workhorse for certain specialist applications and I'm considering those
applications.
Live music photography, portrait, photojournalism, travel, and sports
are the areas where I'd use it and hope to make money from using a
telephoto zoom lens. While a standard lens coverages some of the focal
length required a longer focal length is very useful for most of those
applications and essential for others. A fast one, i.e. an f2.8 lens, is
also an essential requirement.
There's one key demand professional photographers have: never missing
the shot. This is why two cameras is essential. If one fails the other
is always there as backup. It's why the cameras are so robust as are the
lenses. They use metal in their construction are the best ones are
designed to survive the extremes of the elements.
Never missing a shot is vital because professional photographers get
paid on the results they produce. A lens which slightly misfocuses
doesn't produce sharp shops. A lens which hunts when there's a decisive
moment loses the moment. A camera which doesn't get the metering spot on
can ruin a professional shot. I've made do with substandard equipment
for a while and have gotten used to the problems but I've missed a lot
of the shots I could have got with the right equipment.
This is the value of a good telephoto zoom like the Canon 70-200 f2.8mm
L IS. The MkII is weatherproof and dust proof which is a very useful
benefit for those few occassions I shoot in the rain. I've shot in the
rain and my equipment has survived but I've always felt it was at risk.
It would be less so with fully weatherproofed gear. It's only a few
times I've had to shoot in the rain and I don't know if I'll need to do
it more.
I expect the Sigma alternative will be close to the build quality of the
latest Canon but it doesn't have the benefit of weatherproofing. I've
used the original model in the rain. This featured a lot more metal and
is a very tough lens. I suspect the new Sigma won't be as tough. The
Canon will be.
The problem is the Canon is £1,500. A MkI might be £1,000 secondhand and
an earlier Sigma will be £500 secondhand. These are the estimated prices
for the f2.8 version. I'm not considering an f4. It is a significant
premium to get an f2.8 lens and image quality isn't the factor. Reliable
focus, the extra wide aperture and the option of adding a teleconvertor
to get 400mm with working autofocus are. One extra stop of aperture is
more valuable than 4 extra stops through slower shutter speeds and
Image/Optical Stabilisation because it is more often useful.
Camera focusing systems are at their optimum performance on f2.8 lenses.
The extra light means they can lock on focus quicker or on more
difficult subjects. This means they're better able to get that decisive
shot quicker. Sometimes it's just fractions of a second in which a
moment exists, the right moment captured by a good photographer. The
moment can be a split second where the expression appears on someone or
a bird briefly turns its head the right way. In can be the expression of
a demonstrator at a protest or the glint of wonder in a child's eye.
Fast optics allow more chances to get this and get it sharp.
Most of the time subjects are moving so slowing down the shutter speed
isn't an option. I would like OS/IS but personally I'd prefer an f2.8
over an f4 IS. A monopod isn't as convenient as an inbuilt system which
compensates in the lens but it's a lot cheaper and with good technique
can beat IS systems. It would still be nice to have. It's why the Sigma
is such an attractive option and I think if I can find it or a Canon
70-200mm f2.8 L IS Mk I for around £600-£800 it would be suitable for
professional photography.
It might sound like a lot of money however the retail price of the Canon
70-200mm f2.8 L IS MkII is £2,800. I'm seeking to get near the same
performance for 1/4 the price.
No comments:
Post a Comment