[Striker9]

You can easily upgrade RAM, which is what most of these programs need to run smoothly. It will be fine though. You can always upgrade to 4gb for like $100 after you get it.

[g2k556]

Originally Posted by gremlin75

I honestly never turn the IS off on it so I have no clue, LOL. I had a Canon 75-300mm a while back without IS and I remember having issues with that so I'm thinking IS would probably be best. Just sucks that its damn near twice as much



So get the 70-200 f4L or hold off on that and get the 400mm f5.6L now and get the 70-200 later?

well all L lenses hold their resale value quite well, so another possibility is, just get the non-IS. If you like it keep it, if you need IS, sell it and get IS. Might be more of a pain that way, so up to you. or look into the sigma 70-200mm, i've heard good things about that, but haven't really looked up too much on it.

if i was debating between those two, i'd get the 70-200, but that's because i don't find myself even needing 200mm most of the time, let alone 400mm. so it just comes down to what you need for your shooting.

Originally Posted by lastpaintballa

Im looking to get a Dell GX280, 3GHZ and 2GB of RAM. Would this beable to run multiple (possibly hundreds) of images in lightroom and photoshop smoothly.I know almost nothing about computers haha

you should be fine with 2gb, but then again, it's hard for me to say, cause i've been running 8gb forever now haha. but a 3ghz processor is way more then you'll need. so you shouldn't run into any problems, if it's slow, just upgrade to 4gb of ram.

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by g2k556

well all L lenses hold their resale value quite well, so another possibility is, just get the non-IS. If you like it keep it, if you need IS, sell it and get IS. Might be more of a pain that way, so up to you.

Might not be a bad idea that way. Found a used non-is locally for $500 so I might go that route. I think Im going to rent the 400mm before I decide to buy just to be sure I like it before dropping $1200. I tend to use the long end of my zoom more then I do the wide

[SL66PaInTbALLeR]

Originally Posted by gremlin75

Might not be a bad idea that way. Found a used non-is locally for $500 so I might go that route. I think Im going to rent the 400mm before I decide to buy just to be sure I like it before dropping $1200. I tend to use the long end of my zoom more then I do the wide

I would just pick up a used 70-200 2.8 non is for 900

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by SL66PaInTbALLeR

I would just pick up a used 70-200 2.8 non is for 900

Meh, I can get a used 70-200 f4 IS for about $950 locally. I think I'd rather have the f4 IS over the 2.8 non-IS if for nothing else the weight savings alone. Like I said I don't see myself using the extra stop. I don't shoot a lot of low light stuff but Id rather have IS then the extra stop just for hand holding

Would I see any image quality improvement with the f2.8 over the f4?

[lastpaintballa]

the F4L is a good balance of weight and quality/reliabiltiy. I bring mine with me no matter where i go where if i had the 2.8 i might leave it behind. I say go for the f4l IS, and lenses like these retain there value well so you wouldnt be taking much, if any, of a loss if you ever wanted to upgrade to the 2.8

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by lastpaintballa

the F4L is a good balance of weight and quality/reliabiltiy. I bring mine with me no matter where i go where if i had the 2.8 i might leave it behind. I say go for the f4l IS, and lenses like these retain there value well so you wouldnt be taking much, if any, of a loss if you ever wanted to upgrade to the 2.8

Awesome, thanks man. I think I'll go with the used f4L IS and maybe grab the used Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6 to play around with till I decide if I really need the Canon 400mm f5.6L

[fainerbainer]

wait, what is the lens for mostly? IS only fits in 1 category for me and that would low light photography with almost still subjects and is only effect for that on a 70-200 lens from 1/60-1/250 ish. That's what 2 real stops of light? Anything below 1/60 and movement will leave the subject blurred. If you are doing sports IS is not needed. If your subjects are static then a tripod is a lot cheaper than IS.

Also for low light indoor photography where IS would be necessary off camera flash or bounced flash will work better. I'd rather spend the money on lighting and modifiers than on IS. Just sayin.


I've done a lot of photography and guess how many times I've thought, "Man, I would really like IS here?" Answer: 0. That's why I have lighting.

[therealmr]

Originally Posted by fainerbainer

If you are doing sports IS is not needed. If your subjects are static then a tripod is a lot cheaper than IS.

Agree, but IS DOES makes sense on lenses with a focal length equal to or longer than 300mm

[Striker9]

One time I was shooting kid cudi, and i was trying to take a picture of a couple that was lit by their cell phone, and I really wished I had IS..


And then i remembered I had a 1d4 and a 70-200 2.8 ISII...

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by fainerbainer

wait, what is the lens for mostly?

Landscape/nature is what I mainly like to shoot but I like trying to shoot anything (sports, people, macro, ect)

I had a non-IS 75-300 before and really wished it had IS (of course I also just started shooting, sucked at holding the camera, and didnt have a tripod...LOL) I do however still do a lot of shooting off the tripod

[fainerbainer]

Originally Posted by therealmr

Agree, but IS DOES makes sense on lenses with a focal length equal to or longer than 300mm

yah, good note. Once you increase the focal length the ability to use IS goes up tremendously with hand holding or even on a monopod due to having to have ABOVE freezing subject shutterspeed below the focal length.

handhold a 300mm + no shake + 1.6 sensor = SS of 480+ to eliminate shake.

So, the effectiveness of IS would be 4 stops below a shutterspeed of 1/500...so you get 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60....ALL able to freeze some sort of movement.

200mm focal length, + no shake + 1.6 sensor = SS 1/320th. So you get say 1/250, 1/125, and 1/60. Three stops of light for $400ish. Buy some strobes

I just thought I'd do some math.

And to what Striker said...it really depends on what you shoot. I've never needed IS, or if I had I've creatively had the ability to create my own light. Also, was that shot worth $400? lol

I mean, get IS if you want it. I've had it before and I just find that I don't need it but maybe 1% of the time. When I do a low-lit ceremony where no flash photography is not allowed then I'll say, "man, I need IS". Hasn't happened yet.

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by fainerbainer

yah, good note. Once you increase the focal length the ability to use IS goes up tremendously with hand holding or even on a monopod due to having to have ABOVE freezing subject shutterspeed below the focal length.

handhold a 300mm + no shake + 1.6 sensor = SS of 480+ to eliminate shake.

So, the effectiveness of IS would be 4 stops below a shutterspeed of 1/500...so you get 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, 1/60....ALL able to freeze some sort of movement.

200mm focal length, + no shake + 1.6 sensor = SS 1/320th. So you get say 1/250, 1/125, and 1/60. Three stops of light for $400ish. Buy some strobes

I just thought I'd do some math.

I think you just broke my brain!

EDIT: ok re-read it and I think I get it. Still, even at 200mm I think I'd feel more comfortable with IS...but saving that $450 would be nice. Maybe I'll just tell myself its worth it for the weather sealing too (LOL, cause I know that means jack with my nonsealed body)

[fainerbainer]

LOL, it's just about light...that's what you are photographing so you should know how the camera reads light and how it relates to movement.

1/250 freezes most of the runner (legs, arms move faster so there's some blur). a stop above that is 1/500...that freezes most everything (except birds and fast moving animals).

IS introduces 4 stops of hand movement being taken out of the equation. So if you are M.J. Fox IS won't really help you. But if you are pretty solid then you can shoot your 200mm lens from 1/125 down to say 1/30 without introducing camera shake to screw up the scene. However, if people are moving in the scene they will blur regardless of the IS from say 1/15-1/60 or so if they are moving. If they pose and don't move then you'll be fine. But if they are setting up to pose then setting up a tripod is cheaper than having IS on your lens.

Also, indoors when you can use a $250 speedlight on top of your camera you can set that bad boy to meter your subject in ettl mode, you can set your camera to pick up the ambient via manual settings, and bam...you freeze the subject with the flash and the camera settings let in the ambient without blur if you are steady enough from 1/10-1/60th or so. That's why I don't use IS...I control what I want the camera to do.

That's unless, of course, I can't use lighting...then I would want IS from like 150mm-xxx MM.

Oh, I just thought of a reason I would want IS. Macro bug/animal work. DOF is so razor thin that you have the aperture up to 8-11 which kills SS. But I'd still shoot with a modifier and a strobe.

[SL66PaInTbALLeR]

2.8 cough cough

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by SL66PaInTbALLeR

2.8 cough cough

LOL, Im pretty set on not getting the 2.8....The weight of it kind of kills it for me more then anything.

I guess my thoughts on IS is that I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it

[Cmizzle]

lol the weight? its not that heavy

[SL66PaInTbALLeR]

I have a nikon 80-200 af-d and it doesnt even bother me. The 70-200 2.8 is much lighter.

its only 19 oz difference
http://the-digital-picture.com/Revie...ns-Review.aspx

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by SL66PaInTbALLeR

its only 19 oz difference
http://the-digital-picture.com/Revie...ns-Review.aspx

19oz and twice the price. Plus when you backpack 19oz is a big deal. Thats over a days worth of food! (weight wise, not price )

[SL66PaInTbALLeR]

Kata r103
d7000
xti
18-55
50mm
80-200
sb28
macbook
macbook charger
d7000 charger

My setup seems plenty comfortable.


ALso im not talking about the 70-200 2.8 is

[gremlin75]

Originally Posted by SL66PaInTbALLeR

Kata r103
d7000
xti
18-55
50mm
80-200
sb28
macbook
macbook charger
d7000 charger

My setup seems plenty comfortable.


ALso im not talking about the 70-200 2.8 is

Oh ok. But Im not talking backcountry backpacking. Macbook, charger, and all of that usually isn't needed in the backcountry

I usually just bring the body, 1-2 lenses, filters, extar battery, and a tripod if I know I'll defiantly need it but it more often then not that has to stay at home