- This topic is empty.
Canon 24-105L IS f/4 and blur question.
-
1) I need a walkaround lense and have being tempted by this from Conn’s for a special they have on. €750
Only thing I’m really concerned about is would it be ok for Pub gigs?2) I was using a 70-200 f/4 non IS for taken pictures of my dogs in the local park…..I got a lot of keepers.
I sold the lense as I’m upgrading to the 2.8L IS and the last few days I used the 50mm f1.4 to try and take some more shots of my dogs.
I have had far less keepers with alot of them being not pin sharp or a bit blurry, now it can hardly be camera shake as this lens is far lighter than the 70-200 and it is a faster lens I assumed as it was f 1.4 compared to the 70-200 being a f/4.
Any reasons/tips please?Lot’s of reasons that the 50mm f/1.4 lens isn’t giving you the same results. If you’re shooting it wide open at f/1.4, then you will have a very narrow depth of field and any sort of movement backwards or forwards after locking focus will result in an out of focus image. It’s not an L-series lens so you can’t expect it to be as sharp as one. Aside from depth of field considerations, bear in mind that most lenses do not perform at their best when shot wide open. The fact that it’s lighter means that it has less inertia and may therefore be more prone to camera shake if you jab rather than squeeze the shutter release.
Oh, and it’s “lens” not “lense”. (Sorry, it seems that a lot of photographers have decided that there “lens” should always end in with an “e”. For the life of me I don’t know why they do this, but it bugs the hell out of me, almost as much as people referring to “togs” instead of photographers”).
Great and informative reply to #2!
TY very much.PS:
Lens it is from now on!
Never heard of Tog but fuck that would bug the hell out of me too. :)Thorsten wrote:
. ( there “lens”… but it bugs the hell out of me,
aherm, their lens maybe? :wink:
(sorry bout that, couldn’t resist!)
AndyL wrote:
Thorsten wrote:
. ( there “lens”… but it bugs the hell out of me,
aherm, their lens maybe? :wink:
(sorry bout that, couldn’t resist!)
Ha ha, well spotted Andy. My typing skills (not) got the better of me again, and since I’ve started using Opera, I no longer have the benefit of an inline spell checker :cry: Not that it would have worked in this instance. Of course, I should have re-read it before posting, but didn’t! What in fact I wanted to write was “…that the word ‘lens’ should…”
Totally chuffed with the 24-105L
Build quality is fantastic and used it at a gig last night, was perfect, thought being an f/4 I might have had problems but none at all.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
