|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Sports Photography |
Canon Lenses? |
Ok, I know about SLR's and manual iso, aperature, and shuter speeds, but am really clueless to lenses. What is the difference between a 70 - 200mm lens and a 200 mm lens, also for doing sports photography would you say I absolutely need an IS Lens? In fact doing sport photography such as rodeos, football, baseball, etc, where I will be an average of 40 to 50 yards away from the subject which lens for a canon 30d would you reccomend and do I really need to spend $400 extra just for an IS lens, and please help me understand lenses. Thanks in advance. Josh fhotoace speaks the truth about sports photography. There is a lot to learn and, while I often tell people that their equipment does not matter, this is one area where it really does. At least the 30D might be up to the task, so you've got a start. Just don't shoot in RAW, as the review says this will cut your number of frames to about 10 as opposed to 35-40 for jpeg's. You NEED high speed cards, too, such as Sandisk Extreme III or IV or you will bog down. $$$ Ka-ching! A 70-200 lens zooms from one extreme listed to the other, as is 70, 71, 72, ....... 198, 199, and 200 mm. A 200 mm lens is a 200 mm lens and that's it. See this page for a discussion on sports lenses. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/canon... As far as "IS," you would be well-advised to get this in a lens, as you are going to be using 200 or 300 mm lenses, or more. The longer the lens, the harder it is to hold it still. Okay, a tripod or monopod is a good idea, too, but given that this might not be possible in many situations where you have to be on the move, "IS" will be of great value to you. ~~~~~~ my stock answer ~~~~~~ Image Stabilization - Vibration Reduction This technology is known as "image stabilization," "vibration reduction," "shake reduction," "optical stabilization," and "anti-shake" by the various manufacturers. It is "for real" and makes a visible difference most of the time. If you are using an average point and shoot camera without a monstrous zoom lens, you will see the difference in lower light situations where the camera will be using about 1/60th of a second or lower. If you are using a telephoto lens, the effect will be noticeable at roughly anything slower than the inverse of the focal length, which used to be our standard for deciding when you should use a tripod. If it's a 200 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/200 or slower. If it's a 500 mm lens, you will see the benefit of "IS" or "VR" at speeds of 1/500 or slower. Actually, you will notice a difference at slower speeds than this, but I'd say that this threshold is where it can be called a distinct advantage. Macro shooting benefits from "IS/VR" also, because any movement will be greatly magnified when you are working at extreme close range with high magnification. Also, I feel that "IS/VR" helps if you are using a point and shoot camera at arm's length as you compose in the LCD monitor. It is much harder to hold the camera still with your arms out in front of you. "VR/IS" would be helpful there, even with the shorter focal lengths. Please understand that "VR" or "IS" (etc) will NOT stop motion in a moving subject. You need to use a high shutter speed and/or pan along with the subject in order to do that. VR is only to minimize the effects of camera movement to give you a better chance at getting a clear picture. It won't work miracles there, either. You have to at least TRY to hold still. You can't go down a bumpy road in speeding car and expect to get great shots. This is a composite I made to demonstrate "vibration reduction," which is also called "image stabilization" and "shake reduction" by various camera and lens manufacturers. For the best results, you should click on "All Sizes" and then "Original" before making your comparisons. I tried to remain consistent for all three shots, but I guess as clouds move in and out, things varied by an f-stop or so. I do not think that depth of field is an issue in this test, though. I did not move my feet at all during the test, so the point of view is identical. All three images were made using 1/60th of a second, which I consider to be the low shutter speed for hand-holding a 60 mm lens. I made a reference shot with my 60 mm Nikon macro lens, since I know this to be a fairly sharp lens. I tried to hold as still as I could, but I did not use a tripod. I then made two more exposures with the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, set at 62 mm. I was trying to match the 60 mm lens, but I did it by just remembering some landmarks and zooming to match. As I used the VR lens, however, I did my best to actually "vibrate" the camera by inducing a tremor in my hands as if I was shivering in the cold. I took one photo with the help of VR and one without. It was extremely odd to look through the lens as I shook my hands. Since the VR was working, even though I knew I was shaking the camera, the image appeared steady in the viewfinder! Okay, compare the shots for yourself. You won't see too much difference in the top two, but the effect of vibration reduction is very obvious when you see how the picture comes out when "VR" is turned off. Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 60 mm Macro and Nikon 18-200 VR with and without VR http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei... I realized that the first VR demo (above) may not be a "real world" demo, as I was TRYING to shake during the exposure. Who does that? I was originally trying to answer a question for someone who had a problem with severe tremors, so I was trying to induce tremors in my own hands. Well, I should ask, "Who does that on purpose?" So in this pair, I was trying to hold still for both shots. The white balance is different, as I am trying to learn about that, but I realized that the first shot I took had the "VR" turned off. Everything else is the same, because I didn't move and the shots were made less than 30 seconds apart. The exposures were the same for both shots. I did not do ANY post-processing at all, as that would defeat the purpose of the demo. Nikon D200 - ISO 100 - Nikon 70-300 VR @ 240 mm with and without VR http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei... For a detailed, yet easy to understand explanation, see: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-st... Wow. I am sometimes amazed at the zeal for shooting a wide range of image with little or no training. You may want to take at least one class in photography before you start spending thousands of dollars on equipment, much of which you will not use, once you actually define your area of interest. Sports photography: This area of photography may be one of the most expensive (equipment and leaning curve time investment). Start with two professional level DSLR bodies and at least one 35mm pro body. Add a 400mm f/2.8 ($6,000 or so) a 600mm f/4.0 (over $12,000), two sturdy tripods (and a monopod) and at least one general zoom lens (18-200mm VR is the hot ticket right now) and a super wide angle lens. Add a couple or three electronic flash units with remote capability and a pocket wizard (so you can use the in-place EF units if given that privilege at sporting venues) Expensive, no? The only other field that is more expensive is the one referred to as "nature" or "wildlife". Just add another $10-15,000 in lenses. Editorial, sports and glamour photographer |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |