Cameralopnik

"Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow" (chriskf)
03/12/2016 at 00:41 • Filed to: None

Picked up my first “real” camera this week!

Bought it used for a pretty decent deal.

Got a 50mm STM lens yesterday, and my 17-40mm L-glass (also used) arrived from KEH today.

Really excited to give it a first run tomorrow at the St. Paddy’s Day Chicago River dyeing.

Also planning to pick up a 70-200mm L-lens in the next couple months too.

DISCUSSION (15)

TheOnelectronic > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 00:45

That 70-200 is a nice lens. I really like using it. Just don’t try taking a picture of anything that isn’t at least 3 feet away.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 00:48

The 70-200mm is probably my favorite lens...

Is that your camera, or just an example?

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > TheOnelectronic
03/12/2016 at 00:49

Did you get it with or without IS? I’m trying to figure out if it’ll really be worth the extra ~$300. I’m thinking it might be.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 00:51

I got the IS one. I’d say it’s worth it if you don’t always use it with a tripod.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/12/2016 at 00:52

Glad to hear it! I asked a friend of mine, who does automotive photography/media and brand management professionally, for his recommendations and he said these 3 lens should cover most anything I want to do.

Same question I asked TheOneElectronic: Did you get it with or without IS? I’m trying to figure out if it’ll really be worth the extra ~$300. I’m thinking it might be.

And yes, that is my actual camera.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/12/2016 at 00:54

Haha I see you found my question. That’s about what I figured. Thanks!

TheOnelectronic > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 00:54

The IS is nice, especially with such a heavy lens. I’m normally shooting with a 1/10-1/4" shutter speed, and if I turn the IS off there’s noticeable blurring even on the tripod since the camera wobbles a bit after adjusting it. (I shoot a lot of photos in a day so I have to be somewhat quick about it)

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > TheOnelectronic
03/12/2016 at 01:01

Yeah, I figure when I’m shooting at race tracks I generally won’t be using a tripod, so IS would be really nice.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 01:22

I have a 7D as well. Sadly, I haven’t been impressed by the sensor, particularly in the years since it came out and as bodies with full-frame sensors have become much more affordable.

On the other hand, you can buy great cheap lenses for it, like the EF-S 10-22mm.

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 01:36

I’m assuming you mean the 70-200mm f/2.8L. At work we have the old 70-200 f/2.8L without IS, the cheapo non-L 70-300 f/4-5.6 with IS and at home I have a Nikon SLR with their kit 55-200 f/4-5.6 with IS. I’ve used the 70-200L once in the last 3 years without a tripod, and got better pictures with the cheap lenses. Trust me you want IS. I still love the 70-200L but it is now used exclusively as a lens for a very expensive specialty video camera with a canon mount.

For shooting at the track in the daytime, you’ll probably be happier with the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS that sells for about the same price as the non-IS 70-200mm F/2.8L. It’s a much more compact lens and a little lighter so you’ll be more likely to bring it with you. With a higher-end body like the 7D you’ll miss the IS more than you’ll miss the extra stop of light. Don’t worry about DOF - at these focal lengths you're depth of field is going to be pretty small even at f/5.6.

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/12/2016 at 06:49

My 50mm is likely some of the only non L-glass I plan to buy. The 7D will more than do for the time being, until I’m ready to invest in a full frame body. I’ll just avoid trying any out until then, so it’s not ruined for me. Haha

Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow > FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com
03/12/2016 at 06:53

Appreciate the input! Thankfully my two most prominent photography buddies, one who is a professional and one who does it as a bit of a side business (both of whom are car guys), both shoot Canon and have lots of nice lenses. I’m sure between the two of them, one is bound to have the 70-300 as well, and they have both said I’m welcome to borrow/try out lenses anytime.

interstate366, now In The Industry > Chris_K_F drives an FR-Slow
03/12/2016 at 07:29

I have a 50D, which is a lower tier, with a couple of lenses. Takes great pictures but I haven’t used it in awhile.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com
03/12/2016 at 11:49

I had a 70-300mm IS lens when I was younger and poorer... It was absolute crap and after I started using L glass it became glaringly obvious. If memory serves, they’re not even real USM lenses.

Then again, my 70-200mm is stupid heavy and I only carry it when I know I'll need it. You'll get some serious arm muscles carrying it around a lot like I used to.

FTTOHG Has Moved to https://opposite-lock.com > Eric @ opposite-lock.com
03/12/2016 at 14:20

There has been an L 70-300 for a few years now. That’s what I was suggesting he look at. It is a little lighter than the 70-200 but a lot smaller, because it doesn’t zoom internally.

Looking back through my kit at work it is actually the 55-250 IS that we have. It’s a lot newer design than the non-L 70-300. It focuses just fine and takes good enough photos. Better than I get on the 70-200/2.8L without IS. But when I use the big guy on a tripod it blows away the other ones. If you can afford it with IS definitely get it. But for someone looking at the old non-IS version - which Canon still sells new - there are other L lenses with IS that I think make more sense for someone shooting without a tripod.