Cheap way to an 'L' series lens

[mumrar]

I'm very interested in getting a 70-200mm f2.8L IS or maybe f4L, but of course saving the money is the big issue. I just wondered if there was anyone on here who could verify my prediction between the shot I took, and the shot I think I could have got with the f2.8 via the Lens Blur tool and masks etc in CS4

Original shot (70-300mm f4-5.6 IS at f7.1)

http://mattsgeneralphotos.fotopic.net/p60393927.html

My processed version to simulate 70-200mm f2.8L IS at f2.8

http://mattsgeneralphotos.fotopic.net/p60393928.html

If this is close enough to the actual difference in DOF and bokeh, then I definately need to save up for one I think

Thanks for looking

Matt W

 

[adsayer]

A rough idea of distance between you and the giant flying car would be helpful matt

although simulating it is not a bad idea... there's somethings you can't photoshop in, like AF speed and AF accuracy

ads

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Don't forget,you'll need a can of white spray paint for your 70-300

 

[artona]

I can promise you that if you go for the L series F2.8 or F4 you will not regret it

 

[foodpoison]

It probably won't be that dramatic, but yes. Something along those lines

 

[mumrar]

Oops, forgot distance to subject, it was about 50-60m away, took at 120mm

 

[DizMatt]

L glass is lovely, only ever played with it a few times as I'm a poor happy snapper

however, the cheapest way to try that sort of f2.8 out is a sigma alternative. I have the 50-150mm f/2.8 and there is a 70-200 I think. however, I'd still rather have L glass!

 

[mumrar]

the cheapest way to try that sort of f2.8 out is a sigma alternative. I have the 50-150mm f/2.8 and there is a 70-200 I think. however, I'd still rather have L glass!

I got the bug by trying out a 28-300mm f4-5.6L but from what I've read about the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 it's not up to the job and won't really prove a decent evaluation. I'm probably going to look at hiring one for a day, photographing all sorts of stuff, and make me decision after seeing the results.

 

[andrewc]

Sigma EX glass is good. Not quite as good as Canon L, but usually cheaper to compensate - eg the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a similar cost to the Canon 70-200 f/4 L.

 

[PerfectSpeed]

In this environment my 70-200 f/4L would be first out the bag, 95mm seems a little short so I would have gone for around 135mm, and f/4, would give better subject isolation, shooting vertical here would also help this a lot.

Also use your DOF preview to see what you are going to get.