Shirley on Good Ship Lollipop and Discussions on Long Lenses

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