File :-(, x, )
Hand holding a 70-200 2.8 IS Anonymous
Hey /p/, I'm going to rent the 70-200 2.8 IS for a day for a fashion show my friend is organizing.

I'm not the official photographer and just want to tag along to learn. If you think of a better lens, please suggest so. I have a 30D and a 50mm 1.4. I'm screwed on the wide end but I'll avoid taking tight group shots.

But back on topic, can you wield the 70-200 by hand reasonably well for a long time? I'm a geeky 125 lbs guy who doesn't work out.

The place doesn't give out the tripod ring and I'm not going to strap that lens on my camera when it's screwed on the tripod.
>> Anonymous
>>98690
Actually, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L is one of the more lightweight L lenses. Though a touch heavier than non-L lenses. I'm sure that you probably will not have too much difficulty carrying it around with you. Also, it's a very good lens overall to boot. Even if you are a bit sore at the end of the day, it'll be worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>98693

What are heavier lenses? The L primes?

The 2.8 IS is the only variant of the 70-200 family my shop rents out. It's 50$ for the day and 20$ less for other lenses like the 24-70, 24-105 or 100-400.

So I figured I'd try the 70-200 2.8 IS bad boy.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
It's definitely possible, you're still going to have to crank up the ISO though (depending on the lighting, but most runway shows i've done...two... haha... weren't terribly well lit) .

Out of the other lenses you mentioned, the 70-200 is def the one, if it's a typical runway show the focal length will be grand. HOWEVER if there's isn't much room, you may want to consider the 24-70mm, i presume it's the 2.8.

Do you want full body shots? or just torso?
>> Anonymous
>>98697

I'd like full body shots but right now, I'm assuming I have enough space for it.
>> Anonymous
You're going to be carrying 5lbs or something in your hands. I hope you aren't doing it all day.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98705

right, just realise that a full body shot at 70mm (105 or whatever it is on the cannon) means you have to be at least 12-15 metres away, whatever that is in feet.

Do you have a shorter lens just in case?

have shutter speeds at 1/250 or more and you should be fine, crank up ISO etc to get that. Unless you've got extra sturdy hands or a monopod, or use a tripod as a mono.
>> Anonymous
This review rated the f/4 version higher than the 2.8
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm
>> Anonymous
Shut the fuck up about "4chan gold/platinum" and accounts/registration. Perpetuating this made-up bullshit is going to result in a ban.

Front page redesigned.

Want frames back?http://www.4chan.org/frames/. Dislike the new design? Get used to it, or access the boards directly through a bookmark (most users do!). REALLY don't like the new design? Leave—seriously ("And nothing of value was lost"). God forbid there be a front page actually worth visiting!

A few notes: The new Yotsuba/leaf logo is a place-holder. We'll probably hold a contest for a new one. To those whining about /b/ and a potential "newfag" invasion: the cat has been out of the bag for a while you idiots. If anything, its placement on the new front page is more inconspicuous and less prominent than ever. For those having trouble with the Firefox extension: DamageInc has been notified of the issues and a fix should be issued fairly soon. Also, the "new" FAQ has been around since February. DURR. Expect some sort of a news post in the next few days/week.
>> Anonymous
>>98712

With the low light he'll need as wide an aperture as he can get though.
>> Anonymous
>>98712
Also the f/4 weighs in at 760 grams as opposed to 1400+ for the 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>98712

Their review also says the 18-55 IS is as sharp as the 17-55 IS.

All jokes aside, the 2.8 is the only version they rent out as I said.

The 4.0 IS just came out a year ago so obviously, they must've improved the optics. But this is like a Modena against a Maranello.

The analogy is a bit flawed but it's in the same vein.
>> Anonymous
>>98719

Forgot to say this, the 2.8 will offer me the option of isolating the background. Which is what I'm after for the runway shots.
>> Anonymous
>>98720

And by isolating the background, I mean isolating the people from the background.
>> Anonymous
>>98720
Unless your shooting a full frame cameraSince your not shooting a full frame camera the focal length will mean even at F4, it will work well at isolating the focus (assuming you are within adequate range)

OF course if you are renting then it doesn't really matter, the price dif is tiny, might aswell splurge!

My Vote, Rent an 85mm f1.2 (good luck), And Foot Zoom, It will be fantastic in shitty lighting conditions, and OOF areas will look all soft focusy and smooooooth)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>98727

The 85 1.2 is available for 40$. And it's fucking sexy.
>> Anonymous
>>98730

Jesus fuck, I keep posting before finishing my thoughts.

But yeah, I wanted to go all out since it's only for one day. I'll probably never buy something like the 70-200 so might as well try it.
>> Anonymous
"Foot zoom" is an incredibly retarded phrase.
>> Anonymous
>>98730
$40 a day? Hot damn, Rent that AND the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

Lol Zoom with your feet, Foot Zoom, hilarious phrases
>> Anonymous
>>98747

The deposit for 2 lenses would exceed my credit card limit. Poor student here.
>> Anonymous
>>98747Lol Zoom with your feet, Foot Zoom, hilarious phrases

Hilarious as in it's funny or hilarious as in it's stupid to zoom with your feet?

Because I do it with my 50mm. O_O
>> Anonymous
>>98757
Funny of course, What kind of idiot would think they are too good to move their body around to get the shot, and instead would rely on a (probably inferior quality) Zoom lens.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>98759

someone in a wheel chair.
>> Anonymous
>>98761
Smart ass,
>>What kind of idiot would think they are too good...

Acknowledging disabilities and refusing to use the mobility afforded to you, are completely different things.

Also wheelchair guys get Wheel zoom, Makes for smoother Panning and zooming techniques :)
>> Anonymous
>>98763

you try hand holding a lens and pushing a wheelchair along at the same time, asshole. it's not fun. :(
>> Anonymous
... moving your position and using a zoom lens create two entirely different effects. depth of field, etc. re: combining the two in the classic jaws shot where they moved in close/zoomed out at the same time (or was it other way round, can never remember)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
There are some situations where you really do need a telephoto lens. That 70-200 2.8 IS is a monster of a lens, I see it everywhere, particularly at sporting events. It will serve you well.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Is it really that big of a zoom? I'm asking honestly. One of my regular lenses that I carry around with me and use a lot is a 70-210. I use it all the time and never had any problems.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>98823
If all he's used to are primes and consumer zooms, then it'll feel like the biggest lens he's ever used in his life. When I first picked up the 80-200 f/2.8, I felt like I was holding a miniature bazooka. Then, of course, I got to use two different 300 f/2.8s, and the other day I got behind a 400 f/2.8 with a TC... now THAT's a huge fucking lens. The 70-200 is very reasonable compared to those. I wouldn't take it on a walkabout for a whole day, but for event shooting, it's no sweat at all to use.
>> Anonymous
>>98823
is that the f/4-5.6? because the constant aperture zooms are much larger than that.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>98828

Okay just wondering if i was nuts or something. I hand hold it usually for most of the portraits I do and I whip out the 200-500 (NOT hand held) for sports and stuff.

>>98829

I have no idea what the specs on it are, I don't pay attention. no need to.
>> Anonymous
I shot a fashion show with a borrowed 70-200/2.8 non-IS, and I was pretty much depending on a monopod to keep everything steady. Even with the monopod, it was hard to get really sharp shots. While handholding 1 or 2 shots may be no problem, you have to remember you'll be holding this stuff for quite a long time.

It's more important to get a good flash though. You can get away with using the kit lens for group shots if you have a good flash, and a flash is pretty much essential for the show in general because they're damn dark.
>> Anonymous
>>98823

It is TWICE the weight of the one you are carrying. You can't compare them like that. It's a 2.8 constant zoom, it is bound to be heavier.
>> Anonymous
>>98845

With IS the hand holding will be much easier. Might get tougher later on as he gets tired, especially if he isn't used to heavy lenses.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>98846

that's exactly why I was asking out of curiosity.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98853

Curiosity killed the cat, don'tcha know? ;)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>98862

Obviously. But it never hurts to ask, anyway. :D I can keep being stupid/curious and ask why it's better to have a fixed zoom instead of one you can change?
>> Anonymous
OP here, I don't have the kit lens because I bought the 30D body only along with the 50/1.4.

Some of you regulars might remember my thread about getting a standard zoom lens + flash combo. BlackAdder, I'm looking at you.

I'll probably be getting the new 18-55 IS and a 430 EX for like, 400$ by next year.

Right now, I'm just renting this for the lols mainly. The lols and because it's probably the best choice from the ones available to me.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98863

It isn't "fixed" in the sense that you can't change it. The "constant aperture" means that you always have the option of a maximum of 2.8 right through the zoom range. With most zooms you see it say something like "4 - 5.6" which means you are getting a narrower aperture as you zoom in. So you get more light and more control or options for your DOF. That's why the 2.8 constant zooms can still be useful for portraits and isolating subjects, even on the long end.

That's also why the 17-55 2.8 gathers in four times as much light as the 18-55 kit lens on the long end of the zoom. When you think of it like that you can see the advantages.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98864

It'll be a good experience for you then. You'll probably enjoy it a lot. I seem to remember someone advising caution with the IS lenses in that you are meant to allow for time for the IS to kick in. Something that is easy to forget if you are not used to them.
>> Anonymous
>>98866

Will the IS work for bursts? When I shoot with the 50/1.4, I do a 3 frame burst just to make sure that at least one has the right focus.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98868

It'll work for bursts as you're not lifting the shutter button, so no problems at all. The only thing to remember is that when you half press the shutter, the IS is engaged and after a few seconds of releasing it it, it is disengaged.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>98866
IS is instantaneous on my 18-55IS.

(It was really disconcerting at first to half press the shutter and have the viewfinder view suddenly stop moving in quite the same way as my camera was, but I think I've gotten used to it now)
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>98884

I think it might be more an issue with the longer lenses. I was in a conversation with some birding types who were discussing it. Perhaps due to the different scale of elements involved or the more difficult task of IS a longer view.

I know they were saying it may appear to have kicked in, but still take a fraction or even a second to get up to full performance.