"L" itis

h.r.ford

h.r.ford

Messages
2,717
Name
Renee
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok I know I'm jumping ahaead but I'm saving for a new lens and it will be an "L". I have it narrowed down to two which are (drum roll please):

EF 24-70 f2.8 L USM
EF 24-105 f4 L IS USM

Now the 24-70 apeals to me because of it being a faster lens but the IS is swaying me to the 24-105. Also the 24-70 is about £200 more than the other (why I dont' understand). But heck when you are paying that much is £200 really that big of a deal?

This will be mainly used for equestrian events.
Anyone ever used both? Any suggestions on how to decide.
 
My first question is why you are thinking of these two for equestrian events? Are you certain this is the correct focal length for your requirements? I use my 80-200mm all the time and have not had to use my 18-70 once, in fact there are times when I wished I had 300mm (maybe it's a man thing :D ).
 
Well, I may change my mind.... But I find with my crappy zoom I have now I usually take pictures in the 50-80 range. Also these are on the smaller side in the weight department as I cannot seem me lugging a 100 -300 around the ring. BTW I am doing my first horse portrait shoot on Sunday weather permitting. If that goes well the owner of the barn will have me doing their unaffiliated shows starting next month! YIPEE!

* SDK sorry! I really did read around first but must be an idiot to miss them. Mod's you can delete if you like.
 
if you don't want to lug around a great weight you're in for an interesting time with either of these lenses, the 24-70 is heavier than the 24-105. and the 24-70 comes in just under a kilo, really. the reason is because it has such crispy glass inside that maintains a 2.8 apperture throughout the range, the -105 isn't burdened with this and can drop a stop, but canon decided to make it f/4 throughout rather than 2.8 at the wide end and 4 tele, as a consequence it is around 650g. my 24-70 is a cracking lens and I love it - I've not used the -105 but I'm sure its excellent also, going by all reports it does the job fantastically. the choice wasn't there when I got mine - if I was given your choice I'd probably go for the 105 given price, weight and range and purpose intended - f stops can be over-come with a bump in ISO on a digital camera. and today's are very well noise controlled.
Only if you want that narrow DoF should you go for the 70 really, that and indoor shooting. mind you if its indoor shooting you'll be doing perhaps an f/1.4 or less in what ever range - 85, 50, 35 - suits you best rather than a zoom?...
 
Been discussing it with another equine photographer (thanks Hacker) and he thinks I really need more the 105... Hmmm I have to think of something. I do have to take photos in indoor arenas so bad lighting is a consideration. Back to doing more research I suppose!
 
All this L Glass talk is making me feel a little horse :D :D
Sooo sorry h.r. I couldn't help m'self - got that friday feelin ;)
 
Have a look at the Sigma 70-200mm f.2.8, I haven't used it myself but it is reputed to be a very capable lens and ideal for what you intend to use it for.

You really will struggle with f/4-5.6 indoors as your ISO will already be boosted because of the poor light and you are going to need a decent shutter speed.
 
Here comes a really newbie sort of question.... My understanding is that the smaller the aperture the less of the pic that will be in focus. How do you get an entire horse and rider in focus at 2.8?? Or does it matter as to how far the subject is away from the lens?

I have been looking at the Sigma 70-200mm and I'm wondering if I should burn up my credit card a little... Just paid it off so really don't want to but I'm losing the battle and just might do it. I think I might head down to Jessops and try it out then make a decision. Maybe give Kerso a hollar!
 
h.r.ford said:
Here comes a really newbie sort of question.... My understanding is that the smaller the aperture the less of the pic that will be in focus.
Click to expand...
I know you know what you mean, but the smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. What causes the confusion is that as the aperture gets smaller it's 'f' number gets larger. :)

How do you get an entire horse and rider in focus at 2.8??
Click to expand...

Well you possibly don't unless you take the shot sideways on. It's not always possible or even necessary to get an entire horse and rider in focus anyway if you're taking the shot at a more acute angle. It's more important to get the key part - the rider and /or horses head sharply in focus. The background and/or foreground gradually going oof can serve to lift the main subject matter from distracting surroundings so the shot looks less 'busy'.

Or does it matter as to how far the subject is away from the lens?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Depth of field at any given aperture increases as you focus into the distance and decreases as you focus closer to the camera.

I have been looking at the Sigma 70-200mm and I'm wondering if I should burn up my credit card a little... Just paid it off so really don't want to but I'm losing the battle and just might do it. I think I might head down to Jessops and try it out then make a decision. Maybe give Kerso a hollar!
Click to expand...

Can't help you with this bit... you're on your own! :D
 
I know you know what you mean, but the smaller the aperture, the greater the depth of field. What causes the confusion is that as the aperture gets smaller it's 'f' number gets larger. :)
Click to expand...

I do get that but I get all confused explaining what I mean. You answered my main question in part 2 so I really thank you for that!
 
Went to Jessops today with my camera to try out the sigma 70-200 f2.8. What really got me was how heavy it was.

Hacker do you really cary around a camera that weighs as much as a small child all day at shows???

I know I need that 2.8 but god the weight of the Canon 70-200 f4 was sooo much more manageable.
 
h.r.ford said:
Here comes a really newbie sort of question.... My understanding is that the smaller the aperture the less of the pic that will be in focus. How do you get an entire horse and rider in focus at 2.8?? Or does it matter as to how far the subject is away from the lens?
Click to expand...
CT's already answered but never one to miss a shameless plug I've got a good example of what he's meaning on my homepage just now :D

ML1W6477.jpg


h.r.ford said:
Went to Jessops today with my camera to try out the sigma 70-200 f2.8. What really got me was how heavy it was.

Hacker do you really cary around a camera that weighs as much as a small child all day at shows???

I know I need that 2.8 but god the weight of the Canon 70-200 f4 was sooo much more manageable.
Click to expand...
You actually get used to it very quickly, I'd say I use the sigma 70-200 at least 90% of the time handheld on a 1D MkII. Difficult to explain but it just becomes "right"
 
Renee, I now have the perfect example of why you should go for a 2.8 lens. I did an indoor showjumping comp yesterday and it was a nightmare, foggy and gloomy outside when I arrived and it stayed that way until lunchtime which meant that there was very little light coming through the skylights and the indoor lights were somewhat lacking. :bang:

ISO was set to 640 for the day and the camera on aperture priority at f/2.8 using the 70-200mm. Out of around 500 shots I only got about 140 useable ones and the majority of them are borderline, in fact if this were an outdoor shoot they would probably be rejected. If I had been using a slower lens I would have come home with bugger all and been a bit cheesed off. I've included a couple of examples showing basic EXIF data:

MFEC1410C2-5.jpg


MFEC1410C5-5.jpg


With regard to the weight of the lens, use a monopod, mine might as well be permamently attached, you need it if standing around in a field all day. :D

Hope this helps.
 
That last shot's a cracker! Top job in those conditions. (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top