Today is a great day to ask for input on what you would like to see and read more about on this blog. Some people have mentioned more information regarding equipment, lighting, camera gear, travel photography..etc. I’m here to serve, so give me your thoughts and feedback – and I’ll make sure to deliver the goods. 
No related posts.
Sign up here to get the latest blog posts by email.
Hi John~ I would love to hear your thoughts on lighting. I don’t know the language enough to ask the right questions but any insight would be wonderful. I do enjoy reading your blogs, so I hope they keep coming!
Jane
Jane,
Thanks for your feedback. I’ve had quite a few questions regarding lighting so I’ll planning on addressing it next week. Keep stopping by…John
I’d love to learn about lenses. I notice, especially w/ zoom lenses, the mm’s don’t seem to be that much different (e.g. I have a 70-300mm Canon zoom, but I saw a 70-200mm lens) in terms of mm’s. Or, maybe there is a substantial difference. What is a prime lens and why would you use it? I could go on……
Laurie,
I used to shoot with a 70-300 many years ago. I upgraded to the 70-200 (2.8) and have never looked back. The quality of Canon’s L series lens does make a difference. Also, you can buy a Canon extender to increase your focal length. Here is a link to the extenders http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7462.
Thanks for the reply, John. OK, here is why I am confused; it seems to me a 70-300 mm lens has a longer zoom and can get closer to the subject than a 70-200. Is that true? Or am I not understanding the physics, which is very possible. Is the f/2.8 better b/c it can let more light in? I will check the web site you provided, but I am pretty sure there is not an extender that fits the 70-300 f/4 lens. I will double check what you sent me. Laurie
Laurie,
Here a link to a site I used quite often to research lenses. Check it out here…..
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Here’s a great excerpt from the review
Obviously, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens is the best performer in this comparison. Actually, it is the best in most of them. The 70-200 delivers images that are at least as sharp or sharper with at least as high or higher contrast at most comparable focal lengths, aperture settings and positions in the frame. The 70-200 has a fixed wide aperture that becomes faster than the 70-300 at 85mm and is a full stop faster at 200mm. The 70-200 has a professional grade build quality and fast, quiet Ring USM AF. The 70-300′s one big advantage is the 100mm longer focal length range, but this enters the 70-300′s weakest range optically. The 70-200 is compatible with the Canon extenders – and becomes a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens with the 1.4x. But this of course adds to the cost of the lens. The 70-300′s other big advantage is image stabilization. The 70-200 f/4 is available in an IS model, but this is a more expensive lens.
Let me know if this helps. Also, to answer your question a 2.8 aperture does allow in more light…thus, making the camera “faster”.
Let me know if you have anymore questions…John
Are there any digital photography magazines or other publications that you recommend? Laurie
Laurie,
Here’s my post on that subject. Hope it’s helpful.
http://batdorffphotography.net/wordpress/2009/06/01/diploma-optional/
Wow, you were the first person able to explain lenses. Now, how does the 100-400 compare to the 70-200? My last photography instructor recommended the 100-400 for photographing horse shows (i.e. when I’m on the outside of a large arena photographing the horses going over jumps). Is the 70-200mm lens good for this? Thank you for the links. I will study them soon.
Laurie,
I’ve actually looked at the 100-400 lens before. It’s a good lens and quite a bit lighter too. The link I provide to you should have information about the 100-400. The 70-200 I believe is going to give you a sharper image. I’m not sure once you put an extender on it if it will be sharper than the 100-400 though. It’s a good question and I think one you might want to ask an authorized Canon dealer. Me personally, I would probably use the 70-200 (it’s a great lens) and put the extender on it. Simply because the 70-200 is such a versatile lens to have in you bag. Hope this helps. John
Thanks once again, John. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but what makes the 70-200 lens so versatile?
Nevermind….I wend on the digitalpicturereview and reviewed the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and I am now convinced. It will cost a few pennies so I am on a mission to get it before the year is up. In the meantime, I can improve my photography with what I have.
Yes…it’s not cheap but it’s a great lens.
I have a general question, but wasn’t sure where to put it on the blog so here goes: When shooting a wedding, bar/bat mitzvah or any gathering where you might be shooting groups of people where the people may be staggered in the group, what is (are) the best lenses and settings for these types of shots to make sure all the people are in sharp focus, not just one or two people. I was the ‘hired’ photographer for my husband’s high school reunion (the price was right!
) and some of the people in the group shots aren’t as sharp as I’d like. I shot indoors with ballroom lighting. I used my Canon 17-85 mm f/4 lens. I chose an ISO of 800 since it was indoors, used my Speelight 580 EX II flash, and shot in Shutter priority to make sure the photos wouldn’t be shot at too slow a shutter speed and come out blurry, however, to keep the photos from being too dark, my shutter speed was 1/100. I just felt some of the group shots could have been more sharp. Thanks.
Laurie,
A number of factors come into play. I would consider a lower ISO if you’re going to be using your flash. Also, consider taking a prime lens such as a 50mm or an 85mm for portrait work. Overall, my guess would be the ISO was set a tad too high.
Hope that helps, John
I figured being inside, the ISO should be at 800. But, maybe in the future 400 would suffice. I am not familiar with Prime lenses. Why are they good for portraits? Thanks. Laurie