BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Photography/Videography
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-01-2011, 09:37 PM   #1
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Got my rented 200mm f2.8.

Really sharp lens, but man, you need to be far back from anyone to get even a head shot. I need to get out tomorrow and try some wildlife shots.
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-01-2011, 10:24 PM   #2
immiketoo
Colonel
 
immiketoo's Avatar
 
Drives: Smoothly
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago Burbs

Posts: 2,873
iTrader: (0)

I have experienced that with my 70-200 2.8 but you get used to it and then you want 400.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by double eagle View Post
Thickness feels good to me and my hands aren't that big.
immiketoo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-01-2011, 10:26 PM   #3
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by immiketoo View Post
I have experienced that with my 70-200 2.8 but you get used to it and then you want 400.
That's the problem. I want reach *and* speed and I can't afford it. The new f2.8 super lenses make me drool, but I'd need to sell the Z4 to afford those.
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-01-2011, 10:29 PM   #4
immiketoo
Colonel
 
immiketoo's Avatar
 
Drives: Smoothly
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago Burbs

Posts: 2,873
iTrader: (0)

I hear ya. I sucked it up and saved my ass off for something extravagant. Now that I have them, I don't regret it but coughing up the coin was hard. The REAL problem is it's hard to look at a non L lens even though i know that some of them are very good.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by double eagle View Post
Thickness feels good to me and my hands aren't that big.
immiketoo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-01-2011, 10:43 PM   #5
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
I keep thinking my only request for Xmas this year will be for Amazon gift cards so I can knock a few hundred off and grab the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Or at least the F4 IS, although the need for speed dictates the f2.8
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-01-2011, 10:49 PM   #6
immiketoo
Colonel
 
immiketoo's Avatar
 
Drives: Smoothly
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago Burbs

Posts: 2,873
iTrader: (0)

Find a sugar mama... or sell platelets or something
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by double eagle View Post
Thickness feels good to me and my hands aren't that big.
immiketoo is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-01-2011, 11:23 PM   #7
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
What's a kidney going for these days?
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 08:55 AM   #8
oneintheory
no longer a BMW owner
 
Drives: 2011 Ford Edge Sport
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suffolk/Chesapeake, VA

Posts: 1,468
iTrader: (0)

what exactly is the point of the 200 2.8?
oneintheory is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 08:59 AM   #9
Slow_335i
Daily Driven!
 
Slow_335i's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW 335i
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Peoria IL

Posts: 2,481
iTrader: (11)

Garage List
2008 BMW 335I  [3.32]
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneintheory View Post
what exactly is the point of the 200 2.8?
Sports photography mainly, also used a lot for portrait shots.

Or if you have a subject thats larger and want more of the aperture affect it works great

example i've taken (don't think it was quite 200mm)

__________________
Slow_335i is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 09:43 AM   #10
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneintheory View Post
what exactly is the point of the 200 2.8?
Like I said earlier, I find that when I want to take a distance shot, the 105 end of my 24-105 isn't enough. I suspect that if I had the 70-200 f4 that it would spend most of its time at 200mm. So I'm trying out the 200mm f2.8 to see if I can live with the lack of versatility while taking advantage of the speed. I have it for two weeks, so time will tell. Basically if you want speed at 200mm, your choices are this lens or one of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses, both of which are way pricier. (Of course there's the 200mm f2, but that's in another ballpark entirely.)
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 09:56 AM   #11
oneintheory
no longer a BMW owner
 
Drives: 2011 Ford Edge Sport
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suffolk/Chesapeake, VA

Posts: 1,468
iTrader: (0)

yeah, buy the 70-200 2.8. otherwise you're limiting yourself to 200mm only.

to the guy who said sports photography...there's no reason to purchase the 200 2.8 instead of the 70-200 2.8 for sports photography. it makes little sense. the ability to zoom is crucial when shooting things like volleyball, basketball, and soccer. really, football too...but i can live with a prime a little more on the football field.
oneintheory is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 11:20 AM   #12
vachss
Captain
 
Drives: Z4 Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA

Posts: 785
iTrader: (1)

The 200/2.8 was my first L lens, and sharp enough that it ruined me for the consumer zooms I had been using until then. That said, I eventually realized it didn't really work for me. When I wanted a telephoto for wildlife I always wanted something longer. When I wanted a shorter tele for portraits or compressed landscapes I always wanted something shorter. Once I had a 300/4 and a 135/2 I never used it anymore. I hated to sell it cause it was so damn sharp - but that's what I did 5 years ago and I haven't really missed it since.

In short, the 200/2.8 is a fabulous lens - if the focal length works for you. If it doesn't you may just find yourself trying to force the shot to fit the lens rather than trying trying to find the lens that best serves the shot, and like me be better off without it.
vachss is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 02:56 PM   #13
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Yeah, I'm not convinced it's right for me. I rented it for two weeks, so I still have plenty of time to play with it. But I can already see where it's really tight trying to shoot anything within 20 feet of you. I think I'll rent the 70-200 F4 IS next to see if the IS can compensate for the higher F-stop.
__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 03:25 PM   #14
Chewy734
Major General
 
Drives: 2006 BMW 330i ZPP, ZSP
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Posts: 6,744
iTrader: (15)

Mark, the IS is nothing short of amazing on the 70-200 f/4L IS.
__________________

Currently for sale: N/A
Chewy734 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-02-2011, 04:20 PM   #15
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,845
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy734 View Post
Mark, the IS is nothing short of amazing on the 70-200 f/4L IS.
That's what I've been discovering with my 24-105. The IS allows me to shoot at 105mm with a shutter speed two stops slower at least and still get keepers. The 200mm at f2.8 needs at least 800 ISO indoors in daylight unless the subject is actually in the sunlight. I've been able to pull off a couple of decent shots at a couple stops slower than 1/FL, but the keeper rate is pretty low. Here's one at 1/80, but I had to crank the ISO to 3200 just to get that speed.

__________________
Mark
Randomography
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-05-2011, 11:23 PM   #16
The1
Major General
 
Drives: white 135
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: KW ontario/vancouver temporarily

Posts: 5,127
iTrader: (0)

from my experience with the 70-200 F4, it's a wonderfull lens, and nice and sharp, the IS is nothing short of incredible at 4stops equivilent.....

that being said, it's the same IS system on the F2.8

I picked up the F2.8, and and selling the F4 to my friend if he decides he wants it (pending at this time)

The weight of the F2.8 is a huge down point, but as i'm a big guy, I never really notice the wight untill i had it to someone half my size then see them almost drop it.

that's when i realize, i don't really need to hand that camera over to anyone to play with.

The F4 was so light and easy to maneuver and is actually shorter in length.

It is too early at this time to really do a comparison between the 2 as i'm still getting used to the newer one, but i find it has a lot of vignetting, which is sometimes fun, but i usually end up pulling most of that out of the pictures.
The1 is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      09-06-2011, 12:14 AM   #17
Weebl
Weebl wobbles but eats Pie
 
Drives: 2008 335i, 2000 740i
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SF Bay Area

Posts: 1,508
iTrader: (0)

Look through your catalog and see how much you would use the 2.8 speed, I personally will take IQ over speed.
__________________
Kevingoto.smugmug.com
2000 740i-Annalisa and 2008 335i-Weebl. Weebl may wobble but has DTC
Weebl is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-06-2011, 10:15 AM   #18
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,792
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
I suggest the 70-200mm f/4L IS and get your speed from the body. 200mm would have been too much for this shot, at 124mm:


Mountain goat posing against a spectacular background. by dcstep, on Flickr

If you get a 70-200mm I can guarantee that you'll be shooting it at all focal lenths. Here's one at 155mm:

__________________
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-06-2011, 11:54 AM   #19
vachss
Captain
 
Drives: Z4 Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA

Posts: 785
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
I suggest the 70-200mm f/4L IS and get your speed from the body. 200mm would have been too much for this shot, at 124mm:


Mountain goat posing against a spectacular background. by dcstep, on Flickr
Threadjack alert...

Love those pictures of Mt. Evans, Dave. I'm a real fan of Marmots and Pikas from my trips through the Sierra, but I've never run across goats like those. How much gear were you schlepping up to 13,5? I think a trip report's in order.

Last edited by vachss; 09-06-2011 at 11:59 AM.
vachss is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-06-2011, 01:17 PM   #20
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,792
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vachss View Post
Threadjack alert...

Love those pictures of Mt. Evans, Dave. I'm a real fan of Marmots and Pikas from my trips through the Sierra, but I've never run across goats like those. How much gear were you schlepping up to 13,5? I think a trip report's in order.
LOL, I had my 500mm/7D combo on the Fox Red leather seat to my right, in my M3 car-blind. I was literally shooting out the window, with the 70-200mm/5D2 combo.

Love your dove grey pika. Here's one of mine from yesterday, getting ready for winter:


IMG_2383_DxO7D by dcstep, on Flickr

Here's my fave marmot shot from yesterday, also from the car-blind, with the 500mm:


Meet the Marmots by dcstep, on Flickr

I DID get out of the car. A friend took this pic of me shooting pika and marmot with 700mm (500 plus 1.4x TC):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62844167@N04/6118539676/
__________________

Last edited by dcstep; 09-06-2011 at 01:19 PM. Reason: mistake
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-06-2011, 06:42 PM   #21
vachss
Captain
 
Drives: Z4 Coupe
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ventura County, CA

Posts: 785
iTrader: (1)

I'm totally envious. Marmot/Pika viewing for me in the Sierras has always required at least a 3-5 mile hike in from the trailhead and usually a 1000-2000 foot climb. In other words I'm too much of a wimpy old man to drag my 500 up into their habitat, and have had to make do with the 300/4 + 1.4x. Heck, my hiking friends think I'm nuts just for carrying 7D, 300/4, 1.4x, 10-22, 65MPE and macro flash (12 pound kit) - and they're probably right. Beautiful mountain critters right out the window seems mighty fine to me.
vachss is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-06-2011, 07:10 PM   #22
dcstep
Brigadier General
 
Drives: '09 Cpe Silverstone FR 6MT
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado

Posts: 4,792
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 M3  [4.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by vachss View Post
I'm totally envious. Marmot/Pika viewing for me in the Sierras has always required at least a 3-5 mile hike in from the trailhead and usually a 1000-2000 foot climb. In other words I'm too much of a wimpy old man to drag my 500 up into their habitat, and have had to make do with the 300/4 + 1.4x. Heck, my hiking friends think I'm nuts just for carrying 7D, 300/4, 1.4x, 10-22, 65MPE and macro flash (12 pound kit) - and they're probably right. Beautiful mountain critters right out the window seems mighty fine to me.
I've got at least two places within 2-hours of my house where I can drive up above 12,000-ft, one is 14,000. Within the same drive I can shoot elk, moose, pika, marmot, big horn sheep, dahl sheep, mountain goats, bear (with extreme luck) and all the usual little critters, right from the road. I often do get out of the car and lug the 500mm and the 70-200mm through the woods on two bodies, but usually only an hour or two at a time.

BTW, I got an invite from Getty Images today and signed up to try them out.

Dave
__________________
dcstep is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST