just save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

I actually leave my IS on all the time on the 70-200 2.8L IS. Does it help... I'm not real sure. I think I'll shoot for a while with it off. :-)
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-27-2007, 3:09 PM Reply   
Yes...A UV filter.

I wonder if the IS slows down the focusing speed ?
Old    Peter_C (peter_c)      Join Date: Sep 2001       02-27-2007, 3:22 PM Reply   
No need for a UV filter, just get a multi coated clear filter like the B+W 007. It is a myth that digi's need a UV filter. With a 35mm yes they do need UV. Really the only point of the filter is to protect the lense. Any lense of decent quality already is multi coated. I also bought a polerizer in a 77mm and a step down ring for my 18-200mm, which is 72mm. My 12-24mm is a 77mm.

IS is great when shooting zoomed in, but it also creates some noise. Try it both on and off on a tripod sometime and you will see the difference. Use the timer or a remote, so there is not camera movement. It helps a ton though when freehanding the camera when zoomed in.
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       02-27-2007, 3:29 PM Reply   
You should always have a filter on your lens for protection.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       02-27-2007, 7:19 PM Reply   
My initial impressions of the new Tamron 18-250 are positive. 18mm is way better then I expected especially stopped down a bit, AF is fast enough and accurate.

200mm+ is a struggle without IS and 250mm wide open (f6.3) is on the soft side but livable. I wouldn't recommend it as a serious wakeboard shooting lens but that's not what I bought it for.

It's small enough on the XTi that it may replace my powershot S7 as my toss in the back seat camera.

Other then no VR the Tamron is supposed to be as good as the Nikon 18-200 and my initial shots seem to bear that out.
Old    Taylor Jensen (wakeboardertj)      Join Date: May 2005       02-28-2007, 3:12 PM Reply   
i have the 70-300IS and it was worked out great for me. the 70-200L probably has it for wakeboarding shots but the IS and extra 100mm of zoom on the 70-300 comes in real handy because i shoot a lot of wildlife and nature where you can't always move closer rather than zoom. The IS is also a very nice feature. if i were you, i'd save up for the 70-200L 2.8 or the 70-200f4IS
Old    LKA (lka__supra24ssv)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-01-2007, 4:07 PM Reply   
I will be buying my lenses from BH. I am now thinking about buying two decent lenses again instead of one all around lens.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-01-2007, 6:44 PM Reply   
If there was only 2 lenses I could own they would be the 24-105 f4L IS and the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
Old    Nick (humboldtboarder)      Join Date: Sep 2005       03-01-2007, 7:23 PM Reply   
Thanks for your help guys. I think I'm going to go with the 70-200 f/4L for now. After watching a few of them sell on ebay, I'm sure I'll have no problem getting my money out of it when I want to upgrade.
Old    Peter_C (peter_c)      Join Date: Sep 2001       03-01-2007, 8:05 PM Reply   
I went with a 12-24mm Tokina and a 18-200mm Nikkor, but I have a Nikon. I really like the wide angle. I will be purchasing a 60mm for doing macro work underwater.
Old    Scott (scott_a)      Join Date: Dec 2002       03-01-2007, 10:25 PM Reply   
IS adds noise to the image? I've never noticed.


Canon 10D @1600ISO, 24-105 IS @105mm, IS and non-IS shots separated diagonally by the red line. Lemme know if can tell which image has IS turned on, and which has IS turned off...
Upload
Old    Walt (Walt)      Join Date: Jan 2003       03-01-2007, 10:32 PM Reply   
The bottom appears to have slightly more noise on my monitor.
Old    Taylor Jensen (wakeboardertj)      Join Date: May 2005       03-02-2007, 12:31 AM Reply   
i'd agree with the bottom having more noise

they say u should not use IS when on a tripod. im assuming this was on a tripod?
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-02-2007, 9:01 AM Reply   
I've never read anywhere, on any forum that IS adds noise to an image. With all the IS lenses I've owned I've never seen IS have any effect on noise. The noise in that image of Scott's is so close any difference is undecernable in my mind. You take 2 diffeent shots even with manual setting you could have a small difference in noise like the above.

Older versions of Canon's IS (28-135, 100-400L) require you switch it off on a tripod, everything with generation 2 and up (including the 70-200 f2.8L IS) auto sense on a tripod and switch IS off automatically. There have even been arguments about that. There was a fairly long thread on FM a couple of years ago arguing that IS must be switched off on a tripod even with the newer versions (regardless of what Canon claimed) I posted shots taken with my 300 F2.8L IS of a pod with both IS on and off, (that were absolutely pixel to pixel identical) along with a few others and that pretty much ended that argument.

2 detriments to IS: added cost and added bulk.

If you want to see a difference in noise levels compare images from any Nikon to Canon DSLR from ISO 800 and up (and even that difference is not really that big of a deal.)

Now here is a difference in noise. BTW the noise in that shot is so bad it took 4 passes from noise ninja to smooth it out at all and then PS blocked it up anyway when I resampled it.Upload

(Message edited by richd on March 02, 2007)
Old    LKA (lka__supra24ssv)      Join Date: Jan 2007       03-05-2007, 5:20 AM Reply   
I never thought buying a lens would turn into a guessing game. I guess if I had extra money laying around and have owned a SLR before it would be easier. I am back to getting just one lens and I will upgrade down the road if I get into taking pictures. Now I know my pictures won't be great, but they will be much better than the point and shoot I have been using all of these years.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       03-05-2007, 9:38 AM Reply   
That's really the best way to go. If you really get into it you'll figure out on your own what you need.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:30 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us