konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 <p> I found two lenses that I consider, the "EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM for SLR Cameras " and the "EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM for Digital SLR Cameras" the first lens, is it not suitable for a digital camera ? I intend to use it for my 5D camera.<br /> I am a photographer shooting mainly weddings, perhaps it is odd for a wedding photograpger to use a 100-400 lens for a wedding, but still !<br /> With regards.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 <p>Both lenses will work fine with your Canon 5D as the 5D has the Canon EF bayonet. The lenses which will NOT work with it are the EF-S lenses which have a smaller image circle and are designed for the 1.6 crop factor cameras such as the 50D and 450D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 <p>Thakns Colin and great images you make.<br /> What do you think about the 100 - 400 lens ? Is it suitable for some long-distance portraits or landscape photography-with a couple in the distance. ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Yes, but for most cases, you'll find that 200mm is plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 <p>That lens is not really a wedding lens. Too slow to be useful except wthen you are standing a long way away, outside. In good light.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 <p ><strong><em>"What do you think about the 100 - 400 lens ? Is it suitable for some long-distance portraits or landscape photography-with a couple in the distance. ?"</em></strong></p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >At FL =400mm for a Full Length Bridal Portrait you will be shooting at about 90ft (30 mtrs). I rarely have worked at that distance.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >If you really want reach, I think the 70 to 200 F2.8L IS and a EF x1.4 MkII tele-converter would be a more sensible choice. Even if you do want 400mm (assuming that is rarely) you could get the EF x 2.0 MkII tele- converter.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >There are several threads discussing IQ of those combinations and comparing them with the 100 to 400.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >But IMO the bottom line is the overall use of the lens in the Wedding Kit: </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >On a 5D, a 70 to 200F2.8L IS will be useful INSIDE and outside and it has the compass through the most popular range of Focal Lengths used for Wedding Portraiture (70 to 135), I acknowledge that Portraiture and FL choice is personal, your vision might be different to mine.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >However, the 100 to 400 will be basically useless inside, for most purposes, at a Wedding.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >Also, I think the 70 to 200F4L IS would be money wasted as an addition to a Wedding Kit, the F2.8L IS will save you bacon, often – for the extra money it is worth it. </p> <p > <br> And also, personally, I like the F2.8 for the EXTRA Shallow Depth of Field separation F2.8 gives for Full Length Portraiture, at Focal Length between 70mm to 85mm, on my 5D.</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>thanks everyone !</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Truth is that I prefer the 70 to 200F2.8L IS but the price range, it quit a distance for me at the time, cant decide, I need the telephoto for outdoor mainly. I have an image in my gallery taken at a field and a mountain in the background, having the couple walking towards a tree... unfortunately I can't make an enlargment as my 24-70L lens and my Canon 5D didn't allow for better resolution and enlargement. Could have used a 70-200f4 there.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>The 100-400 is quite slow (f4.5-5.6) so is not ideal for blurring backgrounds for portrait work. Your 70-200 f2.8 IS will be very useful there. I would also look for a fast mid range zoom in the 24-70 range for closer work. regards - Colin</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p><strong ><em > </em></strong><br> <strong ><em >“I have an image in my gallery taken at a field and a mountain in the background, having the couple walking towards a tree... unfortunately I can't make an [enlargement] as my 24-70L lens and my Canon 5D didn't allow for better resolution and enlargement.”</em></strong><strong ><em ></em></strong><br> <br> If the image above is full frame crop across the horizontal and it was taken with a 70mm lens on a 5D, then you were about 260ft (80mtrs) from the Subjects.<br> <br> If you used a 400mm lens the image would look like this, below, bounded by the red lines.<br> <br> If you used a 200mm lens the image would be framed by the yellow lines.<br> <br> If you used a 100mm lens it would be the frame bounded by the blue lines.<br> <br> As you use a longer telephoto lens, the angle of view will be reduced, for the WHOLE frame: If you used a 400mm lens for that shot, you would get neither the background mountain, nor the tree, in your frame, just the Subjects walking in the field.<br> <br> ***<br> <br> <strong ><em >“Truth is that I prefer the 70 to 200F2.8L IS but the price range, it quit a distance for me at the time “</em></strong><br> <br> We all have challenges. I choose to go without and buy what I need, once. That decision, however, is yours to make.</p> <p>WW</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>Could I have used a 70 - 200 lens, and just backed up several meters, as the area did allow me to. ?Or was it that the 5D did not give me the resolution I needed for an enlargement ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p><em><strong>"Could I have used a 70 - 200 lens, and just backed up several meters, as the area did allow me to. ?Or was it that the 5D did not give me the resolution I needed for an enlargement ?"</strong></em><br> <br> I am not sure if I am answering your question but:<br> <br> If you want to have a LARGE area of BACKGROUND in shot and the subjects LARGE enough to be noticed, (or have enough resolution for an enlargement), in the FOREGROUND, you need to use WIDER lens, and you need to get CLOSER to the subject.<br> <br> As an extreme case, this candid portrait taken with a 24mm lens on a 5D at a Subject Distance about 4 ft (1.25mtrs).<br> <br> The background viewed in this shot is about 30ft wide (9 mtrs). <br> <br> If we were outdoors and had taken this shot, there would be all the mountains and the blue sky and the clouds and lots of fields, too. <br> <br> WW</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p>No, I wanted a minimalistic look to my theme. I wanted it exactly as you saw it. But ! I wanted more resolution. (I shot at f/11 at least) with 100 ISO. but I believe that my 24-70 L lens was capable, but maybe i needed a 17 Mp Canon body, to print on a canvas with, a 1.5 meters width.<br /> Do you agree with that ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 <p><em><strong>"No, I wanted a minimalistic look to my theme. I wanted it exactly as you saw it. But ! I wanted more resolution."</strong></em><br> <br> Ah! Now I understand. :)<br> <br> OK, yes. <br> <br> Without getting into the mathematics of it, for a 1.5 meter wide canvas of that scene, GENERAL GUIDELINES would be:<br> <br> . a larger sensor / larger format camera <br> <br> . more megapixels <br> <br> . low ISO <br> <br> . using the aperture sweet spot of the lens (I guess about F8 to F11 with that lens would be best)<br> <br> . a prime lens could be better (at 70mm the zoom is at its full zoom, and likely that is where is is worst IQ).<br> <br> . use a tripod, mirror up and remote shutter release<br> <br> ***<br> <br> BUT for a 1.5mtrs wide canvas of that scene, for sale to the clients, I would have used either my 6x7 or 5x4 film camera. <br> <br> I have not printed any digital work to more than 11 x 14 / 16 x 20 (inches). <br> <br> I am not arguing that a 1 series camera (or a 5D MkII) will not hold to 60inches wide (1.5mtrs), I am just saying how I would do that job. <br> <br> WW</p> <p > </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 5, 2009 Author Share Posted January 5, 2009 <p>Thank you William W. You are right anbout having the mirror up, is the tripod a neccesity though, if say I have a shutterspeed of 250 ? And why is the lens at its worse when at 70 mm ?<br /> Of course if I had a large format....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 <p><em><strong>" is the tripod a neccesity though, if say I have a shutterspeed of 250 ? "</strong></em><br> <br> I was not suggesting any one point was NECESSARY (i.e. absolute). I was just listing my main protocols, to get the best shot. </p> <p>But, to your direct question: YES at a shutter speed of 1/250s and a 70mm lens on a 5D for a shot like that, enlarged to 1.5mtrs wide, for sale to a client, I WOULD use a tripod. </p> <p>The point is every additional operation of BEST PRACTICE of the photographic process cannot harm and most likely will assist the quality of the final product.<br> <br> *** <br> <br> <em><strong>"And why is the lens at its worse when at 70 mm ?"</strong></em><br> <br> Again I was not saying it WOULD be worse, but it COULD (might be) worse.<br> <br> Mostly all lenses have "sweet spots" - for general Photographic lenses I would be safe saying ALL lenses have sweet spots. That is a product of tradeoffs / compromises in design, the cost of manufacture, meeting a selling price . . . etc.<br> <br> In very general terms a zoom lens has two "sweet spots": the overall best performing Focal Length, and the overall best performing Aperture. Generally, zoom lenses are worst, at the extremities of their Focal Lengths.<br> <br> The EF24 to 70F2.8L is an excellent lens. I have not tested it, nor seen tests of it at 70mm compared to any of the three of the EF85mm lenses. I am not saying any of these three prime lenses WOULD be better at F11 or F8, than the 24 to 70 zoom - I am stating that I would not be surprised, if this were true.<br> <br> WW <br> </p> <p > </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konstantinos_athanasiadis1664881385 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share Posted January 8, 2009 <p>Things are clearer for me now. Thanks for taking time explaining. I did not know that lenses had a better/worse focal performance, altough I had heard in the pas tabout their aperture performances.<br /> And, tripod it will be, when such an occasion appears again.<br /> Thanks</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now