Canon 35-350mm or 100-400mm
Dallas
and why?
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Tony Spadaro
heavily compromised to achieve it. The 100-400 is a straight tele-zoom and
has IS to boot.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Dallas" <dal...@nospam.ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3c52e...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za...
Anthony Zipple
you are in a situation in which a lens change will cost you a money shot and
you are unable to carry 2 bodies/lenses, the 35-350 has a lot of
disadvantages. You might also consider a 70-200L (IS if you can afford it)
with a 2x extender. It is razor sharp without the extender and very good with
it. It is a fair competitor to the 100-400 for many people.
Lisa Horton
design with the addition of IS. Seriously though, at the short end,
that 35-350 is one honkin huge wide angle/normal lens! The 100-400
goes out longer, and has the IS.
Lisa
Mark Morgan
"Users of Canon's 35-350L Please respond"
These two lenses were discussed.
-mm
Harold007
I'll have a 28-105mm for the rest.
Dallas
I have the opportunity of buying the 100-400mm but it is pretty expensive.
For me it would just be outrageous extravagance.
What about the Sigma 50-500mm USM? About half the price and it comes with a
2x teleconverter.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Mark Morgan <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OaF48.20139$H5.84...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
Scott Elliot
> What about the Sigma 50-500mm USM? About half the price and it comes with
a
> 2x teleconverter.
I have the Sigma 50-500 and compared it to the Canon 100-400 before
purchasing. The optical quality is almost identical. The HSM and USM
autofocus are very similar as to quietness, speed and full time manual
over-ride. Both seem to be well made although the Sigma has a more solid
"feel" to it.
The Canon 100-400 has IS which gives it the advantage if you want to hand
hold instead of using a tripod for telephoto shots. Also the 77 mm filters
are cheaper and the same size as used on the Canon 70-200, 28-70 and 17-35 L
lenses so you have fewer filters to carry around with you.
The Sigma 50-500 has the advantages of a significantly longer focal length,
ring type zoom instead of push-pull and lower cost. I have occasionally
found the shorter 50 mm length useful to get a quick wider angle shot
without changing lenses.
I do not consider the 2x teleconverter very usefull with the 50-500 lens,
although I have occasionally obtained reasonable shots with it. A 1000 mm
f/12.6 lens requires a very steady tripod, good light and stationary subject
to get sharp results. The 1.4x teleconverter is more useful since you only
lose one f stop of light.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot
Anthony Zipple
around. A 10x stretch is huge and requires a lot of compromises. For my money,
I would but 2 at least zooms if I wanted to cover that kind of range.
Mark Morgan
than **getting the image.* These are the primary targets for the creation
of the 35-350 from Canon.
News journalists love it.
I would not.
"Anthony Zipple" <tzi...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3C54CBDB...@rcn.com...
Stephen M. Dunn
$I have the opportunity of buying the 100-400mm but it is pretty expensive.
$For me it would just be outrageous extravagance.
So what? I drive an Audi. It is outrageous extravagance; there are
lots of less expensive cars that would do a fine job of getting me where
I'm going - after all, the car I had before the Audi did just fine and I
could have bought another of the same model for only slightly more than
half what the Audi cost. But I had the opportunity of buying the
Audi and I did and I love it.
I plan on buying the 100-400, probably later this year - I have some
other financial priorities to take care of first. I already have a
100-300 that's OK but not stellar, so the 100-400 does have its
practical uses for me - better optics and IS. It's still in the
outrageous extravagance category, but so what - if you're going to use
the thing once you've bought it, and you can afford it, then buy it.
$What about the Sigma 50-500mm USM? About half the price and it comes with a
$2x teleconverter.
But no IS. If you always shoot on a tripod, that's no problem,
but if you want to go handheld, a 500mm f/6.3 lens is rather
restrictive; a 400mm f/5.6 with IS lets you handhold in about 3 stops
less light (2 for IS, .5 for the 1/2-stop speed difference in the
lenses, and a bit extra because you can handhold 400mm at a slightly
slower shutter speed than you can 500mm).
Just as the (roughly) 1.3 kg 35-350 is an awfully big, heavy, and
slow lens at its wider focal lengths, the (roughly) 1.9 kg 50-500
is an awfully big, heavy, and slow lens at its wider focal lengths.
Who wants a 1.9 kg 50mm f/4 lens? As with the 35-350, I'd say it
would be useful if you have to change focal lengths rapidly over
a wide range, but would be a pain in the neck otherwise.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
Stephen M. Dunn
$If it came down to making a choice between the two, which would you go for
$and why?
For me, the way I use my camera, the 35-350 would not be a very
useful lens. My main lens is the 28-135 IS; that's a much more useful
walkabout lens due to size and weight, and it also offers IS. So I'd
end up using the 35-350 as a 135-350 lens, and the 100-400 beats it
on optics (according to Canon's MTF graphs) and in having IS. No
question - I'd pick the 100-400, but like I said, that's for the way I
use the camera.
If I had an unlimited budget for lens acquisition, I would get
both, and keep the 28-135; I'd get the 35-350 for times when there's
plenty of light (so I don't need IS) and I know I'm going to be shooting
on both sides of the 100-135 range (so I'd have to switch back and
forth if I were to use the 28-135 and the 100-400) and might not want
to keep swapping lenses back and forth. But I suspect it would spend
most of its time in storage, because for most of my shooting, I'd
have other lenses that were better choices.
Now, if I were a photojournalist who needed to be able to change
framing and zoom position rapidly over a wide range, the 35-350 would
definitely be in my arsenal.
Mark Morgan
The presence of IS on this lens is absolutely liberating.
I have taken literally thousands more pictures with it than I could have
successfully taken had it lacked IS. I often use a monopod or tripod, but
many many times, I just pull it out of my bag in a pinch and snap an
"opportunity shot" because I CAN with IS. Otherwise, the shot would be a
blurry mess. IS on long lenses like these is an absolute godsend. I will
not buy another 200mm+ lens without it.
My next lens will be the 70-200 2.8 L IS.
Notice that the non-IS version of the 70-200 sells for a mere $1100, while
the IS version sells for near $1900?? There's a reason people are snapping
them up at the higher price.
--Usability...versatility...and that it makes all sort of impoosible shot
a...POSSIBILITY.
Go with the 100-400 IS. No question--short of not being able to afford it.
Although...When you factor in all the film you will NOT WASTE as a result of
having IS, you begin to see a balance in the expenditure.
-Mark
"Dallas" <dal...@nospam.ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3c54b...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za...
Dallas
they can loan me both lenses and then I'll be able to make a decision.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Scott Elliot <sel...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:0jX48.5356$_F4.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
Stephen M. Dunn
$Never used one, but if it is a great lens it would be the only 10x zoom that
$around. A 10x stretch is huge and requires a lot of compromises. For my money,
$I would but 2 at least zooms if I wanted to cover that kind of range.
Most of these sorts of compromises can be fixed to a reasonable
degree if you throw enough money at 'em, and you'll note that Canon's
35-350 is _much_ more expensive than the other 10x zooms (with the
possible exception of Sigma's 50-500, which is also supposed to be a
pro lens - I'm not sure how its price compares). The 35-350 is also
not constrained by the 28-200/28-300 market's desire for relatively
small, lightweight lenses, so it's relatively big, heavy, and built
pretty much like a tank.
The reports I've seen on this lens say that it's not _great_ - it won't
touch the optics of, say, the 70-200 f/2.8L USM - but it's quite
good, and will save you a lot of lens changes compared to the more
impressive lenses like the 28-70 or 70-200, so you'll get shots you'd
have missed while you were changing your other lenses. It should have
no trouble at all beating the 28-200/300 and 70/75/100-300 consumer
zooms.
Scott Elliot
tripod, use slide film, take some pictures of subjects with a lot of fine
detail and take comparative pictures using a remote release and mirror
lock-up. Take pictures at a good selection of focal lengths and apertures.
Just for fun, take some hand-held as well to check out how the IS works on
the Canon lens.
When you get your slides back, compare them using the best, most powerful
loupe you can find.
If your experience is like mine, you will have to look at your written
records to see which lens took which picture, the quality is so similar.
Your email address looks like you are from South Africa. I am headed there
next August and September. We are travelling from Cape Town up through
Namaqualand then over to Kgalaghadi (Kalahari Gemsbok) N.P. Then we fly to
P.E. to visit my wife's relatives for a while and finish off our visit with
a little over a week in Kruger N.P. Hope to get some good wildflower and
wildlife pictures.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot
"Dallas" <dal...@nospam.ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3c563...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za...
Harold007
I'll have a 28-105mm for the rest.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: haro...@aol.com (Harold007)
Control: cancel <20020126191327...@mb-cu.aol.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <20020126191327...@mb-cu.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:43:22 GMT
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Message-ID: <cancel.20020126191...@mb-cu.aol.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!209.98.98.64!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40737034
This message was cancelled from within The Unacanceller's glorious new software, Lotus 1-2-3 For Rogue Cancellers.
Anthony Zipple
you are in a situation in which a lens change will cost you a money shot and
you are unable to carry 2 bodies/lenses, the 35-350 has a lot of
disadvantages. You might also consider a 70-200L (IS if you can afford it)
with a 2x extender. It is razor sharp without the extender and very good with
it. It is a fair competitor to the 100-400 for many people.
Dallas wrote:
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: Anthony Zipple <tzi...@rcn.com>
Control: cancel <3C52DC9E...@rcn.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C52DC9E...@rcn.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:39:42 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.3C52D...@rcn.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40737890
Lisa Horton
design with the addition of IS. Seriously though, at the short end,
that 35-350 is one honkin huge wide angle/normal lens! The 100-400
goes out longer, and has the IS.
Lisa
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: Lisa Horton <Li...@lisahorton.net>
Control: cancel <3C52F106...@lisahorton.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3C52F106...@lisahorton.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:46:15 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.3C52F...@lisahorton.net>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.mailgate.org!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40737776
Mark Morgan
"Users of Canon's 35-350L Please respond"
These two lenses were discussed.
-mm
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: "Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com>
Control: cancel <OaF48.20139$H5.84...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <OaF48.20139$H5.84...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:32:29 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.OaF48.20139$H5.84...@typhoon.san.rr.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!news.csl-gmbh.net!news.stealth.net!msrtrans1!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40737342
Stuart Reid
hand a while ago and I am very pleased with the purchase. I use it
primarily as a travel lens. The people who complain about the weight
of it are making a big deal out of nothing. To carry a bag with a few
lenses that achieve the same focal range would weigh just as much and
would involve lens changing. By having this lens I have been able to
take some photos I wouldn't normally have been able to. I agree with
all the other posts that it isn't the worlds sharpest lens and doesn't
have the worlds best contrast but I would say that it would be in the
same sort of league as the 28-105 in terms of sharpness and contrast.
I think I would prefer a 28-280 rather than a 35-350 but hey we can't
have anything.
if you want to see a few photos I have taken with my single travel
lens have a look at...
http://www.btinternet.com/~pag.uk/bigben350.jpg
and
http://www.btinternet.com/~pag.uk/seagull.jpg
Bill Tuthill
> ... I agree with
> all the other posts that it isn't the worlds sharpest lens and doesn't
> have the worlds best contrast but I would say that it would be in the
> same sort of league as the 28-105 in terms of sharpness and contrast.
Looking at the photodo.com MTF graphs, the 35-350 outperforms the 28-105
over their common range, especially wide open. These lenses get the same
3.3 overall score mostly because the 35-350 falls down (.66) at 350.
> I think I would prefer a 28-280 rather than a 35-350 but hey we can't
> have anything.
Yes, isn't that the truth. Seems like most things I want to photograph
are either close enough for a < 180 lens, or beyond even a 400mm lens.
> http://www.btinternet.com/~pag.uk/bigben350.jpg
> and
> http://www.btinternet.com/~pag.uk/seagull.jpg
Fairly nice bokeh (in the second).
Tony Spadaro
heavily compromised to achieve it. The 100-400 is a straight tele-zoom and
has IS to boot.
--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
A few pictures are available at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
"Dallas" <dal...@nospam.ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3c52e...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za...
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: "Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com>
Control: cancel <vsu48.2351$a07.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <vsu48.2351$a07.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:17:51 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.vsu48.2351$a07.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: w088.z064003087.lax-ca.dsl.cnc.net 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!news.csl-gmbh.net!news.stealth.net!msrtrans1!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp07!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40738215
Scott Elliot
> What about the Sigma 50-500mm USM? About half the price and it comes with
a
> 2x teleconverter.
I have the Sigma 50-500 and compared it to the Canon 100-400 before
purchasing. The optical quality is almost identical. The HSM and USM
autofocus are very similar as to quietness, speed and full time manual
over-ride. Both seem to be well made although the Sigma has a more solid
"feel" to it.
The Canon 100-400 has IS which gives it the advantage if you want to hand
hold instead of using a tripod for telephoto shots. Also the 77 mm filters
are cheaper and the same size as used on the Canon 70-200, 28-70 and 17-35 L
lenses so you have fewer filters to carry around with you.
The Sigma 50-500 has the advantages of a significantly longer focal length,
ring type zoom instead of push-pull and lower cost. I have occasionally
found the shorter 50 mm length useful to get a quick wider angle shot
without changing lenses.
I do not consider the 2x teleconverter very usefull with the 50-500 lens,
although I have occasionally obtained reasonable shots with it. A 1000 mm
f/12.6 lens requires a very steady tripod, good light and stationary subject
to get sharp results. The 1.4x teleconverter is more useful since you only
lose one f stop of light.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: "Scott Elliot" <sel...@telus.net>
Control: cancel <0jX48.5356$_F4.16...@news0.telusplanet.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <0jX48.5356$_F4.16...@news0.telusplanet.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:35:39 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.0jX48.5356$_F4.16...@news0.telusplanet.net>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: commflt.fastlanetrans.com 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.stealth.net!msrtrans1!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp02!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40735742
Dallas
I have the opportunity of buying the 100-400mm but it is pretty expensive.
For me it would just be outrageous extravagance.
What about the Sigma 50-500mm USM? About half the price and it comes with a
2x teleconverter.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Mark Morgan <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OaF48.20139$H5.84...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
From: "Dallas" <dal...@nospam.ananzi.co.za>
Control: cancel <3c54b...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za>
Subject: cmsg cancel <3c54b...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 03:30:22 GMT
Message-ID: <cancel.3...@obiwan.eastcoast.co.za>
X-No-Archive: yes
Newsgroups: microsoft.test,alt.flame.niggers,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
NNTP-Posting-Host: commflt.fastlanetrans.com 64.3.87.88
Lines: 1
Path: news.uni-stuttgart.de!dns.phoenix-ag.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!deine.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!sjc-feed.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!msrnewsc1!cppssbbsa01.microsoft.com!tkmsftngp01!tkmsftngp02!u&n&a&c&anceller
Xref: news.uni-stuttgart.de control:40736008
Dallas
> Go with the 100-400 IS. No question--short of not being able to afford
it.
> Although...When you factor in all the film you will NOT WASTE as a result
of
> having IS, you begin to see a balance in the expenditure.
> -Mark
Film? What film?
Oh yes, that antiquated storage medium! ;-)
Dallas
re-build and the only way to do that is to attract foreign visitors. The
Rand / Dollar exchange rate is so favourable that once you get here, you
will be amazed at how cheap things are.
An ex-pat friend of mine who now works as a cleric in a bank in England was
out here in December and could afford to stay at the 5 star Hilton Hotel in
Durban. I think he said he paid the equivalent of 40 pounds per night.
Pity you won't be coming to Kwa-Zulu Natal, *the* province in SA! Our winter
weather just can't be beat. Personally I have never been to the Kruger
National Park, but I believe it is quite an experience. When I was younger
we used to go to Umfolozi and Hluhluwe which are a lot closer. Haven't been
in years though.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Scott Elliot <sel...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:kcq58.17542$M3.32...@news1.telusplanet.net...
john chapman
overrated. This statement is based on some rather lenghthy empirical
tests with the Nikon 80-400 VR and the Canon 28-135 IS lenses that I
have owned. In the viewfinder VR/IS looks like it is the great
savior, but what actually gets on film was little if any better than
handholding with VR/IS. Despite a very extensive inventory of Nikon
hardware, I was actually considering switching over to Canon because
of its extensive selection of IS lenses. But the 28-135 IS
demonstrated the very marginal value of IS. Now, even though I am
getting old, I have always had a pretty steady hand, and IS seemingly
was not doing any better than my handholding without IS.
Yes, I know that there will be many that will disagree with me. But
there are also many who will concur. It may be that IS really only
helps those with a shaky hand. My own view is that a faster lens is
much more usable than a slower one with IS. And, again, what one sees
in the viewfinder with VR/IS on is quite remarkable.
ste...@bokonon.stevedunn.ca (Stephen M. Dunn) wrote in message news:<GqMqL...@bokonon.stevedunn.ca>...
Mark Morgan
you are either doing something wrong...or you're shooting at speeds that
make IS less necessary.
"john chapman" <JCHA...@COX.RR.COM> wrote in message
news:402a1ac0.02013...@posting.google.com...
Bill Hilton
>I cannot assert that IS is useless, but I will say that it is grossly
>overrated.
I totally disagree with this, based on shooting thousands of frames with the
500 f/4 IS and the 100-400 IS the past 15 months. Just one example, a long
trip to Alaska last fall ... with IS I could shoot the 500 with a 1.4x from a
shuttle bus (braced across a window) with 100 film with people jostling around,
getting sharp full frame shots on grizzly bears. We rented a plane and took a
door off for a flight-seeing trip at McKinley and with the 100-400 IS I could
frame quickly and dampen the plane vibrations for good shots (70-200 f/2.8 IS
will be even better for this). Even with the 500 on a tripod the IS came in
handy when shooting in a high wind with the pod on soft tundra, tundra as
springy as a soft mattress. My wife and I shot with the 2x for an equivalent
1000 f/8 at Katmai, shooting bears from a wooden platform with people milling
around. Friends standing right beside me couldn't get the same shots with
their non-IS lenses because of the vibrations from the wind and from people
walking about. And shooting from a boat in the fjords near Seward the 100-400
was perfect, with IS dampening the vibrations from the engine.
John Chapman had an earlier post describing how he tested his IS, basically
shooting at only one shutter speed with and without IS and seeing no
difference. I think this shows he doesn't really understand what IS is
supposed to do. If you shoot really fast shutter speeds you'll see no
difference between IS on and off; both should be sharp. If you shoot really
slow shutter speeds you'll also see no difference, both will be blurry. What
IS buys you is 2-3 extra stops in stabilization and unless you're shooting in
that narrow overlap range you won't see any difference with IS on or off, but
those 2-3 stops often mean the difference between getting the shot and missing
it for me.
>My own view is that a faster lens is
>much more usable than a slower one with IS.
I would agree with this. A lens without IS that is 2-3 stops faster than one
with IS is a better deal since it will stop both camera shake and subject
movement, and the wider aperture is pleasing for many telephoto situations,
especially with animals. However, where the heck can you find such lenses? My
500 f/4 IS is a great lens. Show me a 500 f/2 or f/1.4 though. That animal
don't exist and if it did the front element would be as large as a trash can
lid and would probably weigh 20-25 lbs and cost tens of thousands of $$. A
100-400 f/2 or even f/2.8 would be great too. Show it to me if you can (it
don't exist either, though Canon's DO technology will supposedly produce a
200-400 f/4 DO with IS soon).
Ask anyone lucky enough to use one of the Canon super tele's with IS (300 or
400 f/2.8 or 500/600 f/4's) if they'd go back to a non-IS equivalent. Few if
any would and I know several top wildlife pros who've switched from Nikon to
Canon solely because of the big tele Canon IS lenses.
If you shoot mostly landscapes from a tripod (which I do with medium format)
then IS is of little value, but for situations like I described above in Alaska
where you might shoot from plane or bus or boat or on soft tundra, or dozens of
other similar situations a wildlife photographer often faces, IS is wonderful
and well worth the extra money.
Bill
Stephen M. Dunn
$I think that the 35-350 gets a bit of a hard life. I bought one second
$hand a while ago and I am very pleased with the purchase. I use it
$primarily as a travel lens. The people who complain about the weight
$of it are making a big deal out of nothing. To carry a bag with a few
$lenses that achieve the same focal range would weigh just as much and
$would involve lens changing.
I often carry all my photo gear around in a bag, so yeah, the
weight thing, overall, isn't the issue. But I don't typically hang
my photo bag off my neck, while I _do_ typically hang my camera,
with lens (and often flash) attached, off my neck. Doing this with a
lesser lens can get a bit tiresome after a few hours; I'd be
surprised if the 35-350 didn't cause discomfort quite a bit sooner.
Stephen M. Dunn
$Yes, I know that there will be many that will disagree with me. But
$there are also many who will concur. It may be that IS really only
$helps those with a shaky hand. My own view is that a faster lens is
$much more usable than a slower one with IS. And, again, what one sees
$in the viewfinder with VR/IS on is quite remarkable.
Fair'nuff; IS, like many other technologies, seems to work better
for some people than for others. If you've tried it and it doesn't
give you good results, then it's not right for you.
But I can say quite surely that it's not only useful for those with
shaky hands. I can handhold 50mm quite reliably at 1/30, which is
below the usual 1/f guideline, and get results that look nice and
sharp at 4x and usually look good at 8x. I could not handhold a 50mm
lens at 1/8, yet I can get sharp pictures with the 28-135 @50mm at
that speed with IS enabled. Likewise, I can get sharp pictures @28mm
at 1/6, and I'd be very surprised if I could do that without IS.
A lens that's two stops faster but lacks IS would let me shoot at
about the same speeds, but with much less DOF. For some shots, that's
a significant improvement; for others, it's not what I want. But
I shudder to think what size a 28-135 f/1.8-2.8 would be, and what
its price would be to get optics of equal quality to the 28-135 IS!
john chapman
of each of my tests I started at a high speed and kept stopping down
until I reached a slow speed. I did this with and without IS in
operation. The results were comparable; i.e., at a given shutter
speed sometimes the IS version was sharper, sometimes not. I repeated
this tests with the Nikon 80-400VR and the Canon 28-135IS, and the
results were similar. The types of shots I was shooting for the tests
were similar to the way I shoot.
Basically VR/IS promises being able to shoot approximately 2 stops
slower than what one might expect from a lens/film combination. But,
hell, I can do that anyhow (although age is beginning to impact this
some). I can fairly reliably shoot a 50mm lens at 1/15th. On one
recent trip I was shooting from the deck of a ferry handholding a
500/5.6 using ISO400 film on a bright but sunless day. I had to
handhold because too much vibration was being transmitted via the
tripod, and I did not have a bean bag with me. Virtually every shot
(maybe 90 shots) were sharp -- perhaps 8 were not. While I cannot do
it reliably, I have successfully handheld my 1000/12 with good
results.
Secondly, I would observe that the anecdote about what others on the
shooting platform were or were not able to do is irrelevant. The only
comparison that is relevant is what one person is able to do with and
without VR on a given lens/film combination. Even the weight and
balance of lenses and cameras can impact with the greater inertia of
the heavier ones tending to suppress shake and vibration.
Frankly, I find it amazing what VR/IS is able to do in the viewfinder.
But as I have observed elsewhere, the impact on the actual image on
film is not nearly as significant as what is appearing in the
viewfinder. I believe it inevitably leads to a false sense of
security in terms of being able to shoot at slow shutter speeds
because of VR/IS. My suspician is that many of the advocates of VR/IS
perhaps have somewhat compromised standards for what is acceptably
sharp. I do know that the web is full of positive and complimentary
comments for lenses I know to be mediocre, and I suspect it is also
true for the VR/IS advocates.
All else being equal, I would probably buy the VR/IS version of a lens
if near the same price. I do not contend it is completely without
value. I just believe it has been overpromised and oversold.
bhilt...@aol.comxspam (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<20020131222838...@mb-cr.aol.com>...
Bill Hilton
>My tests with IS were not limited to a single shutter speed.
A month or two back someone was complaining about IS not working right using
the same two lenses you mention. In his post he said he shot at 1/40th sec (or
similar) with and without IS and didn't see any difference, and concluded the
IS function was broken. He said he was returning the lens (the 28-135, I
think) because it didn't work right. This is not a very good test of IS and
was what I was referring to.
I thought that poster was you but if not, sorry for the mis-identification.
That person and you were the only two people who have complained on this NG
about IS not working. I can dig up the post if you're interested in seeing who
it was, using the google search.
>Basically VR/IS promises being able to shoot approximately 2 stops
>slower than what one might expect from a lens/film combination. But,
>hell, I can do that anyhow (although age is beginning to impact this
>some). I can fairly reliably shoot a 50mm lens at 1/15th.
All IS claims is that if you can "fairly reliably" shoot a 50 mm at 1/15th
without IS then you can shoot the same lens "fairly reliably" at 1/4th sec with
IS turned on. (The technology keeps improving and now they're claiming 3 stops
for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS). This has been proven by many people and, so far as I
know, disproven by no one. It's easy enough to measure precisely in a lab with
the right test jig.
>My suspician is that many of the advocates of VR/IS perhaps have
>somewhat compromised standards for what is acceptably sharp.
The list of advocates includes many of the top nature photographers working
today, including guys like Art Morris, George Lepp, Art Wolfe, Galen Rowell,
and dozens of others including famous pros who switched from Nikon to Canon
largely because of the Canon IS lenses. I doubt they have "compromised
standards" for sharpness. I'm sure there are amateurs who've jumped on the
bandwagon and over-stated the technology's benefits, but I don't know of any
pros who've used IS and said it wasn't useful.
In the most recent "Shutterbug" magazine Bob Shell has a review of the new
70-200 f/2.8L IS and in the opening paragraph states he feels IS is one of the
most important advances in the history of photography (or something like that,
I no longer have the mag so can't quote exactly). He says it's even more of an
advance than autofocus. Seemed a bit of an overstatement to me but I know I'll
never buy a long lens that lacks IS after using it on a 100-400 and a 500 f/4.
Bill
Bill Hilton
>>
>> shooting at only one shutter speed with and without IS and seeing no
>> difference.
>From: jcha...@cox.rr.com (john chapman)
>
>My tests with IS were not limited to a single shutter speed.
OK, I dug up the old thread and it was from you. Thread was "Canon zoom v
prime" back in November and in one of your posts you had the following to say
...
>There was no difference in the results on film between
>with and w/o IS in effect, although it was quite apparent in the
>viewfinder when IS was on. All photos at all focal lengths (28-135)
>were shot at f22 1/40th second.
A couple of people remarked that this was not a good test of IS and you didn't
mention any other shutter speeds, so that's why I made the remark above. If
you later tested it correctly and concluded it doesn't work for you then I
guess it just doesn't work for you, but you are definitely in the minority.
Here's the entire earlier message dug up on Google:
Message 28 in thread
From: john chapman (jcha...@cox.rr.com)
Subject: Re: Canon zoom v prime
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 2001-11-13 07:11:35 PST
If you cannot see a difference on the film (the resulting photos), why
mess with IS? Seeing how the image in the viewfinder settles down
(any visible vibration is cleary dampened)I would have expected the
resulting images to be sharper, but they were not.
When I say see a difference on the film, I would expect sharper
handheld photos with IS as compared to without it, but I am not
getting it. Part of my lens evaluation is to shoot resolution
targets. This provides the means for an objective rather than
subjective evaluation of the lens' ability to resolve lines per
millimeter. There was no difference in the results on film between
with and w/o IS in effect, although it was quite apparent in the
viewfinder when IS was on. All photos at all focal lengths (28-135)
were shot at f22 1/40th second.
Since this was the second IS lens I have tried (the first being the
Nikon 80-400) without seeing any difference in the photos, I can only
conclude that IS only limits camera shake above a certain threshhold.
Presumably, if one can handhold with a steadiness below that
threshhold, then IS will not help. Indeed, in some of the samples the
non IS photo resolved more LPMs. I have read a number of posts from
shooters who also could not see any effect of IS on their photos. If
anyone has as alternative plausible explanation I would appreciate
hearing it.
JIM
> >> If you shoot mostly landscapes from a tripod (which I do with medium
> >format)
> >> Bill
>
I would tend to agree with everything you said after hello, Bill, except
that last little ditty:) Change "....of little value,...." to 'no value and
a detriment' and you win the ring! Why is IS a detriment when used from a
tripod? Turn it on on your pod and look through the finder - you will
wonder who spiked your drink:)
Shoot'em up, steady, unsteady, sharp, blurred, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the
rest will love you for it!!
Jim
Skip
the base under the 'pod is not completely
stable, like a bridge or a dock, or under very
windy conditions. The Columbia River Gorge
springs to mind...
JIM wrote:
>
> >
>
> I would tend to agree with everything you said after hello, Bill, except
> that last little ditty:) Change "....of little value,...." to 'no value and
> a detriment' and you win the ring! Why is IS a detriment when used from a
> tripod? Turn it on on your pod and look through the finder - you will
> wonder who spiked your drink:)
>
> Shoot'em up, steady, unsteady, sharp, blurred, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the
> rest will love you for it!!
>
> Jim
--
*********************************************************************
SHADOWCATCHER IMAGERY
Fine Art Black and White Photography
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip and Heather Middleton
*********************************************************************
Mark Morgan
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comxspam> wrote in message
news:20020131222838...@mb-cr.aol.com...
> >From: JCHA...@COX.RR.COM (john chapman)
>
> >I cannot assert that IS is useless, but I will say that it is grossly
> >overrated.
>
> I totally disagree with this, based on shooting thousands of frames with
the
> 500 f/4 IS and the 100-400 IS the past 15 months. Just one example, a
long
> trip to Alaska last fall ... with IS I could shoot the 500 with a 1.4x
from a
> shuttle bus (braced across a window) with 100 film with people jostling
around,
> getting sharp full frame shots on grizzly bears.
I am in total agreement here.
I have captured hand-held shots that would have been simply impossible to
shoot with acceptable sharpness without IS.
The bus story is true! Nothing else enables this. Nothing.
Mark Morgan
> 500/5.6 using ISO400 film on a bright but sunless day.
Listen, Johnny Appleseed (sorry...couldn't resist--A true ancestor of mine,
BTW), if you're happy shooting on bright days with 400 film, handheld at
5.6, then more power to ya! Many here think 400 film is quite a
compromise...not to mention bright days, period.
Ever been to Alaska?
-Very few bright days. Sun is always low (a GREAT thing!).
Ever looked for wildlife at their best?
-Best wildlife shooting is early light, late light (not to mention most
other photography as well).
400 film might still be necessary, but if you've got bright sunlight, you've
got crap 90% of the time to the pickiest among us.
Want that warm, golden light with the long shadows and incredible refective
glow???
You gotta go early or late. None of that bright day business.
So argue for compromised condition that enable your hand-holding if you
will...
...But don't confuse that with a quality shot.
-How's that for mean and nasty??
:)
-mm
Bill Hilton
>> Just one example, a long trip to Alaska last fall ... with IS
>>I could shoot the 500 with a 1.4x from a shuttle bus (braced
>>across a window) with 100 film with people jostling around,
>> getting sharp full frame shots on grizzly bears.
>From: "Mark Morgan" mmor...@san.rr.com
>
>I am in total agreement here.
>I have captured hand-held shots that would have been simply impossible to
>shoot with acceptable sharpness without IS.
>
>The bus story is true! Nothing else enables this. Nothing.
Here's one of the grizzly-bear-from-a-bus shots, with the 500 and 1.4x wide
open, slow film (so 700 mm f/5.6 in moderately dim light), draped out a window.
People on the other side of the bus were standing up and moving around trying
to see out the windows, causing the bus to rock and sway a bit. The muzzle of
the bear is blurred because he (she?) was ripping up blueberries, due to slow
shutter speed, but the IS stopped the camera movement and in the print the eye
is sharp (we've sold several prints from this image already).
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/alaska_2001/bear_denali.jpg
The year before we didn't have IS equipment and simply couldn't take advantage
of opportunities similar to this from the busses (which don't occur all that
regularly even in Denali).
Bill
Bill Hilton
>> If you shoot mostly landscapes from a tripod (which I do with medium
>>format) then IS is of little value
>From: "JIM" Firew...@prodigy.net
>
>I would tend to agree with everything you said after hello, Bill, except
>that last little ditty:) Change "....of little value,...." to 'no value and
>a detriment' and you win the ring!
Most of the time I agree with you, for landscape shots IS is not necessary.
HOWEVER ... on occasion it comes in handy ... here's a tripod landscape shot
from Alaska where IS helped me out ... very strong winds with gusts up to 40
mph (the camera strap was perfectly horizontal most of the time :), I'm
standing on a hillock of deep spongy tundra as springy as a Sealy Posture-Pedic
mattress and the lens is vibrating like a weathervane in gale force winds. The
mountain is about 30 miles away and I want to isolate it a bit so I've racked a
100-400 mm IS lens out to 300 - 350 mm or so. I want to shoot two stops down
from wide open for best quality so I'm at f/11, I'm using asa 50 film and
bracketing (spot reading off the white band and opened up 1.3 stops and
bracketed around that) so some of the exposures were down to 1/4 sec. I could
have taken this shot without IS but would have likely blurred the image even
with leaning heavily on the tripod to brace it (I was mountain biking so had
just a light 5 lb carbon fiber tripod, Gitzo 1325). Could have shot at f/5.6
and pushed the film or switched to a faster film I had for wildlife to
compensate if I didn't have IS but with IS I didn't need to do this and could
shoot Velvia, which I prefer for landscapes.
http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/alaska_2001/mount_bandoflight.jpg
IS really helped me here, I feel. Even on a tripod. A shaky tripod, but
sometimes that's the hand you're dealt in the real world.
>Why is IS a detriment when used from a
>tripod? Turn it on on your pod and look through the finder - you will
>wonder who spiked your drink:)
The first generation Canon IS lenses wouldn't work on a tripod (a steady tripod
anyway :). I had the 75-300 IS and yes, on a tripod the image in a viewfinder
starts to vibrate wildly (trying to divide by zero in their software algorithm,
if I remember the control theory class I took while studying engineering).
However on later versions of IS you can definitely use IS on the tripod no
matter how steady it is, according to Canon and the testimony of many high-end
users like Lepp and Morris, etc. I almost always use IS with the 500 f/4, for
example. So what you describe used to be true but doesn't hold up for the
later generations of IS, including the new 70-200 f/2.8 L.
Bill
john chapman
contributes little or anything to the sharpness of the on-film image.
As to Bob Shell, he also raved about the pro quality of the Tamron
200-400 zoom in a Shutterbug review of that lens.
bhilt...@aol.comxspam (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<20020213165212...@mb-fe.aol.com>...
john chapman
successfully.
As to your snide comments regarding 400 film, the newest Fuji 400
transparency films (provia 400F and sensia 400 are supposed to be the
same film) are outstanding, with grain and sharpness quite competitive
with most 100 -200 speed emulsions save Provia 100F. I obviously do
not know your precise experience with these films, but my experience
is that most people are quite happy babbling old wives' tales and
other misinformation without their own personal experience.
Additionally, the greatest VR/IS in the world is not going to help
much you when the target is moving (and yes, I know that the Nikon
80-400 VR is supposed to allow panning).
"Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<zEFa8.6942$4x.43...@typhoon.san.rr.com>...
john chapman
slower speeds, then it is possible that VR/IS might be a help.
"Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<VxFa8.6939$4x.43...@typhoon.san.rr.com>...
Mark Morgan
"john chapman" <jcha...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
news:512c4ac0.02021...@posting.google.com...
> If you are not capable of really keeping a handheld camera steady a
> slower speeds, then it is possible that VR/IS might be a help.
Obviously spoken from ignorant arrogance...
Look Johnny... In a bus full of people shifting about...with a 400mm+ lens,
I could have arms made of stone and the lens still moves.
McLeod
shoot an aircraft landing with unsafe gear on an overcast day with a Nikon
VR lens. I was out of breath and shaky by the time I got my equipment and
myself to a vantage point and had to shoot @1/60 at 400mm and every negative
is tack-sharp. As I understand it the moving camera is compensated by the
moving lens elements while making an exposure. Whatever...it saved my
shots.
"Mark Morgan" <mmor...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ogzb8.10105$4x.63...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
Mark Morgan
"McLeod" <cer...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:paAb8.20373$qN3.2...@news1.mts.net...
> Yes, the camera still moves but the image is still sharp. I had to run to
> shoot an aircraft landing with unsafe gear on an overcast day with a Nikon
> VR lens. I was out of breath and shaky by the time I got my equipment and
> myself to a vantage point and had to shoot @1/60 at 400mm and every
negative
> is tack-sharp. As I understand it the moving camera is compensated by the
> moving lens elements while making an exposure. Whatever...it saved my
> shots.
Oops! you're arguing with the wrong party!
It's John Chapman who is claiming VR/IS is useless...not me!
:)
Bill Hilton
>If you are not capable of really keeping a handheld camera steady a
>slower speeds, then it is possible that VR/IS might be a help.
I still think you're missing the advantage of IS or VR ... everyone starts to
see image blur at some shutter speed. All IS and VR promise is that they
extend this speed by another 2-3 stops.
Roine Karlsson
I have the 100-400 L IS and the 35-350 L
I also have a D30 and a EOS 30 two use them on ((and some other lenses, as
Sigma 14/2.8, Sigma 20/1.8 and Sigma 24-70/2.8) and Canon 28-135 IS)
I do use Fuji 400F and has a scanner (scan dual II from Minolta)
The IS is a winner in hand held taking outdoors. The color and contrast is
notably better.
The 400F is better for scanning than other 400 films i tried. I also uses
100F and Velvia. But often the Velvia is in the camera when i need some
speed, so now i run for 400F and takes the processing in my computer.
For extreme, I use Realia in my Mamyia 645. It gives more forgetting and the
Realia (as 120 or 135 film) is better too scan than other cheep 135 print
films.
Roine
"john chapman" <jcha...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
news:512c4ac0.02021...@posting.google.com...
Skip
and 1/4 sec? Then you can see the benefit of
IS, by switching it on and off. If you can hand
hold consistently at 50mm at 1/4 sec without IS,
then keep going stop by stop. IS will get you 2
stops slower shutter speeds than you can
normally hand hold. Strictly speaking, you are
right, IS does not contribute to sharpness, by
itself, in fact, some contend that the
additional group softens the image slightly.
Under ideal conditions, when IS is not necessary
to hand hold, it will not make an image sharper.
Skip
Tommy Huynh
> right, IS does not contribute to sharpness, by
> itself, in fact, some contend that the
> additional group softens the image slightly.
This all depends on the design of the optics. Take a look at the New
70-200 for example, there are quite a few more additional elements in
the IS version, but every review I've read has the new IS lens being a
good deal sharper than the older version (even without using the IS
feature), with the IS version being possibly one of the sharpest zooms
ever.
Skip
the new 70-200 IS would be even sharper without
the addition of the IS group. I, however, am
not one of those people, my knowledge doesn't
extend far enough out that limb!
--
Bill Tuthill
>
> The cited post was mine. And I stand by my assertion that VR/IS
> contributes little or anything to the sharpness of the on-film image.
It probably helps some in long lenses, although it is interesting that
Fritz Pölking determined that mirror lockup is a more important factor
for image sharpness than IS:
http://www.poelking.com/wbuch/scharf/index_e.htm
> As to Bob Shell, he also raved about the pro quality of the Tamron
> 200-400 zoom in a Shutterbug review of that lens.
He also wrote, and this is from memory but probably almost verbatim,
"To tell the difference between images taken with the Rollei Prego 140
(point and shoot) and my Nikon F5, I had to refer to my notes."
Charlie Carroll
with a 4.0/500 mm lens and 1.4X and 2.0X converter on a Gitzo carbon tripod
nbr. G-1349 with a Kirk ball head BH-2.