Oh the joy of being young ...
Shirley on Good Ship Lollipop: Mr Juzno, make sure you take this side. It's my good side.
Juzno: Already did, my dear. That will be $90 for the photo.
[Narrator: This could have been taken with a cheap cell phone but it wasn't. In truth the Canon EOS 60D with 18 mP and a long EF 70-200mm L series lens were used to capture this image. Then the raw image was processed in Photoshop CS6 and rendered into monochrome using Silver Efex Pro. Why am I making this comparison? Because I wouldn't be able to charge $90 if I have used a cell phone.]
Oh the joy of having the perfect profile...
Shirley on Good Ship Lollipop: Mr Juzno, I'm changing my name and I'm going to be famous!
Juzno: I'm keeping your photo.
. . .
Glenn: EF 70-200 L with f4 or f2.8 aperture? Also, was it with IS? Just wondering what I could afford when I retire.
Juzno: It's the f4 no IS, Glenn. Otherwise I would have charged $180. Buy now ... don't wait to be a senior (citizen).
Glenn: Yeah, I know how heavy the quality cameras and lenses can be. I wouldn't want to lug it around as a senior citizen, unless perhaps I was in a wheelchair.
Juzno: For the longest time, I debated about getting an f4 or the ridiculously expensive f2.8 IS. But I think there's not much advantage using the wider f2.8 except when you need it to compensate for exposure. At a very long focal length, you don't have much tolerance when you use a wider aperture -- a slight movement would make your photo out of focus -- that is why it needs IS. The one reason you may want the wider aperture is to get a nice bokeh -- and the f4 can provide that because it is a long lens. Even at f5.6, I can get a nice blur in the background. My 2 cents.
Glenn: Your 2 cents makes sense. Have you also considered the hefty 70-300 f4 L IS lens, which is more affordable than the "ridiculously expensive" f2.8 IS? I might consider it in a few years when we get a raise.
Juzno: I think the longer the zoom, the more complicated the lens becomes. In order to make the lens affordable, the manufacturer usually have to cut cost - and more often compromising the integrity of the product. The 70-300 f4 IS may well be a good buy. I've never researched it. I personally don't like zoom lens. I think prime lens are much better. I bought the 70-200 because I needed the 200. I already have a 135 L. The ideal choice for me was to either get a prime 200 or a prime 300. The problem I thought would be that for a prime long lens, I would have to take more steps forward or backwards to get the right framing. At the end of the day, the zoom 70-200 made more sense for the type of photography I do -- which is basically candid people.
One thing to remember when you go for longer focal lenghts, you are probably going to need a tripod. For one, it's heavy and would be hard to eliminate camera shake. [The IS will come in handy here]. At 300, a slight shift can throw off your framing. Most sports photographers using log lens will also use a monopod instead because it's more mobile. This and the IS I think will greatly improve your performance. Now all these add up to your out-the-door cost because you will need a clip for your camera to attach to your monopod and it's not cheap. Also, a decent monopod is also pricey - sometimes more expensive than a tripod. Now I remember why I never bothered with this lens. Maybe you do need a salary raise.
(c) 2013 Rob Castro