The 70-200 lens is a staple in most pro photographer’s diet. The photographic possibilities with that focal are wide ranging and Canon has a 70-200 to suit almost everyone’s needs, 4 different versions in fact. The previous image stabilized version was brought out in 2001 and quickly became the new standard for such lenses. In 2010 Canon introduced the new MKII version of the lens featuring an improved 4-stop image stabilization and theoretically improved image quality. How does it stack up to the previous version and how does it compare to the 70-200 f4 L IS ? Read on to find out more…..
Canon launched the brand new 100mm f2.8 L Macro in September 2009. It’s not very often that Canon launches an entirely new lens, most being updates to already existing designs, so this was one that I wanted to check out as soon as I heard about it. There was already a 100mm macro lens but it was not part of the famed Canon L lineup, so what is different in the design of this version to justify inclusion in the L category? Continue reading »
Jul 102010
This past winter I decided to purchase a 300mm f2.8 L IS. My dream lens. At the time I was using a 300mm f4 L IS to shoot skiing with and whilst I was never disappointed with the quality of the shots from that lens on its own, I wanted to see a little more from it when used with teleconverters. After buying the 2.8 I still had the f4 for a couple of weeks before I sold it on so I took the opportunity to shoot a few tests to compare the two. Details of my testing were as follows; Continue reading »
Sometimes I get in the mood to do big technical tests on gear and lenses. I have a few of those in the works right now but for this one I’m going to keep it simple. Teleconverters have a fairly bad reputation and my first foray into their use was with my original 70-200 2.8 L IS. I picked up a 1.4x II thinking that it might be useful for getting me near the 300mm mark on the cheap. Long story short, I tried it a couple of times and then swore never to put a teleconverter anywhere near my beloved 70-200 ever again. Then I sold the 70-200 2.8 and swapped it for a 70-200 f4 L IS. The newer f4 IS was much sharper than its older 2.8 cousin so I tried the 1.4x on that and was a little more impressed, though by that time I already had a 300mm f4 IS , so the 280mm reach of the 70-200 + 1.4 TC was a bit redundant. I also tried the 1.4x on the 300 f4 and was a little disappointed with that combination. So my initial experiences with teleconverters were very mixed and I never found a combination that I would be happy using in anything less than an emergency. Apart from the degradation of the image quality, there was also noticeable decrease in auto focus speed and accuracy. But what about the legendary 300mm f2.8 L IS ? Continue reading »
Apr 282010
So you’ve mastered you wide-angle lenses and medium telephoto zooms like the ubiquitous 70-200. The next step is inevitably looking at longer lenses in the 300mm and up range. Firstly, be prepared for your wallet to take a bit of a hit. For the most part, once you start heading north of 200mm the price of lenses can take a bit of a jump for the higher quality ones. I can’t cover every lens option but here’s a few thoughts on some of your options from the main two manufacturers. During my years shooting skiing I have rarely needed a lens that goes much longer than 300mm. Sometimes 400mm is good and a couple of times even longer. But I would not say that for skiing and snowboarding photos you need a lens that is natively longer than 400mm. If you need longer once a year, its best to use a teleconverter that time, than carry around unneeded range with you all the time. Here are your main choices in order of ascending price……. Continue reading »
About 3 years ago when I decided to start taking my shooting seriously, I also decided that I was going to need a fisheye lens. What action sports photographer doesnt have a fisheye right? Being a Canon shooter gave me two options, the Canon 15mm Fisheye or the Sigma 15mm Fisheye. At the time I remember reading something posted on the website Wheels And Wax.com saying that the two were nearly identical in image quality. I had just bought a 70-200 2.8L IS so I though i’d save the money and buy my one and only non-canon lens with the intention of upgrading it somewhere along the line. 3 years on and i’m still using the Sigma and i’m continually impressed by the quality of the images I can make with it. Even when shooting with my 5DMKII, the full frame 22 megapixel sensor doesn’t faze it.
Last week I was away on an assignment in Revelstoke, BC. Half way through one of the days I used the Sigma but stupidly put it in my pocket as I switched to my other wide angle. I forgot that I had done this and after getting the shot I skied down to the skier I was shooting. At this point I was skiing with 3 backpacks through a foot of fresh snow and the weight of it all got the better of me and I fell over. The Sigma fell from my pocket……… and worse still, i didnt realise until I got back to the hotel at the end of the day. Needless to say I was pretty bummed, I figured I’d never see the little guy again and If I did, the negative temperatures and snow would probably have ended him. But the next morning I went up for a look around anyway, I figured I knew where it would have fallen out of my pocket and by a stroke of luck it was right there, just beneath a layer of snow but still visible as a dark patch in the white surroundings. I quickly brushed it of, resisting the temptation to warm it up straight away for fear of causing huge amounts of condensation on the inside.  I immediately put it on my camera though and fired it up, though the focus motor was slow to get up to speed , incredibly it was as good as new!
Below are some examples, the first was shot last week in Revelstoke. Shot with the Canon 5DMKII ISO400, 1/1000, f9.0. Obviously there is going to be some vignetting when the lens is used at wider apertures but I think it is very well controlled and almost unnoticeable on a full frame at f4.5. Because the scene was so white in this example I used the 5DMKIIs incredible higher ISO quality to give me a smaller aperture just to be perfectly sure that the sky and snow would not be darkened in the shot at all. 100% crops are also provided.
The second shot is an example of the field of view when the lens is on a 1.3 crop camera, in this case the 1DMKIIN, F5.6 ISO 160, 1/250th. On a 1.3 crop vignetting is only really noticeable wide open but overall sharpness does benefit from being stopped down to f4.0.
Interestingly, over the last few years the gap in price between the Sigma and the Canon fisheyes has narrowed. I did a little research and typically the Canon is only $100 more than the Sigma version now. When I bought mine, the difference was more than a couple of hundred dollars. Now I dont have a Canon fisheye to compare to, from what i’ve read they are very similar in quality but this isn’t designed to compare the two. When i thought that I had lost this lens last week I found myself feeling more disspointed than I imagined I would. It was only really then that I realized how much I love this lens and how many great shots it has given me over the years.
