Shiny new Canon 70-200 f4... and all I get is subject blur :(

P

photonumpty

Messages
193
Name
Mat
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been dreaming of one day owning an 'L' lens...
and this Christmas threw caution to the wind and bought a 70-200 f4 non IS.

I was always upset with the percentage of my shots that were not pin sharp (actually some weren't even breeze block sharp) and decided to upgrade to the 70-200 in an attempt to overcome this. Unfortunately up until this lens entered my life my favourite lens has been my little 50mm 1.8 and I have really gotten used to being able to use it indoors without a flash (I hate camera mounted flash).

But with this lens I'm finding it nearly impossible to take indoor shots (mostly of the kids) without them coming out as a massive smear... and yes I can ramp up the iso but that seems to create unacceptable levels of noise. The problem is my inability to keep the camera steady (Canon 40D) for the relatively long exposure times...

So I'm looking for advice on how to steady my aim (and quitting drinking isn't a viable option!)

Would a battery grip help balance the camera?
Should I have gotten the IS version? (the 2.8 is way out of my budget)
Would I have been better off with a 50mm 1.4?
Should I look at upgrading my body to one with a better iso range?
Do I have to bite the bullet and use an onboard flash and if so is there one out there that is somewhat more discreet than the usual brick slapped into the hotshoe?

Or just accept that im crap at photography and start on a less perilous hobby like zorbing or some such.

Any ideas to help out a dejected soul?

Cheers,
PN
 
Yes, it's the long exposure times that's giving you the problems, either camera shake, subject movement or both. You're quite correct in trying to up the ISO to allow faster shutter speeds and as you've discovered this leads to increased noise.

The f/4 lens isn't ideal for what you want to achieve, I have one and favour the 50mm f/1.4 for indoor shots of my niece at ISO400, 1/60 sec and f/1.4 or f2.8. Here's an example:

2104287674_a15edb14de_o.jpg
 
As a rule of thumb, if you're handholding, the shutter speed should be 1 / the equivalent focal length. I.e on a 1.6 crop camera at 200mm you should be aiming for around 1/320. At f/4, unless you push the ISO through the roof or use a flash, you're going to struggle getting enough light hitting the sensor to get the correct exposure. You have several options:

Buy a body capable of higher ISOs. (Expensive)
Get the IS version of your lens (Expensive and you might still get subject blur)
Get the f/2.8 version (Really expensive)
Get an external flash and an off camera cord (relatively cheap)

By adding just a little bit of flash, you'll freeze the subjects, and you can use the rest of the exposure to get nice light trails etc. By attaching it via a cord, you can position the flash anywhere to get the effect you want, and with practice the effect can be quite subtle.
 
simply, i think your expecting the lens to do more than it can, just because it has an L in the title and a red band around the end!

F/4 indoors isn't ideal, unless using some decent lighting gear, or good levels of natural light.

I normally shoot alot of indoor stuff (just for fun, dogs etc) at f/2.8 on my old 70-200 f2.8 or if that's not enough to give me 1/60 at iso 400 i break out the 50 1.8.

I've just swapped from the 2.8 to 70-200 f/4 due to money and cash flow problems, it's a stunning lens, for what i want (motorsport).

i just think you've got the wrong lens for the job.

Hows about a 50 1.4, 85 1.8?
 
chris321 said:
By adding just a little bit of flash, you'll freeze the subjects, and you can use the rest of the exposure to get nice light trails etc. By attaching it via a cord, you can position the flash anywhere to get the effect you want, and with practice the effect can be quite subtle.
Click to expand...
Also, using a softbox/diffuser of some description will prevent the light appearing too harsh. Having the flash off camera will give you better modelling. With this set up you could happily continue using your 70-200.
 
I agree with Chris 321. I bought a 430ex flash from Kerso on here for an indoor Halloween party 3 months ago. I've had some excellent results. A lot cheaper than buying a new lens:cool:
 
I had a horrible feeling that there was going to be a consensus toward it being the wrong lens...

So that's two for the 50mm 1.4 right out of the bag.

b****r.

This was supposed to be the holy grail of lens!
It was supposed to make me taller, richer, more attractive women.. oh.. AND take better photographs :)

Swag72 i'll have a look through some of my test shots and see if I can give you a proper answer with some examples but I think the answer might be ALL shutter speeds... actually getting a sharp image isnt a problem.. getting a sharp image that doesn't look like a photo of a black sheet on a dark night from within a black box at the bottom of the sea is... I just cannot seem to hold the camera steady enough to get a decent exposure.

I can feel this lens being relegated to my "outdoor trip to the zoo lens" or at the very least a tripod only lens and I hate tripods more than I hate flash..

Due you think if I tone the power right down on my flash it would still help?

Cheers,

PN

ps... that's a lovely one of your niece :)
 
A 430ex you say... actually that doesn't look too big..
I'm self concious enough with a foot of lens sticking out so really want to avoid sticking a flood light on top as well... but that doesnt seem too huge at all
 
photonumpty said:
A 430ex you say... actually that doesn't look too big..
I'm self concious enough with a foot of lens sticking out so really want to avoid sticking a flood light on top as well... but that doesnt seem too huge at all
Click to expand...

When I first got it, I thought the 430EX was a bit on the big side. Then I saw the behemoth that is the 580EX and decided that actually the 430 is quite a small and tidy little package!!

It's very easy to use flash, but the trick (and the hard work, and endless practice) it to use it subtley, so it doesn't scream at you that flash has been used. Obviously it's not going to look like a natural light shot, but it doesn't have to be hideously obvious.

It would still be helpful if you posted a few of the shots in question up so we can have a look at both the shot and the EXIF data.
 
photonumpty said:
This was supposed to be the holy grail of lens!
It was supposed to make me taller, richer, more attractive women.. oh.. AND take better photographs :)
Click to expand...
The lens is a great lens and its only how you have been using it that not working
Get outdoors and you will see what great photos you will get from this lens.
But not low light indoors....
 
photonumpty said:
.....
Or just accept that im crap at photography and start on a less perilous hobby like zorbing or some such.
Click to expand...

You may very well be crap at zorbing too...the consequences being even worse for your kids.

Stepping backwards from the other advice (which is all very valid) I wonder how you fare in other situations?
What happens when you take your 40D and 70-200/4 outside....good sharp shots or just a better percentage return? The setup should be fine for most none to demanding scenarios.
How are you holding the combination?....poor technique can lose you 2-3 stops at the blink of an eye.

Bob
 
I have yet to give the lens a go outside yet...

I was spoiled really, some time ago I was lucky enough to play with a 70-200 2.8 IS and the percentage of shots that I obtained that I was happy with went through the roof (although the vast majority of these were outside ones.. in fact I think I have some of then posted in my album)

but your right I should give the lens a go in an environment to which it is better suited
 
photonumpty said:
Isome time ago I was lucky enough to play with a 70-200 2.8 IS
Click to expand...

Fatal error! This is the reason I didn't have a go with my friend's 70-200 f/2.8 IS recently! You might as well get saving, you're going to get one eventually now :D
 
chris321 said:
Fatal error! This is the reason I didn't have a go with my friend's 70-200 f/2.8 IS recently! You might as well get saving, you're going to get one eventually now :D
Click to expand...


roger that !!
 
Stick a flash either on top or to one side, bounce light around the room and it will sharpen up your shots without the harsh shadows of direct light (which I hate), try and use a short exposure i.e. less than 1/60, say 1/125 and it should restore your faith in what is a stunning lens. TBH though it wouldnt have been my choice for indoors, if the 50 was working and framing OK why did you think you needed 70/200, if you wanted a tighter lens I think I would have gone for an 85 1.8, they are superb, fast and excellent from f2.5 onwards (sorry). For something tighter still I would have gone for a 135.
But I like primes.
2nd hand 550ex guns can be had for a reasonable price, some prefer it over the 580, its a bit softer, but still has enough power, albeit a bit big.

Matt
 
Ah.. well you see. I suppose it was an attempt to get the best of all worlds.

The two things I like to photograph are my family and critters.
The 50mm was doing sterling work for the home but was useless for wildlife and then just before Christmas whilst photographing the lad precariously balancing on something ridiculous.. he fell and I threw the camera in attempt to save the boy.

I know this will shock some of you.

Luckily the camera was fine but my little nifty fifty went boom.

So... rather than spend 80 quid or so on another lens that could only do half the job I was after I thought I would out the difference toward the 70-200 figuring that the 20mm difference infocal length couldn't make that much difference.. could it?

Actually, for anyone that has pondered this very question, the difference is MASSIVE!

Anyway i'm only a hobbyist and neither have the funds or the justification for going for a 2.8 so it seemed as though 70-200 f4 would make a perfect middle ground lens. I just hadn't accounted for the fact that I like to shoot without flash and that in such f4 just might not cut it inside. I suppose in truth I have never considered a room with all the lights turned on "a low light situation".

I'm fairly certain that vast majority of my problems are due to bad technique and lack of knowledge but then i'm also suspecting that i'm not doing myself any favours by trying to get this lens to perform in low light.

I'll take it out tomorrow and see what I can get out of it in good light. If it performs well then i'll just have to consider another 50mm
 
photonumpty said:
Ah.. well you see. I suppose it was an attempt to get the best of all worlds.

The two things I like to photograph are my family and critters.
The 50mm was doing sterling work for the home but was useless for wildlife and then just before Christmas whilst photographing the lad precariously balancing on something ridiculous.. he fell and I threw the camera in attempt to save the boy.

I know this will shock some of you.

Luckily the camera was fine but my little nifty fifty went boom.

So... rather than spend 80 quid or so on another lens that could only do half the job I was after I thought I would out the difference toward the 70-200 figuring that the 20mm difference infocal length couldn't make that much difference.. could it?

Actually, for anyone that has pondered this very question, the difference is MASSIVE!

Anyway i'm only a hobbyist and neither have the funds or the justification for going for a 2.8 so it seemed as though 70-200 f4 would make a perfect middle ground lens. I just hadn't accounted for the fact that I like to shoot without flash and that in such f4 just might not cut it inside. I suppose in truth I have never considered a room with all the lights turned on "a low light situation".

I'm fairly certain that vast majority of my problems are due to bad technique and lack of knowledge but then i'm also suspecting that i'm not doing myself any favours by trying to get this lens to perform in low light.

I'll take it out tomorrow and see what I can get out of it in good light. If it performs well then i'll just have to consider another 50mm
Click to expand...

I see, that makes sense as I couldnt justify a 2.8 either :)
If you were happy with the 50 AND hate flash but it's bust it would make sense to save a few quid up and get another one. I'm sure once it warms up a bit (and brightens up too) the 70/200 will be brilliant outside as the lad gets a bit bigger (good call on saving the boy and dropping the camera by the way, any chance you could claim the lens on your household policy?)

Matt
 
chris321 said:
Fatal error! This is the reason I didn't have a go with my friend's 70-200 f/2.8 IS recently! You might as well get saving, you're going to get one eventually now :D
Click to expand...

So damn true. This is all I am thinking about now, and I may as well get one now or my research work will go really bad.

However with a flash you should be OK with f/4 lenses. 430EX is fine, and you may later add another 580EX or 2 to play with strobist lighting.
 
First thing to do is check out your hand-holding technique. You should be able to reach the standard rule, that is - the effective focal length equals minimum shutter speed, ie your lens set at 100mm, x1.6 crop factor = effective focal length, so shooting at 1/160sec should get you consistently sharp pictures. If you can't manage that, maybe you're holding it wrong - very simply, cup the lens in your left hand holding the weight and keep your left elbow tight (but gently) against the left side of your chest. Relax, exhale and shoot as you do so.

If you need to go longer than shutter speeds that obey the hand-holding rule of thumb, swap your lens for the 70-300 IS - it's almost as good (and cheaper) and the IS will help enormously.

And don't be afraid of flash. If you take a little time learning to use it well, it can look very natural. That's a whole new question but there are ways to get the pictures you want before you give up on photography altogether :)

Edit: you have got noise reduction on haven't you? Makes a big difference at high ISO. There are also noise reduction programmes you can use in post processing that work well.
 
Canon Bob said:
Y

Stepping backwards from the other advice (which is all very valid) I wonder how you fare in other situations?
What happens when you take your 40D and 70-200/4 outside....good sharp shots or just a better percentage return? The setup should be fine for most none to demanding scenarios.
How are you holding the combination?....poor technique can lose you 2-3 stops at the blink of an eye.

Bob
Click to expand...

Please, please, can we see one or two of your "unsatisfactory" images? I'm reading lots of helpful comments which will take you down Spendmore Lane but I'm not certain that's the right way for you to go. Are you for example simply trying to focus at too close a distance with your 70-200? Have you tried flash? What shutter speeds are you using? Your 40D will do the job, there's no reason why the 70-200 shouldn't but let's see what's happening please.

How've you got the camera set? Av? Tv? Manual? Prog? My guess is that we can improve what you're doing without spending your moeny for you.
 
First off... sorry this thread sort of died...

I asked for advice, loads of people responded and then I almost immediately got sent offshore (well I have to pay for the lens somehow!)

Anyway I just got back and managed to sneak a shot or two off of my niece chucking snowballs. The light wasn't great but certainly good enough and i'm now fairly confident that the lens is fine and that my previous woes are just down to poor technique. Below is just a quick off the cuff snap but is sharp enough for what I was after (actually looking at it I think I may have over sharpened it in PP after I resized for web.. oh well)

Also poor manual reading...

"HoppyUK: you have got noise reduction on haven't you? Makes a big difference at high ISO. There are also noise reduction programmes you can use in post processing that work well."

HopppyUK I didnt even know the camera came with noise reduction...DOH! it is now on! I have yet to give the lens a second go indoors. Will post some results when I get a chance.

Once again thank you all for all of your advice

mat

 
70-200 f2.8 on an APS-C body will be not as sharp as the 70-200 f4 - in fact, the performance of the 2.8 on an APS-C is okay, but nothing special, even stopped down. The f2.8 adds weight but improves focussing.

I know a lot of people with the f4 and love it - but not for indoor people shots! Unless you plan on getting a full-frame body, save your money and leave the f2.8 alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top