You certainly need to upgrade your lens and consider how everything fits your trip.
You did not say what arrangements you made for the Galapagos but people usually spend a bit of time on the main island (Isabela) and take a boat which stops at several islands in some kind of circuit. The other o...
Thanks alot for the nice description and recommendations! This helped alot, especially filling out the gaps where i was quite unsure what to decide. You are perhaps the 20th person to tell me to get the 70-200 F/4L, and the price seems realistic for my budget. The Canon 24-105mm F/4L which looks quite neat aswell can be pulling out some teeth considering the price. Is there a good alternative to this lens? Furthermore which polarizer would you recommend?
Oddly,both lenses fall within your budget here ($959 & $879 CDN for the short and long, respectively). You can save about $150 by going for a Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 but I am having trouble finding anything that would be such a good match.
@JavaCake - For the polarizers, I cannot say enough of the Hoya HD ($120 for 77mm, less for smaller sizes) series. They allow one full stop more light transmission than any other polarizers and they do not cause any visible color-shift like those from B+W. Normally, I buy the biggest one and use a step-up ring for smaller lenses but since you will be shooting in bright light, you should buy both sizes because you can't use a lens hood with a step-up ring.
the Sigma is around 1000$ here, perhaps a tad cheaper if i purchase it in Germany. Is it on purpose that you mentioned the 70-200mm as a non-IS version?
I must say im in love with the 70-200.. Ive read tons of reviews and seen sample photos. Although i wish there was a cheaper alternative that did not go down on quality.
@JavaCake - Mostly because IS is of little use to you and will save you money. Stabilization compensates for photographers movements never subjects. You will be in very bright light with almost no shade in sight except on Isabella. For a similar reason, I own the non-IS version for sports photography.
The 70-200mm particularly is an excellent value and Canon made it nice to offer 4 versions. Specifically, the L4 non-IS is at a very reasonable price.
interesting thought on the non-IS subject. I read that alot are satisfied with the lack of IS because of the shutter speed? And i like the idea of 50% pricebreak compared to the IS model to be honest.
@JavaCake The principle is that stabilization helps who shoot using a slower shutter-speed than without. This only matters if you actually WANT to shoot at those shutter-speeds. At 200mm, you need to shoot around 1/250 to get a crisp shot without IS. With IS, you can shoot at around 1/60s. Mine 70-200mm F/4 is used for sports, so I have to use 1/500s at the very LEAST to freeze action. The same is true of animals in motion, just like people moving too.
@JavaCake [Cont'd] Towards the 70mm end, you only need about 1/100s to get a crisp shot without IS, which is low if you want to take a crisp picture of anything that moves. The pricebreak as you call it was absolutely worth for my use, plus there are less moving parts and no risk of the IS system adding extra blur (as it sometimes occurs).
The 24-105mm F/4L is another excellent value in the Canon lineup. The top of the line 24-70mm F/2.8 is quit expensive, so by losing one stop of light and gaining a bit of reach for a good discount, they made a very popular lens.
All the time. Shutter-speed is one of the variables of photography. IS or no IS you have to pay attention to shutter-speeds.
Shutter-speed has to be selected in terms of your subjects movements and yours. What IS does is change the point at which shutter-speeds are too slow to be handheld but you still have to pay attention to get a fast enough speed to freeze your subject and not get too low of IS not to work when you are shooting still subjects.
It was risky business choosing something based on a few reviews. I use photozone.de alot, but based on their reviews i cant really relate to my particular useage.. So its awesome hearing real life experience, especially pointing towards my destination!
Galapagos are a fantastic awe-inspiring experience! It is also harsh environment and not much you can do if things go wrong, particularly if you are island-hoping from a boat.
Reviews do one thing well: Let you know what the quality of something is. They do one thing poorly: Let you know what you need! My site (www.neocamera.com) corrects this about cameras but I do not have the bandwidth to do the same for lenses. They are too many lenses (over 500!) and plenty of factors, plus you have to consider combinations of lenses too.
They are the best ones among over a dozen I tried. I own the entire lineup of Hoya filers, plus had some B+W, Tiffen and Kenko. I sold all of them except the Hoya!
When you put a polarizer, everything gets darker. With every other filer, it is by 2 1/3 stops. With Hoya HD it is only 1 1/3 stops. Also they work just right, boosting saturation but they do not screw around with colors. The B+W was terrible it make everything brownish :(
No. There is no such filter. All filters have an impact and you put it on when you want that and take it off when you dont. Polarizers change the amount of light that enter the lens but also filter out rays outside of the polarization direction. They are the only filters whose effect cannot be reproduced my image processing.
UV/Glass should be used to protect the lens from flying dangers. In your case, that would be salt-water splashing. They also add unwated reflections and flare, particularly around bright light, so I would advise to remove it as soon as your lens is away from splashing sea water.
Thanks! My UV polarizer is also a Hoya but the non-HD version (Multi-Coated). There is no reason the HD would not be better but it did not exist when I bought mine. Since you will be shooting in bright light, I recommend you use lens hoods too and buy one filter that fits each lens exactly.
Discussion between JavaCake and Itai
Discussion between JavaCake and Itai