Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: bluntforcetrauma on March 13, 2008, 01:38:48 PM
-
I cant upload the pic
but its clean, tight and bright
please help
I love this quality and this is what i am looking for, is it a SLR? lens? etc?
-
Are you talking about Nick Mccabe?
-
Derek Mccabe. i met him at Govt mule very briefly during NYE run in new york at the beacon. he sent me a pic of warren and i thought he took it and i was wondering what camera, etc he used. i tried to click and past the photo from email to this board but it did not take.
please advise
yes i have tried to reply to the email but i have had no response. And its been since Jan.
thanks
-
Upload the pic to photobucket (free) then copy and paste the IMG code on the board.
HTH.
Dave.
-
FWIW if you want really good low light images, go gotta go the DSLR route to reliably get quality images. None of the P&S cameras have the ISO performance or quality of lenses that you can get with a DSLR. Right now is a great time to be DSLR shopping Canon & Nikon both have great cameras out there that are moderately priced, particularly if you shop the used market. Then just pick up a 50/1.8 lens ($100 or less) and you have a great setup for concert photography. You will probably want some other lenses later, but this would get you going.
I like the Canon 30/40D, the Nikon D80/D200 in the sub 1k used price range. if you are on a tighter budget look for a Canon XTi or a Nikon D50 new or used. If you are really flush Nikon's new D3 is the current king of the hill and is truly phenomenal, but it costs more than several of the cars I have owned in my life.
(http://www.imagelume.com/proofing/Waka07/images/dsc_0450_1.jpg)
-
FWIW if you want really good low light images, go gotta go the DSLR route to reliably get quality images. None of the P&S cameras have the ISO performance or quality of lenses that you can get with a DSLR. Right now is a great time to be DSLR shopping Canon & Nikon both have great cameras out there that are moderately priced, particularly if you shop the used market. Then just pick up a 50/1.8 lens ($100 or less) and you have a great setup for concert photography. You will probably want some other lenses later, but this would get you going.
I like the Canon 30/40D, the Nikon D80/D200 in the sub 1k used price range. if you are on a tighter budget look for a Canon XTi or a Nikon D50 new or used. If you are really flush Nikon's new D3 is the current king of the hill and is truly phenomenal, but it costs more than several of the cars I have owned in my life.
(http://www.imagelume.com/proofing/Waka07/images/dsc_0450_1.jpg)
exactly what i am looking for some advice, thanks, great picture. That picture has the same detail as the Warren shot. I am looking for great low light action performance. SO a good DSLR is the right path, Do you prefer CAnon or Nikon if you had the choice for the first DSLR, in the 1,000 dollar or so range?
-
FWIW if you want really good low light images, go gotta go the DSLR route to reliably get quality images. None of the P&S cameras have the ISO performance or quality of lenses that you can get with a DSLR. Right now is a great time to be DSLR shopping Canon & Nikon both have great cameras out there that are moderately priced, particularly if you shop the used market. Then just pick up a 50/1.8 lens ($100 or less) and you have a great setup for concert photography. You will probably want some other lenses later, but this would get you going.
I like the Canon 30/40D, the Nikon D80/D200 in the sub 1k used price range. if you are on a tighter budget look for a Canon XTi or a Nikon D50 new or used. If you are really flush Nikon's new D3 is the current king of the hill and is truly phenomenal, but it costs more than several of the cars I have owned in my life.
(http://www.imagelume.com/proofing/Waka07/images/dsc_0450_1.jpg)
exactly what i am looking for some advice, thanks, great picture. That picture has the same detail as the Warren shot. I am looking for great low light action performance. SO a good DSLR is the right path, Do you prefer CAnon or Nikon if you had the choice for the first DSLR, in the 1,000 dollar or so range? I see in your signature you use Nikon.
also you say a 50/ 1.8 lens? Would that be 50 mm / f 1.8? I have been looking on B&H photo web site for reference and cant seem to find the lens with the specs of 50mm / f1.8
could you lead me a little closer to the promised land?
-
Do you prefer CAnon or Nikon if you had the choice for the first DSLR, in the 1,000 dollar or so range?
For $1k, I'd get a Canon DSLR (shooting a Rebel XT myself, but the XTi and XTs are just as fine) and the 50mm f/1.4 USM.
You can get a Rebel XT and 50mm f/1.8 from Amazon for under $500. The 50mm f/1.4 is worth the upgrade, though.
edit: here are some amazon links.
50/1.8: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007E7JU
50/1.4: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00009XVCZ
Rebel XT: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007QKMSC
-
exactly what i am looking for some advice, thanks, great picture. That picture has the same detail as the Warren shot. I am looking for great low light action performance. SO a good DSLR is the right path, Do you prefer CAnon or Nikon if you had the choice for the first DSLR, in the 1,000 dollar or so range?
I shoot Nikon but some of that is because of my lens collection and I also prefer Nikon's ergonomics but that is more subjective. If I were starting totally from scratch today I'd still probably go that way but mainly because I do some pro work and the D300 and particularly the D3 are beating anything Canon currently has out. This could and probably will change as Nikon & Canon continue to leapfrog each other.
On a more modest budget I'd probably lean to Canon. I'd look around for a good deal on a 30D or maybe a 40D if you can save some $$ by getting fewer lenses. They are both great cameras and have really solid low light performance, better than the D70/50 from Nikon, although at the D200/300 level it is closer image quality wise when you consider high ISO noise and retained detail. When I referred to the 50/1.8 you are correct that means a 50mm /f 1.8 lens. Both Canon & Nikon make one and they are both great values for the money. Jumping to the 50/1.4 gets you a slightly faster lens but the cost goes up significantly. One nice thing about lenses is they tend to hold their value fairly well. If you buy good lenses and take care of them you can sell them used for probably 75% or more of their price new. That is very rare for electronics these days and makes upgrading lenses down the road more affordable. For example buy the 50/1.8 now for around $90 then sell it in 2 years for $75 and take that plus a bit you save up and go to the 50/1.4 when you have some more experience and can really take advantage of the upgrade.
So with a grand to drop on a Canon concert rig, I'd do something like this...
http://www.adorama.com/ICA30DR.html?sid=1205451265935716 Canon 30D Refurb $650
http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html Canon 50/1.8 New $85
http://www.adorama.com/CA2485U.html Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $309.
The 24-85 is a decent lens for everyday shooting but may not be that great for concert shooting. Anything else gets above your 1K budget, but like I said you can always sell glass and upgrade later.
If i wend Nikon I'd do something like this.....
http://www.adorama.com/INKD80R.html Nikon D80 Refurb $639
http://www.adorama.com/NK5018AFDU.html Nikon 50/1.8 $109
http://www.adorama.com/NK1870DXR.html Nikon 18mm - 70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S $239
Again the 18-70 is not a great concert lens but it is a solid all around lens and in my opinion is a better (Sharper) lens than the Canon 24-85 and the slightly wider view on the short end is a plus with a crop sensor. Same story on the upgrade down the road.
Hopefully this gives you some help making a decision. the bottom line is Canon and Nikon both make great camera and you won't go wrong either way. Try and find a store that has both you can play with a bit. Some people really prefer the layout and feel of one brand over the other. Also plan on saving $50-75 to pick up some good and most importantly fast CF cards. Fast cards write faster and allow you to take more photos in a short period of time. Often at shows even with a photo pass you can shoot the 1st three songs only. That time seems to go really quick when you are waiting on your camera's buffer to clear.
-
One last note on buying ANY camera online. There are a lot of scam stores out there. Stick with the biggies (Amazon, B&H, Adorama) or be sure to check out the resellers ratings on a site like resellerratings.com. If the price is too good to be true, it is!
-
Jumping to the 50/1.4 gets you a slightly faster lens but the cost goes up significantly.
Since when is 2/3 of a stop "slightly" faster?
2/3 stop = 2/3 more light = 66% faster shutter.
http://www.adorama.com/ICA30DR.html?sid=1205451265935716 Canon 30D Refurb $650
http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html Canon 50/1.8 New $85
http://www.adorama.com/CA2485U.html Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $309.
The 24-85 will be nearly useless for most concerts I've been to. For a pure concert rig, I'd get a 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 prime to compliment the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4.
-
Jumping to the 50/1.4 gets you a slightly faster lens but the cost goes up significantly.
Since when is 2/3 of a stop "slightly" faster?
2/3 stop = 2/3 more light = 66% faster shutter.
http://www.adorama.com/ICA30DR.html?sid=1205451265935716 Canon 30D Refurb $650
http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html Canon 50/1.8 New $85
http://www.adorama.com/CA2485U.html Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $309.
The 24-85 will be nearly useless for most concerts I've been to. For a pure concert rig, I'd get a 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 prime to compliment the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4.
I'm thinking more along the lines that the extra 2/3 of a stop also means even shallower depth of field. A 1.8 is a very fast lens and starting out paying 2.5 to 3 times the price for that extra speed is probably not worth it. Particularly when on a fixed budget it means going from a camera body that negates the extra speed with extra sensor noise. Trust me I get the value of the 1.4, it's what I have, but my budget wasn't $1000.
The secondary lens I suggested was not for concert shooting, it's more for everyday use. Someone buying a DSLR is also going to want the flexibility of having a "walk around" lens for the rest of their shooting. Having just a 50 & say a 20mm prime is probably not going to work very well for non concert stuff.
-
Jumping to the 50/1.4 gets you a slightly faster lens but the cost goes up significantly.
Since when is 2/3 of a stop "slightly" faster?
2/3 stop = 2/3 more light = 66% faster shutter.
http://www.adorama.com/ICA30DR.html?sid=1205451265935716 Canon 30D Refurb $650
http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AFU.html Canon 50/1.8 New $85
http://www.adorama.com/CA2485U.html Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $309.
The 24-85 will be nearly useless for most concerts I've been to. For a pure concert rig, I'd get a 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 prime to compliment the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4.
I'm thinking more along the lines that the extra 2/3 of a stop also means even shallower depth of field. A 1.8 is a very fast lens and starting out paying 2.5 to 3 times the price for that extra speed is probably not worth it. Particularly when on a fixed budget it means going from a camera body that negates the extra speed with extra sensor noise. Trust me I get the value of the 1.4, it's what I have, but my budget wasn't $1000.
The secondary lens I suggested was not for concert shooting, it's more for everyday use. Someone buying a DSLR is also going to want the flexibility of having a "walk around" lens for the rest of their shooting. Having just a 50 & say a 20mm prime is probably not going to work very well for non concert stuff.
First off, thanks a ton for the advise, I am trying to narrow the choices as I try to get a clear understanding of what i want the camera to do. So here is some more info
most definitely I am looking for a camera that would do both--concerts and everyday use, but I mean high quality photos in low light situations such as morning shots with movement.
So i was thinking canon 40d or what about the rebel xti--since i think they can take the same lenses? My budget can go above $1,000 but not like to $8,000. I just want flexibility with the chance to add lenses( telephoto, and wide angle) with great quality shots for concerts, and low light morning everyday " portrait type of shots
I have been looking at B&H photo.
what do you think?
please advise
-
If your buying a zoom walk around and want it to be multi purpose, concert and low light (early morning), get an f2.8 zoom. You'll spend around a grand for a canon 24-70f2.8. Another option, for less than half the price is a sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex dg. Damn fine IQ. Sharp. The auto focus is a bit slow and noisy, but, for around 4 bills, definitly worth it.
-
If your buying a zoom walk around and want it to be multi purpose, concert and low light (early morning), get an f2.8 zoom. You'll spend around a grand for a canon 24-70f2.8. Another option, for less than half the price is a sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex dg. Damn fine IQ. Sharp. The auto focus is a bit slow and noisy, but, for around 4 bills, definitly worth it.
so then does it matter too much which body the lens goes on, as far as the XTI or the pricey D40 Canon?
-
It's an ef lens. Will work on full frame or crop sensors. I use mine on both my 20d and rebel xt (both a 1.6x crop). Former owner used it on his 5d (full frame sensor). ef-s lenses will only work on your crop sensor bodies, the ef will work on both.
I would like an L lens in this focal range to compliment my 70-200Lf2.8, but, IQ is there on the sigma so I can't justify shelling out more money. That sigma lens pretty much stays on my body. I sell alot of prints, mainly landscapes, and even on a crop sensor, at 24mm, it's wide enough for alot of situations. If I need wider, I've got 12-24 atx. But what's great, after a day of shooting outdoors, I can walk in the club and not change a lens. I too shoot alot in the magic hour of the day, alot of it is of area landmarks where I need the low light capabilities without a flash and the f2.8 really comes in handy. I also shoot kids, and fast glass is a plus there. It's just easier if I have faster glass, I don't have to change lenses quite as often or haul around as much glass. 3 lenses in my bag is heavy enough.
Don't get me wrong, i still lust after more glass. It's like mics, I want more, but what I have is suitable for all situations...
I do so want a 5d though ;D
-
If your buying a zoom walk around and want it to be multi purpose, concert and low light (early morning), get an f2.8 zoom. You'll spend around a grand for a canon 24-70f2.8. Another option, for less than half the price is a sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex dg. Damn fine IQ. Sharp. The auto focus is a bit slow and noisy, but, for around 4 bills, definitly worth it.
so then does it matter too much which body the lens goes on, as far as the XTI or the pricey D40 Canon?
The 40D is much cleaner at high ISO.
With the same lens and lighting you will get a crisper, less speckled shot than with the xti.
I bought a rebel without knowing any better and now I wish I dropped the extra $$ for the D
JAson
-
If your buying a zoom walk around and want it to be multi purpose, concert and low light (early morning), get an f2.8 zoom. You'll spend around a grand for a canon 24-70f2.8. Another option, for less than half the price is a sigma 24-70 f2.8 ex dg. Damn fine IQ. Sharp. The auto focus is a bit slow and noisy, but, for around 4 bills, definitly worth it.
so then does it matter too much which body the lens goes on, as far as the XTI or the pricey D40 Canon?
The 40D is much cleaner at high ISO.
With the same lens and lighting you will get a crisper, less speckled shot than with the xti.
I bought a rebel without knowing any better and now I wish I dropped the extra $$ for the D
JAson
Or get a used 30d. Won't hit your wallet as hard. Some say less noise than the new 40d. I have no experience however other than reading reviews on fredmiranda and dgrin. I could be off base. The 40d does have some more features but both are very capable cameras.
Personally, the xt's and the xti's just don't feel as solid, plastic body. I still use the xt from time to time. I just like something a little more robust and solid. Again, this is personal preference.
-
Like I said a few hundred in budget swings things. If the hypothetical budget is $1200. Then I'd definetely go for the Sigma 2.8 as a walk around lens as it is also a good concert lens. I have one and agree that it is my most used lens. It's just with the slightly tighter budget it was probably too much to stick with a D Series Canon or on of the hundred series Nikons and I really think that is a better way to go for a body. Others have mentioned the reasons why and I fully agree. Low light performance and build quality are superior to the XT series.
-
it appears that most would not go the way of the xti? but go with the 40d. But again its some serious upgrade cash wise.
What about the xti body with The canon 70-200L IS f2.8 about 1800.00 new?
its like 600 bucks or so from a xti to a 40d.
If i go with a great lens and the xti body--am i doing bad? Can i upgrade to the 40d or something else in the future?
-
it appears that most would not go the way of the xti? but go with the 40d. But again its some serious upgrade cash wise.
What about the xti body with The canon 70-200L IS f2.8 about 1800.00 new?
its like 600 bucks or so from a xti to a 40d.
If i go with a great lens and the xti body--am i doing bad? Can i upgrade to the 40d or something else in the future?
That canon lens is about 1500, so even with an xti, your pushing 2000+. Used for lens and xti and you can possibly hit that budget of yours. Upgrades are very feasible. Your gonna do that anyways ;) Just like anything else, you'll want to change things up, move on up.
Quality backs and lenses are expensive. Check your wallet at the door.
-
it appears that most would not go the way of the xti? but go with the 40d. But again its some serious upgrade cash wise.
What about the xti body with The canon 70-200L IS f2.8 about 1800.00 new?
its like 600 bucks or so from a xti to a 40d.
If i go with a great lens and the xti body--am i doing bad? Can i upgrade to the 40d or something else in the future?
That canon lens is about 1500, so even with an xti, your pushing 2000+. Used for lens and xti and you can possibly hit that budget of yours. Upgrades are very feasible. Your gonna do that anyways ;) Just like anything else, you'll want to change things up, move on up.
Quality backs and lenses are expensive. Check your wallet at the door.
yeah I will always want to upgrade, i just thought for know i could go with the xti and the 70-200L lens i still would get great pictures without going to the 40D or something more expensive right now. Do you think I will have quality shots with the xti and the 70-200L lens? I can swing that fee, but adding the 40d body to that lens is just a bit much for the wallet for right now. I just dont want to get something i would regret.
-
it appears that most would not go the way of the xti? but go with the 40d. But again its some serious upgrade cash wise.
What about the xti body with The canon 70-200L IS f2.8 about 1800.00 new?
its like 600 bucks or so from a xti to a 40d.
If i go with a great lens and the xti body--am i doing bad? Can i upgrade to the 40d or something else in the future?
That canon lens is about 1500, so even with an xti, your pushing 2000+. Used for lens and xti and you can possibly hit that budget of yours. Upgrades are very feasible. Your gonna do that anyways ;) Just like anything else, you'll want to change things up, move on up.
Quality backs and lenses are expensive. Check your wallet at the door.
yeah I will always want to upgrade, i just thought for know i could go with the xti and the 70-200L lens i still would get great pictures without going to the 40D or something more expensive right now. Do you think I will have quality shots with the xti and the 70-200L lens? I can swing that fee, but adding the 40d body to that lens is just a bit much for the wallet for right now. I just dont want to get something i would regret.
The 70-200L f2.8 is fucking sharp! The xti will also be more than adequate. The biggest obstacle is the photographer. Practice practice and practice. Great gear can yield sub par results, mediocore gear can yield great results in the hands of someone who know what they are doing. Great gear and great photographers yield exceptional results.
Your biggest advantage will always be your glass. L lens glass is top notch and yields fantastic results when used properly.
-
it appears that most would not go the way of the xti? but go with the 40d. But again its some serious upgrade cash wise.
What about the xti body with The canon 70-200L IS f2.8 about 1800.00 new?
its like 600 bucks or so from a xti to a 40d.
If i go with a great lens and the xti body--am i doing bad? Can i upgrade to the 40d or something else in the future?
That canon lens is about 1500, so even with an xti, your pushing 2000+. Used for lens and xti and you can possibly hit that budget of yours. Upgrades are very feasible. Your gonna do that anyways ;) Just like anything else, you'll want to change things up, move on up.
Quality backs and lenses are expensive. Check your wallet at the door.
yeah I will always want to upgrade, i just thought for know i could go with the xti and the 70-200L lens i still would get great pictures without going to the 40D or something more expensive right now. Do you think I will have quality shots with the xti and the 70-200L lens? I can swing that fee, but adding the 40d body to that lens is just a bit much for the wallet for right now. I just dont want to get something i would regret.
Fairly sure there is a non-IS or non-L version of that lense that is a few hundred cheaper
Take a look at my flickr page. Those shots are all from a rebel xt and good lenses, but nothing close to the 2.8L
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhtoque
JAson (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhtoque
JAson)
If you plan to shoot in smaller rooms where you will be able to get close, skip the big zoom for a 40d and just get the 85 1.8
Tamron makes a 28-105 2.8 that you can find used for a couple hundred. It's less popular because it is heavy, but it works well.
I'd start with the best camera you can, and add lenses as you go. Think of it like running schoeps into a deck or having a preamp and a/d converter.
JAson
-
Look for a refurbished/used 30D, it's a better camera than an XTi and I've seen them around $600 refurbished. And as others have said the 70-200/2.8 is the ultimate concert glass, but you would blow your entire budget just on the lens, I'd suggest getting started with a basic setup and upgrade to the big glass later.
-
^^
I concur on the 30d used. $600
Used 70-200L f2.8 (non IS) ~$1000
New 50mmf1.8 $70
Still have a hundred bucks leftover for a camera bag and UV filter. Budget of $1800 met.
Check fredmiranda.com and dgrin.com. The 30d and the 70-200 will pop up every few days. Another option for the lens is buying a grey market lens. Can be a chance, but not through BHPhoto since they warranty everthing for a year anyways. Saves you about $100 off new price.
-
I love watching these types of threads, both for taping gear and photo gear. The original stated budget was ~$1,000. Now we're up to meeting a budget of $1,800. :lol: I, too, love playing with other people's money. :P
-
I love watching these types of threads, both for taping gear and photo gear. The original stated budget was ~$1,000. Now we're up to meeting a budget of $1,800. :lol: I, too, love playing with other people's money. :P
Hi, my name is also Brian and I'm a gear slut.
And yes we are very good at spending money, both ours and other peoples.
-
:lol:
-
After a bunch of research, I'm thinking of passing on the canon 70-200 2.8L and getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex DG APO HSM (769.00 for the MKII version) or the Tamron SP AF 70-200 2.8 DI LD Macro (699.00 but not out yet)
with the huge savings I can pick up the 1.4x ring and another lens or a 2nd body. 8)
JAson
-
After a bunch of research, I'm thinking of passing on the canon 70-200 2.8L and getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex DG APO HSM (769.00 for the MKII version) or the Tamron SP AF 70-200 2.8 DI LD Macro (699.00 but not out yet)
with the huge savings I can pick up the 1.4x ring and another lens or a 2nd body. 8)
JAson
My advice would be to pass on any 200mm lens that doesn't have image stabilization, especially when used on a cropped-sensor body (which effectively magnifies camera shake). Unless you can get it for a song or will be using it on a tripod, save your money for the big boy. I know the Canon IS version is twice the cost, but you'll know where the money went when you use it.
-
After a bunch of research, I'm thinking of passing on the canon 70-200 2.8L and getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex DG APO HSM (769.00 for the MKII version) or the Tamron SP AF 70-200 2.8 DI LD Macro (699.00 but not out yet)
with the huge savings I can pick up the 1.4x ring and another lens or a 2nd body. 8)
JAson
My advice would be to pass on any 200mm lens that doesn't have image stabilization, especially when used on a cropped-sensor body (which effectively magnifies camera shake). Unless you can get it for a song or will be using it on a tripod, save your money for the big boy. I know the Canon IS version is twice the cost, but you'll know where the money went when you use it.
i think so too, its in the canon IS lenses
-
I disagree, but, I"m in the minority I know. The non IS is a sharper lens. To avoid camera shake, just make sure your shutter speeds are above your length (200mm, shoot at over 1/320 on a 1.6x crop lens). I personally have zero problems at 1/150 for 200mm and 1/70 for 70mm. With a monopod I can get even lower. Problem for me is, under 1/60th or 1/70th of a second, I can't stop movement on stage, so I'm not going lower anyways. Just takes a steady hand. Get against a wall, a pole, use your strap, whatever it takes to have a steady hand. A monopod works fantastic.
Yes, the IS would be nice, but, I haven't been in a situation that I coulnd't overcome and get tack sharp images from my non IS 70-200L
Here are a few from a back in January that are handy, all shot with this lens, handheld, without a monopod.
edited to add: Ya'll notice that weird pixalation in the background on shot #2? Photoshop cs3 sure didn't downsize very gracefully in that pic :P
all of these were in extremely low light without a monopod with this lens (except the first one, shot with a 24-70) http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99718.0.html (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99718.0.html)
-
I disagree, but, I"m in the minority I know. The non IS is a sharper lens. To avoid camera shake, just make sure your shutter speeds are above your length (200mm, shoot at over 1/320 on a 1.6x crop lens). I personally have zero problems at 1/150 for 200mm and 1/70 for 70mm. With a monopod I can get even lower. Problem for me is, under 1/60th or 1/70th of a second, I can't stop movement on stage, so I'm not going lower anyways. Just takes a steady hand. Get against a wall, a pole, use your strap, whatever it takes to have a steady hand. A monopod works fantastic.
Yes, the IS would be nice, but, I haven't been in a situation that I coulnd't overcome and get tack sharp images from my non IS 70-200L
FWIW I agree with this for concert shooting. The IS/VR is a big plus but won't help with subject movement. I'll also add that I used to own the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and now have the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR (Nikon's version of IS). It's a better lens than the Sigma but I did get some great images with the good 'ol Sigma. You can find them used in the $600-700 range. But the overall better image quality made the upgrade to the OEM glass attractive to me. I sold my Sigma for darn near what I bought it for after about a year so remember you can always upgrade for a fairly small $$ penalty. Think of it as a long term equipment rental.
-
I disagree, but, I"m in the minority I know. The non IS is a sharper lens. To avoid camera shake, just make sure your shutter speeds are above your length (200mm, shoot at over 1/320 on a 1.6x crop lens). I personally have zero problems at 1/150 for 200mm and 1/70 for 70mm. With a monopod I can get even lower. Problem for me is, under 1/60th or 1/70th of a second, I can't stop movement on stage, so I'm not going lower anyways. Just takes a steady hand. Get against a wall, a pole, use your strap, whatever it takes to have a steady hand. A monopod works fantastic.
Yes, the IS would be nice, but, I haven't been in a situation that I coulnd't overcome and get tack sharp images from my non IS 70-200L
Here are a few from a back in January that are handy, all shot with this lens, handheld, without a monopod.
edited to add: Ya'll notice that weird pixalation in the background on shot #2? Photoshop cs3 sure didn't downsize very gracefully in that pic :P
all of these were in extremely low light without a monopod with this lens (except the first one, shot with a 24-70) http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99718.0.html (http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,99718.0.html)
what camera body do you use?
and what is a cropped sensor body? and is the xti cropped sensor body?
thanks a zillion
-
I shoot a canon 20d
The canons use a crop sized sensor of 1.6x for xxx and xx series glass. The 5d is a full size sensor. Nikon xx and not sure of the xxx bodies are I believe a 1.4x crop.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a crop size in relation to the old camera style focal lengths in relation to a standard 35mm? At least that is how I've read it. Full frame sensor gives you, with a 24, 25, 50, 70mm glass that focal length. If I'm shooting on a 1.6x crop body, then a 24mm lens will actually give me 38.4mm of reach. Wildlife and sports photog's like the added length of a crop body because it gives them more reach. Glass gets way pricey on the longer focal lengths, every little bit of added length helps.
Of course, a nice big full frame sensor is nice. ;D
-
I disagree, but, I"m in the minority I know. The non IS is a sharper lens. To avoid camera shake, just make sure your shutter speeds are above your length (200mm, shoot at over 1/320 on a 1.6x crop lens). I personally have zero problems at 1/150 for 200mm and 1/70 for 70mm. With a monopod I can get even lower. Problem for me is, under 1/60th or 1/70th of a second, I can't stop movement on stage, so I'm not going lower anyways. Just takes a steady hand. Get against a wall, a pole, use your strap, whatever it takes to have a steady hand. A monopod works fantastic.
Yes, the IS would be nice, but, I haven't been in a situation that I coulnd't overcome and get tack sharp images from my non IS 70-200L
FWIW I agree with this for concert shooting. The IS/VR is a big plus but won't help with subject movement. I'll also add that I used to own the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and now have the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR (Nikon's version of IS). It's a better lens than the Sigma but I did get some great images with the good 'ol Sigma. You can find them used in the $600-700 range. But the overall better image quality made the upgrade to the OEM glass attractive to me. I sold my Sigma for darn near what I bought it for after about a year so remember you can always upgrade for a fairly small $$ penalty. Think of it as a long term equipment rental.
True, concert photography generally requires high enough shutter speeds that are already somewhat safe from camera shake. But any person with more than a casual interest in photography should be very well served by IS/VR for the rest of their work. I've been in plenty of situations where I would have had to bump the ISO to get the shot if I didn't have VR at the long end. I had my doubts before I owned one, but the feature is no gimmick.
Nikon didn't think they needed it either :)