JRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4728 posts, RR: 49
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4627 times:
I do not want to sound condescending, but perhaps you should investigate more before you do such a purchase. Read about what IS does and when it is helpful, and when it isn't. Read about aperture, the differences between a f/4 and f/2.8 lens and most important of all, think what you really want and see how the choices above fit that. If you have us pick a lens for the 'best value' you are bound to be disappointed, and that with a very expensive piece of glass.
just my 2 cents
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
I have the 2.8 IS and its amazing, works great on the 5D. I can shoot in any light at ISO 400 with no grain.... I have done a few weddings and about 95+ pics are amazing. If you have the cash, get the best... you will not regret.... I use my camera about 25% aviation and 75% other... so go with what you do best...
Might I add, the 100-400 is the best aviation lens.... so choose the L glass for your needs not your wants,
I was going to buy that for my Minolta, but changed my mind after reading several reviews, particularly dpreviews that said this about the Canon one "We can't recommend this lens to anyone".
So I was going to buy a Sony SAL70200G, and that lens was $400 more expensive than the Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS, so I decided to change system and got a 50D as well.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 4345 times:
Quoting TRVYYZ (Reply 15): I never understood how anetters used F2.8 and to take a/c pics and get the whole a/c in focus.
You need to learn about depth of field and the things that effect it.
Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 16): I was going to buy that for my Minolta, but changed my mind after reading several reviews, particularly dpreviews that said this about the Canon one "We can't recommend this lens to anyone".
Too bad, I've owned one for Nikon and one for Canon and both have been absolutely fantastic lenses. Guess that goes to show you dprieview isn't always right or accurate.
Good point. I remember shooting f4.5 at CDG one time and the pics all came out a bit out of focus in one part or another. Does it depend what angel you are shooting the plane at? If it's a 90 degrees to the plane
a 200mm lens at f2.8 at even 500 feet will produce a zone of focus of 213.4 feet. 84.9 infront of the plane of focus and 128.5 behind. Plenty of room, and it increases with distance. A 50mm at 1.8 at 100 feet produces almost that.....99.3 feet.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 22): a 200mm lens at f2.8 at even 500 feet will produce a zone of focus of 213.4 feet. 84.9 infront of the plane of focus and 128.5 behind. Plenty of room, and it increases with distance. A 50mm at 1.8 at 100 feet produces almost that.....99.3 feet.
Haven't you still given up hope they will ever understand Jeff ?
I did, long time ago...........
BTW there is a DOF indicator on top of your lens which will pretty much match the calculations, if you know how to use it that is.
Sigma 70-200 with 2x TC at max focal distance, max zoom and max aperture.
I know the pixel peepers will tell it's soft wide open, soft at the long end and unworkable soft with TC........ I've heard it all for years, well if my Canon 24-105/4L had half the optical qualities of the Sigma it would be somewhat worth it's price tag.
Although I have to admit that the latest version with macro added is one step to far.
[Edited 2008-10-28 15:23:11]
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist