Equipment Lens/flash recommendations?

I know this'll litter FAQ's throughout t3h int4rwebs, but why is there a crop-factor of 1.6? Another question is, does IS stand for Image Stability? I'm assuming it does, although I can't be sure.

 

IS is Canon's Image Stabilser technology. VR is Nikon's take and Sigma has OS.

1.6x is because of the difference between 50mm full frame and early, common sensors in digital cameras.

 

If you have the $$$ for IS, I'd rather go for the 2.8.

Personally, I find that with steady hands, and some tweaking with manual exposure and EV post processing under RAW, you can easily get desired results at the long end as long as the subject is not moving too fast. I've shot many concerts and shows with F/4, and it usually turns out fine.

I have the macro, but I rarely use macro, but it's a pretty sharp lens. AF is slow though, as it is with most macros.

A also have the Sigma 10-20. Awesome lense. I got mine for cheap, and it's great. The only drawbacks is the slight softening and CA on the edges, but even L wides (at 16mm) exhibit this, so it's just the current nature of wide angle lenses.

I can't say about the walkaround. I don't have one myself, and I usually keep the wide on my body.

I would suggest picking up a cheap 50mm F/1.8 though.

 

Already got the f/1.8 50mm (even mentioned it a couple times). Crap build quality, but it seems to have some pretty nice glass in it - it's surprised me on several occasions.

Not quite sure about the logic on the 2.8 vs the 4IS. That's a two-stop difference, and the IS on the f/4 is four-stop which would allow me to treat it like an f/1.8. Sure, it wouldn't allow for the same bokeh (even though f/4 should be quite a bit), but the extra effective two stops tells me that I'd be able to use it in a somewhat more versatile manner. If I were to take a couple controlled test shots with my 50mm at f/2.8 and f/4 to check bokeh results, should I expect to see pretty darn similar results when wide open on the respective 70-200 lenses?

Ideally I'd test out both of them in similar environments and just decide which one suits my style better by actually using them, but even if I found a camera store around here that had both around, I doubt they'd let me borrow a couple grand worth of glass for a day or two to test it out.

Much thanks for the advice on the macro and the Sigma. I've always enjoyed macro photography quite a bit (even got some of those mag filters for my P+S that would allow me to focus much closer than normal) so I think it would get a good amount of use, but it's certainly one of those situational things that I'd use more professionally than when just going out and snapping a few shots. Then again, my understanding is that it can still focus out quite far and could function as a pretty decent f/2.8 100mm for normal use if need be. With regards to the slow AF - is that relative to SLRs or digital cameras in general?

 

The difference between IS and 2.8 is that IS can only give you hand-shake correction. When your subject is moving, and your F/4 is maxing out a 1/50th, you'll be yearning for that extra stop, even if you have IS. That 3 stop different can be corrected with steady hands or a monopod. I've got the F/4 version, and I've been able to shoot fairly steady with it handheld by finding something for support. I would love to have an extra stop.

Slow AF is not a camera issue. The actual movement of the focusing elements in Canon EOS cameras (EF lenses and Sigma/Tamron versions) is controlled in the lense itself. The camera only feeds it info and power. What I mean by Slow AF is just that. It takes more time for the camera to focus from a defocused state, or it does a lot of searching before finding a focus point. You will find that the 100mm Macro is slower to focus than the 70-200mm. It's just the technology in the lense. Of course, macros tend to focus slow, and it doesn't matter much, since you'll probably be doing a lot of manual focusing with it anyways.

Yes, the 50mm F/1.8 has some pretty poor build quality, but it's got top optics. Stopped to F/2.8, most L lenses can't even beat it.

 

scq is right, IS isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's not the be all and end all. I have the 70-200 f4L and how I use it I've never come across a problem or even really needed IS or some extra stops. However when I've used the 70-200 f2.8L IS, I've not really utilised any of the extra features as I don't shot low light or fast moving subjects. YMMV though and how I use my cameras and gear is very much different to most people.

 

Hm, hadn't really considered that aspect of it. I suppose I'm just not doing enough fast-action photography where it's been an issue, especially not in low enough light where I'd need to open up to f/4 or wider. I certainly never do sports photography, let alone indoor sports, which is what I'd think would be a large portion of what would make up a low-light reasonably-fast-action subject. I suppose it's down to style with regards to what I tend to shoot and what equipment I bring alone - I've just got a feeling that the IS would benefit me more than the stops more often than not. But like I said, I'd probably be best off demoing both the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L and seeing which works better for me. And at the end of the day, the L glass holds it's resale value well enough that I could probably trade from one to the other pretty cheaply if I think the other would have worked better (though at that point, I'd probably just suck up the difference and go for the f/2.8L IS)

I understand about the AF speed being related to the lens rather than the camera body. I was more inquiring as to "slow" as compared to a point-and-shoot or a DSLR. Like how the kit 17-55 with the 400D isn't an especially fast focusing lens, but it's an order of magnitude faster than a fairly quick point-and-shoot's autofocus.

 

It's hard the actual speeds of point-and-shoot focusing. Most of them tend to be slow, with the body struggling to find a point, and when it does, slowly churning the motor drive to the focus point. Some Canon point-and-shoots/prosumer cameras have had USM before, which provided slightly better performance. Obviously, any SLR lense would probably offer much superior focusing speeds. What you really just need to concern yourself with, is the variation in AF speeds amongst SLR lenses. Most of Canon's lenses have switched to USM which is a major speed increase over their old micro-motor type lenses (such as those still used in the 50mm F/1.8 and the 17-55 kit lense).

There are also 2 types of USM. There's the micro type, which is just USM and often found in cheaper lenses marked Ultrasonic (like the 70-300), and the ring type (found on higher end lenses, such as Ls). This doesn't really matter much, but ring type allows you to manually tweak the focus while in AF mode, while micro-USM locks it, so you have to switch back and forth for manual control.

As for bodies, I'm not sure if they have a major impact on focusing speeds. I'm assuming that a 70-200 F/2.8 on a Rebel XTi would focus just as fast as on a 1D Mark III, the key difference being the Mark III with more AF points so potentially less searching, and with more sensitive sensors for lower light AF.

Yes, you should try out both IS and F/2.8 models to gauge for yourself what you need more. Some stores let you test out the lenses, and some even have return/exchange policies. Still, while I love IS, I would still usually consider that extra stop. Not only does it give you double your shutter speed, you'll get more celebrated background blur, and 2.8s stopped down to 4 tend to be sharper than wide open 4s.

Isn't it funny? Your considering the same kit that I use (except I don't have a walkaround). For the 430EX flash, I like it a lot. I don't utilize most of the features in it, except for bouncing it around, so I just tend to keep it on auto most of the time. It's a very good flash with a decent price, and you'll appreciate the adjustable head for bouncing. After you've used bounce-flash, you'll probably look at all in-body flashes with contempt. The charge time on the 430EX is pretty good. It gets slower as your batteries get more drained, so I recommend picking up a couple packs of rechargable NiMH batteries and a charger to go with it. They can get expensive for batteries, but they'll last a lot longer, and will be cheaper in the long run. The flash takes 4 AAs if you're wondering. The only complaint on the flash for me though, would be its inability to act as a master (unlike the 580). You can't buy 2 430EXs and set them up as a master/slave - only slave/slave which does nothing. If you want to do multiple flashes, with off-body. off-set lighting, you'll either need the transmitter, or at least one 580. But if it's going to be a solo flash for now, it's a great buy. I got it thinking I'd return it, but I ended up keeping it.

 

If you have a wide angle or a lens with a large hood you will find you get a shadow from the flash. There is no diffuser on the onboard flash so you get a very harsh light. You also get very flat images because the flash is directly above the lens, no shadows!

You missed the 100-400 off your telephoto list.

 

Yeah Jamie... it's $1300. I was originally looking at a $550 lens, and decided I *might* be able to stretch to that almost-$1k range if it was really worth it. I can't tack another $300+ on to that.

Unless you'd care to put up the difference

I've yet to find a decent camera store around where I am right now so I'd even have the remotest possibility of trying out one of these lenses; at this point, I really can only go on price and opinions.
$540 f/4L USM
$990 f/4L IS USM
$1140 f/2.8L USM
$1300 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (100-400mm)
$1600 f/2.8L IS USM

Plus the other stuff mentioned in the first post, ranging anywhere from $250-$600.

The good news is that, browsing ebay, these things hold their value extremely well. So if I make a "bad" choice (I don't think I could go too wrong with any of them), I'm not going to take an insane loss if I want to trade up.

But going out today doing a bit of snapping, I think that I'm probably going to better off, at least in the short term, with a wide-angle or a walkaround. My "nifty fifty" isn't really wide enough for a lot of what I want to do (at least, not on the 400D body), but in other situations it's not really long enough either. My only other lens is the kit thing, which certainly works as a walkaround, but the optics are nothing special at best and almost feels as limited as the 50mm in the sense that it's either not wide enough or not long enough. Without getting a wide-angle AND a walkaround zoom with decent length I won't get both, but I'd at least like to get either in the short-term.

Really hard to come to any conclusions with that thought. But I figure that I'll just feel silly if I'm using a kit lens for my kinda-wide-angle shots and using L glass for the telephoto, even if one of the above tele lenses would get me the extra range I'd like to have.

 

I know this is moving away from the proper subject of this thread, but all this talk of f-numbers confuses me. I know that the DOF is a way to isolate a subject or simply have a full-focus shot, but why is f2.8 so much better than f4.0? Is it really $600-worth to get that extra 1.2?

When you say f-stop what does it mean?

 

Just got back from Live Earth at Wembley. Sadly, your first point proved true - borrowed Bindi's 10-22 and while this lens wide open allowed Hiren to take a shot of me from just the row behind, the huge lens blocked most of the flash so I'm all dark from the neck down

Could've done with the 400mm too - I'm not sure many of my 300mm shots will come out well

 

F-stop is a reference to the aperture used, i.e. how wide the aperture through which light passes is. The consequences of varying f-stops are, as you said, depth of field, and the amount of light reaching the film/sensor. So it has a knock on effect on the shutter speed required to freeze motion. For example, using an f2.8 lens will allow you to use a higher shutter speed to get the same exposure than an f4.0 lens would allow. I can't remember exactly how much more light f2.8 allows than f4, but afaik the f-stop scale isn't just f8 = half f4 etc.

 

Apertures are base root two, so multiply or divide by roughly 1.4. F/1.4 would be double that of F/2 which is double that of F/2.8 which would be double the amount of light as a F/4 and so forth.

F/1, F/1.4, F/2, F/2.8, F/4, F/5.6...

All those odd numbers like F/1.2 or F/1.8 are just mid-stops, so they'd be 1/2 stops or 1/3 stops in between the doubling intervals. In response to is F/2.8 worth double the price (it often tends to be double for Canon), it all depends. You get double the light, so double the shutter speed. So if you're maxing out at 1/50th in low light, that extra stop will sure come in handy for freezing hand shake and subject movement without a flash.

 

Interesting stuff, I hadn't realised that. I've done a bit of lense theory in my course, but we only did a vague bit about telescopes, and they use DOF and focal length etc in fairly different ways, and this has moved on such a long way from them by now too. Quite interesting, from a physics POV at least, how the parrallax-free viewfinders on SLR's work, along with their general operation...

 

yes, but IS would also freeze hand shake too. I'd think the real difference comes with moving subjects- whether two stops faster shutter speed to better freeze action is more important to you than going to the camera-shake-equivalent of four speeds faster (since the 70-200 has four-stop IS).

So, bokeh and wide-open sharpness aside, it should really come down to what kind of subjects you're typically shooting. Action subjects could use the aperture where slower/stationary subjects would be better off with the image stabilization so you don't have to lug around a tripod.

 

Same here, i absolutely love it. It doesn't seem to make sense as to why it's so cheap - there's literally nothing wrong with it and everything going for it. 7 blades, full-time manual focus ring, metal mount, respectable aperture, good construction, internal focusing so compatible with filters and hoods, a focus meter... best bang/buck lens ever?

It was a bit of a fluke purchase for me. I bought it when I didn't really appreciate what I was buying

 

This one? For $230? Certainly well in my price range - in fact, that plus the flash seems a decent choice if that's really the case.

 

That's the one - the Mk II. The Mk I is a piece of turd and should be avoided at all costs

 

Hm, well at that price, I don't think I can go too wrong. It would certainly be a better walk-around than what I have now, should be wide enough for the time being, and doesn't leave much of a gap of I get that 10-20 Sigma at a later time.

Think I should go for a flash on the same go, or hold off for later on it?