"You guys that complain about the weight need to spend some quality time in the gym! The 70-200mm f2.8 is not even a heavy lens."
For me, at least, the problem isn't holding the lens to take shots. It's knowing how to carry the rig for an hour or two. I invested in a good camera holster. I don't trust the "6D" camera strap that came with the camera, mainly because the weight of the lens wasn't supported.
Overcast day, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO-100.....focus was in the center, which was not a high contrast spot.
But, it finally warmed up a bit, and I managed to get outside take some photos with the EF-70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM lens, mounted on my 6D. It is most definitely a sharp lens.
This lens reminds me of the first pair of high quality stereo speakers I bought. Those speakers were merciless in the sound quality they reproduced. You could hear the difference between good and bad recordings. Similarly, I can see all of the flaws and imperfections in the subjects that I shoot.
I'm still learning this lens, of course, but I can tell that I am going to get some fantastic looking shots from it.
"I am sure you will But now it is time to spend some quality time learning PS, or one of its rivals. Where the true magic happens!"
The landing sea gull needs a background sky. A layer mask can fix that. But, I really love the shot of the cannon. The lens is a pixel peeper's delight! I can zoom in on the barrel and see the brush strokes from the paint job.
WOW!
@ebiggs1 wrote:"The landing sea gull needs a background sky."
For starters! But who am I to say, if you are pleased, so am I.
I have some nice shots of clouds that I could mask in place around the bird. For the severity of the overcast, I think the bird shot came out fairly well. The lens wasn't having any trouble focusing on the bird. I had the wind at my back, so the birds were taking off and landing into the wind, which was towards me.
The shots of the gull and the cannon taught me a lot about the depth of field at f/2.8. In fact, I'm still learning the nuances of DoF, in general. I have been getting a feel for how "deep" the DoF is when focusing on subjects are varying distances and zoom settings. However, the bird and the cannon were shot at nearly similar distances, about 10 yards. It is not a coincidence that both shots were taken at about a 45 degree angle relative to the front of the subject. I was trying to get a feel for how "deep" the DoF actually was.
The gull was shot at 200mm. The bird has a wingspan of a good three feet, or more, maybe four feet. The focus point was on the bird's lower right portion of its' belly, where there is a slight contrasting area. That is also where the image is the sharpest. I was aiming for the head, but wound up with the belly on this shot. The head is closer to the camera than the belly, so it appears slightly out of focus. Likewise, the wingtips are behind and in front of the DoF.
The cannon was shot at 70mm. It is roughly 20 feet long, maybe just over. This time the focus point was in the center of the image, on the teeth of a gear below the barrel, which had good contrast. This time the DoF seems to be "deeper", because the entire length of the cannon is in sharp focus, unlike the bird's wingtips and head.
Like I said, I am getting a feel for the lens. The bird shots that I took at f/5.6 captured the entire wingspan of the birds in sharp focus. It seems that I'm getting a focus point that is not in the middle of the DoF, but slightly away from center towards the front edge of it. Most all of the lenses behave that way in AF mode, but the size of the field seems to vary from one lens to the next, even at similar focal lengths.
Last comment.. My first lens had somewhat of a loose fit. This one seems to be stuck on the camera.
