william_bray1

Nadine thanks for your advice,So where would the LS work where the OmniBounce would do a bad job. Also I was looking at the Demb diffusers because it looks like I can have a lot more control I was wondering if you had used them?

I have used the Fong Lightsphere and I couldn't see much difference between that and the stofen. I don't understand how it is supposed to work, my feeling towards it was tha there is so much clear plastic at the bottom with only the dome diffused the light seemed to be going everywhere with no direction and this seemed to be wasting so much light. But the main reason I stopped using it was it wasn't pratical to use it was just to big to keep switching between bounce or direct flash to the lightsphere, the stofen I can just put it in my pocket. I know a lot of people who swear by the lightsphere so perhaps I'm using it wrong. But for me I'm finding that a white card at the back of the flash to give great results, when it's possible to use it.

 

Contribute an answer

I have used the Fong Lightsphere and I couldn't see much difference between that and the stofen. I don't understand how it is supposed to work, my feeling towards it was tha there is so much clear plastic at the bottom with only the dome diffused the light seemed to be going everywhere with no direction and this seemed to be wasting so much light. But the main reason I stopped using it was it wasn't pratical to use it was just to big to keep switching between bounce or direct flash to the lightsphere, the stofen I can just put it in my pocket. I know a lot of people who swear by the lightsphere so perhaps I'm using it wrong. But for me I'm finding that a white card at the back of the flash to give great results, when it's possible to use it.

I was thinking about just using the diffuser with my 24-70 lens and direct flash but under expose the flash, witth my 70-200 lens for the outside shots for my next wedding. Because with a 24-70 lens I will be closer to the subject and the diffuser might help more. I'm talking about portrait shots, I'll use direct flash for group shots.

that's a good point about the light being harsh so using a diffuser to soften the light is pointless I never thought of it that way.

Thanks

Hi the method I have been using when shooting weddings when using flas is to

shoot in manual when indoors and av mode when outdoors. I always us bounce

indoors when I can, and when I can't I use a stofen diffuser. When out doors I use

flash nearly all the time and with out a diffuser , but I under expose the flash by

about 1 stop some times more depending on how close I'm to the subject,a freind

of mine uses a diffuser all the time and never takes it off. I would like to know your

opinions about this , if you think i'm doing it right.

Thanks

I bought a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 today and that's brighter then the canon so what Yakim is saying looks true. I'm using a 20D. By the way I tried it against a canon 24- 105 and at f/4 they are very close opticaly even the guy in the shop who owns a 24-105 agreed.I'm not quite sure how canon are justifying the price of the 24-70 f/2.8.

Hi I own a canon 70-200 f/4 IS and I was testing out my lenses the other day. I

want to but a sigma macro 24-70 f/2.8 ( for me there's not ?600 of difference

for me to buy the canon ). The only sigma I own is the 105 macro so I compared

my canon 70-200 to the sigma. I was using 100mm focal length on the canon and

they both performed well. But then I used flash. I have a 380 speed light I set

the camera to manual, exposed for the background, 60th f/4, no flash

compensation. I could not belive what I saw. The Sigma was about 1 stop

brighter (I don't mean overexposed it was perfect) then the canon. I would have

had to photoshop the image from the canon to make it right.

Is this becuse the Sigma is a prime lens and all prime lenses would be the

same,or is this copy of the sigma very good. I would be very interested if any

one had similar findings.

Thanks

Todd for my wide angle shots could I not use the tokina 12-24f/4. The 17-55 is a nice lens but it's a lot of money for a lens that I will not be able to use with a full frame body as that is kind of camera I want end up with.You say that the 24-105f/4 has it's limits because of the f/4, what are the limits, because from what you say you're getting most of your shots with that lens.

I know a lot fo people might not agree with me and I might be wrong. But when I need to go faster and I'm on my max aperture and I don't want to up the ISO, I shoot on RAW under expose 1 stop and bring it back in photoshop. There is also a plugin called Noise Ninja you can try it for free, you can shoot at 3200 and still save the image. I only do this when I have to but I thought it might help in sticky situations.

Thanks

Just to say thanks to everyone for taking the time to help me.

I'am looking at getting another flash and a 2nd body but I was only going to get a second hand body as a backup, at the moment everyone is waiting for canon to replace the 5d. If I had the money to buy the lenses I want and a 5d I wouldn't want to buy the 5d now only to find it replaced or a lot cheaper in a few months time. I do agree with Keith, a lot depends on knowing your own skill with a camera and also in photoshop but I'm still learning. I'm worried that with a f/2.8 lens shooting at a 60th (or lower so as to keep the ambient light) with a flash I'm going to get camera shake and I realy want to stay away from monopods and tripods as much as possible.

Does any one know any thing about the sigma 24-70 f/2.8. As this would free up some money to buy the other kit I need.

Hi I have a canon 20d with a 70mm-200mm f/4 IS,tokina 12mm-24mm f/4,50mm

f/1.8,sigma 105mm macro 2.8 and a canon 28mm-135mm. My problem is I'm getting

asked to do more wedding photos and I realy enjoy it and I'm thinking in the

future to go semi pro. At the moment I'm not considering buying a 5D I,m more

intereted in getting good lenses. So I want to replace my 28-135 I have been

considering the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4 IS, at the moment I'm leaning

towards the 24-105 because I try to always shoot at f/4 because I want to keep

a constant look in my photos and to have a greater depth of field when shooting

the couple together to get them both in focus,and using my primes if I need to

blow away the background.Also When I shoot with flash I like to use a between a

40th and a 60th of a second and on a 20D with a 24-70 at 70mm I would be prone

to camera shake so I thought the IS would be nice to have.But then I started to

look at the 17mm-40mm F/4.I thought camera shake wouldn't a problem and on a

20d 17mm would be good.So what do you think is the best combo Tokina 12-

24+canon 24-105+canon 70-200. Or 17-40+50mm f/1.8+70-200. I always shoot in RAW

so the CA's on the tokina are not a problem and I don't want EFS lenses for

when I do eventually go full frame. Thanks for any advice as I don't want to

make a decision that I'll regret.

I don't understand you. you say you disagree with buying lenses of similar focal length but you have a 70-300 IS and one of the 70-200 lenses. I assume you sold the previous 70 200 lenses and now have the 70-200 2.8. So being that the 70-300 IS is a new lens did you swap your 70-200 2.8 and your 300 f4 IS for a 70-300 IS, or do you just collect lenses.

I don't know what the price difference of the 70-200 range is but in England I can pick up a 70-200 f/4 IS for ?600. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is ?1200. I would like to get into wedding photography more and I don't have a lot of experiance, but I found that a 70 200 lens was to long for taking photos of the ceramony. I was thinking the money you could save by getting the 70-200 f/4 IS instead of the 2.8 IS you could buy a 24-70 2.8, and you wouldn't need IS at that focal range. I'm considering this myself

A 2.8 lens has to give a more blured background no matter if it's a Nikon or Canon. But unless your standing next to someone with a 2.8 taking exactly the same photos and comparing them, sometimes it can be hard to tell if it was taken at f4 or f2.8. I got the f4 IS because I have a 100mm macro 2.8 that I use when I want to blow the background away but be carefull where you focus.At 200mm f/4 your subject will be very isolated from the background. I got the f4 IS for when I use TC's and you realy need the IS if you do that.

I have a canon 70 200 f/4 IS. So I have read, optically this is the best one of the 70 200 range, providing you can do with out the 2.8.Also I'm lead to believe the 100 400 only has 1 stop IS, and to get the best IQ it is best to stop it down to f/8 at 400mm.From my experience with the f/4 there is no difference in IQ if you stop it down and IQ remains through out the focal range. I tried the Kenko 2x tc and the IQ was very good indeed. Check out the image, this is straight from the camera shot in jpeg at f/4, no sharpening. Also the Kenko 2x retained auto focus it was slow but canon tc doesn?t even offer that at f/4.So if you take all that into account you can shoot with the 100 400 at 400mm at f/5.6 with one stop IS and it's best to soot at f/8. Or you can shoot with the 70 200 f/4 at 400mm f/8, because of loosing 2 stops with the tc, but with a 4 stop IS. The only disadvantage I can see is slowness of AF, and this combo is not ideal for fast moving subjects in any thing else then bright conditions but the 100 400 only offers 1 stop faster. And some people might say the IQ isn't acceptable, I'm happy with it, but my photography has a broad range and considering the price difference of getting a TC or a 100 400 lens I tend not to be that critical of the IQ when using the TC.And with the f/4 I take it every where because the weight isn't a problem.If you buy the 100 400 you're interested in the longer focal range so may be a option is the 300 is prime with the 2x TC and keep the 70 200 f/4. I don't specialize in birds or serious wildlife if I were to go down that road I?ll buy a prime lens.

I have a canon 70 200 f/4 IS. So I have read, optically this is the best one of the 70 200 range, providing you can do with out the 2.8.Also I'm lead to believe the 100 400 only has 1 stop IS, and to get the best IQ it is best to stop it down to f/8 at 400mm.From my experience with the f/4 there is no difference in IQ if you stop it down and IQ remains through out the focal range. I tried the Kenko 2x tc and the IQ was very good indeed. Check out the image, this is straight from the camera shot in jpeg, no sharpening. Also the Kenko 2x retained auto focus it was slow but canon tc doesn?t even offer that at f/4.So if you take all that into account you can shoot with the 100 400 at 400mm with one stop IS and it's best to soot at f/8. Or you can shoot with the 70 200 f/4 at 400mm f/8, because of loosing 2 stops with the tc, but with a 4 stop IS. The only disadvantage I can see is slowness of AF, and this combo is not ideal for fast moving subjects in any thing else then bright conditions but the 100 400 only offers 1 stop faster. And some people might say the IQ isn't acceptable I happy with it, but my photography has a broad range. I don't specialize in birds or serious wildlife if I were to go down that road I?ll buy a prime lens.

image 2

I just tried a 2x Kenko TC on my 70 200f/4 IS.I was supprised to find that it still auto focused, it wasn't fast and the camera hunted around and I think it would only work on a good contrast subject. Also I was extremly happy with the qaulity, I haven't got a lot of experiance with TC or the 100 400 lens, but from what little I have tested I thought the images were comparable with the 100 400. can you let me know what you think and are the canon TC better than this. the 2 images i have supplied were shot in highest qaulity jpeg on a 20D,nothing has been done to them just straight from the camera. Thanks

I have been trying to decide between the 100-400 and the 70-200f/4 IS and using a 1.4 TC.I have spent more time doing this then I did when I bought my car.Unless you can afford the two you have to be very honest about the kind of photo's you take.It can be easy to think if I have the 100-400 I can start taking bird photo's or the 100-400 can do what the f/4 IS can.I found it very hard how to lable this lens, what's is it best used for. I came to the conclusion the 100 400 is a Jack of all trades and master of none. That doesn't mean it's bad because nothing else comes close to this in a zoom.I do wedding photos,a bit of commercial work,lanscape,and I would like to have had a good lens to take general wildlife with.Out of all that I think the 100 400 is only up to the general wildlife or air shows, and I can't remember the last time I went to one of those.I don't understand why a lot of people seem to think stopping the 100 400 down to f/8 or f/11 to get the best out of it is a good thing, on a 400mm long lens with only 1 stop IS(what were Canon thinking). If you didn't have a bright day or you're willing to up the ISO some you'll proberly end up haveing to use a tripod any way.I stood the risk of buying the 100-400 for it gather dust waiting for a bright day, ( you don't get many of those in England),a visit to the zoo,an air show or a safari.For me the F/4 is a work lens, it does what it says,and extremly well.I'll just use a 1.4 TC when I go to the zoo. By the way while I was reserching this I read a few comments of the bearings wearing on the 100 400 and thus affecting the image qaulity over time.This can be repaired but beware if you're planning to buy one secondhand.

A web site that I respect is the the digital picture,follow this link http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This is one of the things they say about the f/4:

There are MANY uses for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens, but portrait photography is one of the best.....You will not find the IS version's image quality to be much better - Full frame corner sharpness is better on the IS lens until the end of the focal length range where they equal out. The f/4 version performs better than the IS lens with Canon Extenders when used at the 200mm setting

If you buy both the 70 200f/4 non is and the 70 300 IS which would be near the same price as the 70 200f/4 IS, you would have the benefit of having the quality of the L lens for portrait work or for a wedding. When I shoot a wedding 95% of the photos are taken with a flash so the not having 2.8 and IS is not a problem, although the 2.8 gives a better bokeh as long as you're accurate where you focus, but I'm happy with the f/4 bokeh and I haven't had any complaints yet. And the L lens would be good for animal shots in the right condition. Plus you would have the reach of the 300mm length and is IS, you wouldn't have to by the 1.4 converter. The 70 300 is perfect for the zoo or on holiday. Oh yeah you get 2 for the price of 1.Sorry but I thought all of that was obvious. Personally I'd buy the 70 200 f/4 later on I'd get the 1.4 TC, because what I shoot and the way I shoot I don't need the 2.8 or the IS...yet.

By the way I have a 28 135 IS,and it's true there is not much focal difference with the 70 200.At 70mm the 28 135 is ok but belive me compare the shots to a 70 200 f/4 at 135 or 100,and you'll never shoot above 70 again with a 28 135 IS

I have the 70 200f/4 and the images are comparable to prime lenses in the same focal length what other zoom can you do that with. And you can crop the images on a 70 200, f/2.8, f/4, IS non IS, it doesn?t matter, and with maybe a small bit of sharpening and that?s maybe, you'll get the same IQ as the 70 300 IS. We can talk about this all day long which is better in the 70 200 range, but the only thing separating a ?370 lens and a ?1300 lens (I?m referring to the 70 200 f/4 and the 70 200 f/2.8 IS), is 1 stop and the IS. I personally think Canon is screwing us because I can not see how the 70 200 f/4 doubles in price just for IS. But that doesn't mean you don't need it, and that is the answer. If your a professional you need the 70 200 2.8 IS, you offset the price on your tax and you've got the best equipment for difficult situations. If you?re not a professional then you?re an amateur with plenty of cash to spend, and good luck to you. Only you can decide if you need the extra stop and IS. Here some advice I'm sure some might not agree, the 1.4TC is very good the 2X TC IQ goes down hill, if you can't afford IS, use a monopod if you don't want to carry a tripod, they are not that big and learn how to hold the camera, use the camera strap and wrap it tight around your forearm and pull the camera firmly against your head. And of course just up the ISO on a good body 400 ISO is ok and at a push 800 ISO will get you out of trouble. One of the best things I have found is to under expose the soot by 1 stop and shoot it in RAW, Bringing it back in Photoshop won't damage the image. The 70 300 IS is very impressive and if you?re testing it against 70 200 in the right conditions the IQ is comparable, don?t just think about sharpness, there are CA, how it translates the colour. Also the 70 300 may be sharp in the centre, what about the edges, a lot of my photos doesn?t have the main subject in the center.Regarding the 100 400, good lens but it?s too big to take it with you in case you need it. And it?s a big luxury for a Zoo lens, if you?re going to be serious about small wildlife the only way to go is a prime lens. Now just get out there and make some photos and don't keep worrying

if your willing to pay the price for the 70 200f/4 IS tou can buy the 70 300 is and the 70 200 f/4 non is