2 different Sunday services. Unfortunately i didn't have both lenses with me to compare the exact same situation. In both cases the subject is reading his/her testimony. The lighting was the similar, with the first setting possibly having more lighting. I was standing on a chair about 100ft away. So here it goes:
80-200 AF-D
exif: iso1250 2.8 1/125 0ev 200mm
70-200 VR
exif: iso500 2.8 1/60 0ev 200mm
Zooming in we can see some more noise detail:
I was personally shocked about the kind of noise difference that one can see. This was largely due to the fact that I was able to decrease the iso (from 1250 to 500) b/c i was able to shoot at 1/60 versus 1/125. why? b/c of the VR. otherwise there would have been too much shake. Thanks VR!
I still have a long way to go still but it was nice to try to see how these 2 kinds of lenses can produce such different results. Of course with some more post-processing and some noise ninja i'm sure i could do better. =)
I have to admit IS is really nice for telephoto lenses just because it helps eliminate lens shake and therefore lets you shoot at lower ISOs for the same shutter speed but I feel like a common mistake is that people get too attached to IS even on the shorter focal lengths.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is a problem because another common problem with relying on IS/VR is motion blur due to subject motion which IS can't do ANYTHING about it. So people buy an IS lens and then they can go down to like 1/15s handheld which is nice and everything but then now all your people have blurred faces as you're trying to get a picture of them laughing. I wish my 70-200 had IS (but can't afford it) because it'd let me shoot at reasonable shutter speeds which would eliminate lens shake but I think one has to be careful about slowing down the shutter speed too much in favor of less noise (I think I see a bit of motion blur on the picture of Steve, sometimes even 1/60 is too slow when people are moving their heads). That's my take! I'm speaking from a (very) limited budget POV of course.
very true! great comment. i think 1/60 was a stretch but I personally liked the results. I hated looking at the pics i took of kevin and matt. And I agree that VR is not an advantage for motion shots at low shutter speed. So your 2.8 fast lens is great for sport and action photography. I was thinking that VR is good for these situations.
ReplyDeleteVR was a great advantage for me b/c i was so far away. I actually moved closer in 1/2 way through the service and got crisp shots of Pastor Ed. But i wanted to push the lens to the limit and go as far as i could so i didn't have to disrupt the audience.
i bet you'll move to the 70-200 F4 IS soon though...=)
d.p. good eye, I noticed a hair of motion blur as well (not camera shake as the screen behind is still).
ReplyDeleteI would love IS but (aside from it feeling something like 'cheating', which I know is lame =D ) I agree with you d.p., usually the slowest shutter speed I can get on my 80-200/2.8L, is also just about the slowest I want it to go to be able to not get subject blur.
But I sure would love a 24-200/2.8 IS L =) maybe one of our mechanical engineer undergrads can double-major in physics and go into the optics industry!!
thanks. it's my steady hands. ha.
ReplyDeleteat 70-200 i'm feeling the need to starting lifting again. 24-200, you're gonna have to drive it around on a car.
Hehe, or you could practice shooting that pesky woodpecker up at Sierra House =)
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, Canon has an old 35-350L zoom, I heard it's huge. Not as huge as the 'Bigma' (Sigma 50-500), but humongous still.
John maybe you can do a couple extra reps when you carry the speakers at next sound setup? =D
Btw, your hands were fine! d.p. and I noticed subject blur, not camera shake =)
ReplyDeletethis is a blog i will be visiting very often!
ReplyDeletei have the weakest hands ever. when i shoot with my magic drainpipe indoors i have to really brace myself and hold my breath. thinking about going monopod but whenever i see someone using those i think they're wimpy! but it restricts moving around and changing angles..so not sure how often i'd use it..
eileen, maybe you can get one of those body harnesses pro videographers use =) just kidding, but only half. i've never seen one but i would imagine they use a similar mount.
ReplyDelete