Until today I had a “comment” link below every story on this page. However, yesterday I discovered a technical glitch with that feature and I have disabled it. In the meantime, it is possible to use the “discuss” link to post a message once you have joined this site. (See link near the bottom of the sidebar.)
—–
Taking the Ordinary and Bringing Out the Extraordinary
I just read a wonderful article at Michael Reichmann’s Luminous Landscape web site – Taking the Ordinary and Bringing Out the Extraordinary in which Glenn E. Mitchell II (no relationship) discusses the process and approach to photography.
A comment about Ansel Adams caught my attention:
What always impressed me about Ansel Adams was his deliberative approach to photography. He would come to know a place. Really know it, so he could be there at the right time.
Another point in the article:
The very best photojournalists have the ability to take rather bleak, mundane subjects and through a combination of composition, exposure, and lighting craft an image that excites us.
While I can’t claim to be remotely as good as Adams or the others mentioned in the article, I strongly identify with these ideas, and I see the connection between them. To my mind, it is not so much about the specific subject of the photographs – there are good subjects everywhere – as it is about finding the best way to capture and present effective images of a subject.
I also try to get to know places, and some of them would probably seem pretty mundane if you actually visited them. One of these places is a short section of a nondescript lateral trail along a small ridge at Almaden Quicksilver Park in the Santa Clara Valley. I would forgive you if you passed over this section of trail and barely noticed it.
However, one time during the winter I happened to go there on a cold foggy morning and the place was transformed for me. Over time I have come to know the twist of the trail, the shapes and arrangement of the oaks on the ridge, and the amazing variety of lighting effects that occur. Over time I’ve managed to capture a few images from this place that please me.
Along the same lines, there is a specific tree near Vernal Fall in Yosemite that I know is going to make a great image if I can get there at exactly the right week in early November of the right year at the time of day when the light is just so. I came close once and have tried a couple more times. I’ll be back.
There is also a scene in Leconte Canyon in the Southern Sierra that I photographed a few years ago a bit too quickly. Once I realized how wonderful the image could have been it was too late. So now I know that I will eventually climb over nearly-12,000′ Bishop Pass, descend into the canyon 4000′ below and find myself on a particular section of trail in mid-July close to sunset with my camera on a tripod as the sun drops behind the ridge, leaving me to hike a mile or three to set up camp in the dark – only to climb back out of that 4000′ deep canyon the next day (or two).
November Grasses
Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS Lens
(Updated on December 28, 2011. Some links go to site sponsor B&H Photo)
Canon makes four L zoom lenses in this 70-200mm focal length: two f4 versions and two f2.8 versions, with IS (image stabilization) versions being available for both. All four lenses are optically excellent and among the very best zoom lenses you can buy. I like to say that deciding among them on the basis of image quality is like trying to choose between four quarters and a dollar bill on the basis of value. What primarily differentiates among the four models are their functional features, and your choice should be made primarily on that basis – and perhaps cost if this is a significant factor for you. (However, there are reports that the newer Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens is at the head of this pack of very good lenses – but it isn’t necessarily the best choice for everyone.)
When I made my first 70-200mm purchase I chose the f/4 non-IS version – the IS version had not been released at that time. (You can purchase it from site sponsor B&H photo: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens) The f4 version I purchased set me back about $600 at the time, making this one of Canon’s least expensive entry points into the world of L lenses. The non-IS version of this lens is still a great performer. For those who might always shoot from the tripod, there might not be compelling reasons to spend more on any of the other models of this type of Canon lens.
More recently I acquired the image stabilized version of this lens. (Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens) In most ways its performance is very similar to that of the non-IS version, though the aperture blades are now apparently rounded, which can alter the appearance of out of focus highlights. In fact, both of the f/4 70-200mm lenses produce very nice background blur. For my purposes, I chose the f/4 IS version because I frequently use this lens while hiking/backpacking where the advantages of smaller size and lighter weight are more significant for me than the one additional stop. My feeling is that the f/4 version if fine for the majority of shooters, and is a better choice than the f/2.8 versions for those who cart their gear on their backs! Unless you never shoot handheld, the IS version of the lens is probably worth the extra cost for most buyers, though both will produce very similar optical results.
After using the non-IS f/4 version since 2005 and the IS version for a few months, here is what I have observed.
- Image quality from either version of this lens is completely top notch. The lenses are capable of producing very high resolution images that will stand up as the largest prints you are likely to create from DSLR originals. Performance is generally very good throughout the focal length and aperture ranges.
- Perhaps to the surprise of some photographers, the f/4 70-200mm lenses produce very nice bokeh (background blur) wide open. Some think you need larger aperture lenses to get this or to shoot portrait subjects. In truth, you most often don’t want to shoot at a larger aperture at these long focal lengths because the depth of field is so small, and f/4 controls DOF well and gives good bokeh.
- While a 70-200mm zoom is not a small lens, the f/4 versions make such a lens more manageable. I’ll take my f/4 lenses backpacking, but I would not want to carry the heavier and bulkier f/2.8 into the back-country.
- The usefulness of image stabilization will vary depending upon your subjects and shooting style, but I think that it is likely enough that you’ll get value from it at some point that most photographers should probably pay the extra cost for it. The IS on this lens is very capable, providing the ability to shoot at 3-4 stops slower shutter speeds. By increasing the ISO I have been able to shoot indoor musical performances under stage lighting with the IS lens.
- These are very useful lenses for shooting certain small nature subjects such as wildflowers and similar. Not only is the nice bokeh often useful, but the ability to work at the longer focal lengths from a slightly greater distance is helpful. There are some reports that resolution may not be optimal at 200mm and the minimum focusing distance, but I’ve had good success in that sort of shooting.
While I’m doing these comparisons, let me share some ideas about situations in which one might choose any of the Canon 70-200mm options:
- EF 70-200mm f/4 L – This non-IS lens is a great performer in every way. Its image quality equals the other lenses with the possible exception of the f/2.8 II lens at the larger apertures, and here the difference isn’t exactly going to be “night and day.” If you are on a budget or if you shoot exclusively from the tripod this can be the very best choice.
- EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS – For those who will do some amount of handheld shooting but who otherwise would be fine with the non-IS 70-200mm lens, this can be the best choice. Again, image quality is excellent and essentially in the same category as that of the non-IS lens. However, the addition of effective IS extends the usefulness of this lens for hand held and low light shooting. If cost isn’t a constraint, this can be a better overall choice than the non-IS f/4 lens.
- EF 70-200mm F2.8 L – Like the other 70-200mm lenses, this is an excellent performer. Since its cost is often very close to that of the 70-200mm f/4 IS lens, it is essentially a matter of trading one additional stop of aperture for IS. For a few people the added stop might be more useful – those shooting actions subjects in low light, a very small number who might need f/2.8 but who will always shoot from the tripod.
- EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS – This is the most expensive option among the four, for obvious reasons – it combines the f/2.8 maximum aperture with a very effective image stabilization system… and ends up costing well over $2000. If cost is not a concern and if weight and bulk are not issues, then this can be the safest choice as is has all of the feature potentially provided by the other options. Practical photographers may decide that the additional weight, bulk and cost are not worth the one additional stopped it provides by comparison to the f/4 IS model.
With a 1.6 crop factor DSLR this lens is the angle-of-view equivalent to a 110-320mm lens on a full-frame camera body. By adding a 1.4x teleconverter to this lens, it gives the equivalent of a greater than 400mm lens on cropped sensor bodies. When I shot a crop sensor body I combined this lens with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS and the 17-40mm f/4 L. For me this lens is even more useful on a full frame body.
Bottom line: All four of the Canon 70-200m lenses are excellent products that produce wonderful image quality. On that basis there is little or nothing to suggest choosing any one of them above the others. However, the difference that they do possess (maximum aperture, IS,, weight, bulk, cost) can be determining factors.
Lenses mentioned in this article include:
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lens
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens
- Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens
(Links to site sponsor B&H Photo)
Related:
- Tests and Reports page.
G Dan Mitchell Photography
About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.
(Basic EXIF data is available by “mousing over” large images in blog posts. Leave a comment if you want to know more.)