Camera Suggestions

[PearlJam09]

So I'm currently in the market for a DSLR. I have no lenses whatsoever, so I'm starting from scratch. I've done the research and its led me to realize that its a 50/50 tossup between Canon and Nikon. While I do like the Nikon D200, its a little out of my price range and I've kind of settled on a Canon 20D because its been discontinued and replaced and has dropped in price a bunch (unless someone can strongly say against the Canon 20D in favor of the Nikon D80 with the possibility of an eventual upgrade to the D200)

The thing I'm looking at now is lenses. I'm going to be primarily shooting sports (mostly ultimate frisbee) so I figure I need something quick with a decent amount of zoom. I'm wondering if anyone has experience shooting sports like ultimate or soccer and can guide me as to what lenses would be good for this as far as focal length is concerned.

The four that I'm kinda looking at listed by price would be:

75-300 F/4-5.6
70-300 F/4-5.6 with IS
70-200 F/4 or F/2.8
100-400 F 4.5-5.6

Those are the ones I researched for the Canon, however I assume that Nikon has similar, comparable lenses as far as focal lengths.

Do I need image stabilization for sports? Is it worth getting in case I plan to do stills also, despite the drastic price increase?


Any help is greatly appreciated.

[MeatPuppet]

Nothing wrong with the 20D, good solid camera. My experience is that the D200 has better low light focusing ability than the 30D. So I would assume the same would be true for the 20D as well. Don't know if that is a factor for you. Also, the D200 has dedicated buttons and switches for changing auto focus types(continuous/single), AF points, as well as metering types. Canon makes you go through a menu to do most of that. So the D200 will be more easily reconfigured on the fly.






The four that I'm kinda looking at listed by price would be:

75-300 F/4-5.6
70-300 F/4-5.6 with IS
70-200 F/4 or F/2.8
100-400 F 4.5-5.6

Those are the ones I researched for the Canon, however I assume that Nikon has similar, comparable lenses as far as focal lengths.



Canon has Nikon beat, hands down, for variety of lenses as well as price. Nikon has no 70-300 equivalent, nor 100-400, or 70-200 F/4.

BTW, I would drop the 75-300 from your list. Both the picture and build quality will be noticeably higher on the other lenses you listed, with the 70-300 IS(I'm assuming it's the DO lens?) coming in last(of the three).

Edit: Just for context, Most of my friends who have DSLRs have Canons. So I get to play with a variety of cameras/lens. I'm firmly in the Nikon/Fuji camp for my needs, but if I were shooting sports I would most likely be shooting with a Canon.

[AstroPax]

Edit: Just for context, Most of my friends who have DSLRs have Canons. So I get to play with a variety of cameras/lens. I'm firmly in the Nikon/Fuji camp for my needs, but if I were shooting sports I would most likely be shooting with a Canon.

I agree.

I have about $15,000 in Nikon gear. But I shoot mostly sports/action now.

I just ended-up in the Nikon camp because that is where I started many, many years ago when Nikon was king.

However, if I was to start all over again tomorrow, shooting sports, I would go with a Canon system, no questions asked.

Don't get me wrong. For sure, it's more about the photographer than the camera. I get really good results with my Nikon stuff. But really, for sports/action, Canon is definitely better, for the most part. Not completely, just mostly.

Both systems will create equally great images. But for sports/action, a Canon system will probably make it just a little easier, and a little less expensive.

[Summit]

I'm going to be primarily shooting sports (mostly ultimate frisbee)

75-300 F/4-5.6
70-300 F/4-5.6 with IS
70-200 F/4 or F/2.8
100-400 F 4.5-5.6

Do I need image stabilization for sports? Is it worth getting in case I plan to do stills also, despite the drastic price increase?

No need for IS for sports. Yes it is worth it for stills.

If you are primarily shooting sports, I would choose (in order):

70-200 2.8 L (and buy a 2x TC)
Sigma 2.8 EX HSM and a 2x
70-200 4 L(and buy a 1.4x TC)
70-300 IS (very very sharp for prosumer lens)

100-400 is sweet but there are better sports lenses for the money

[AstroPax]

The thing I'm looking at now is lenses. I'm going to be primarily shooting sports (mostly ultimate frisbee) so I figure I need something quick with a decent amount of zoom. I'm wondering if anyone has experience shooting sports like ultimate or soccer and can guide me as to what lenses would be good for this as far as focal length is concerned.

Really, for sports/action, you only need three lenses, all should be f/2.8. Don't bother with anything slower than f/2.8.

A wide zoom, 17-55.

A mid zoom, 70-200.

And a super-tele, something like a 400 prime.

Get the 70-200 first. Then the wide. And someday, maybe the 400.

Don't waste your money on anything else. Trust me, I've been through all of this.

[AstroPax]

Canon has Nikon beat, hands down, for variety of lenses as well as price. Nikon has no 70-300 equivalent, nor 100-400, or 70-200 F/4.

I wouldn't go that far! Who the hell shoots with a 70-200 f/4 anyway?

[MeatPuppet]

I wouldn't go that far!

I'm speaking only to the variety of mid priced, mid range zooms.

Need a light travel zoom with IS? 70-300 DO
Shooting on a tripod and don't need f/2.8? 70-200 f/4
Need best quality/weight be damned? 70-200 IS f/2.8
Need a little extra reach and portability? 100-400

To compete, Nikon has the 70-200 VR f/2.8 and...?
Granted, Nikon does have the 80-400 VR f/4.5-5.6, but that is that's a lot of unnecessary overlap with the 70-200 f/2.8, and the AF on the 80-400 struggles.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Nikon. But Canon is eating their lunch in the lens department.

[k trials]

I shoot a variety of sports with the following lenses:

Canon 400 F/5.6
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 (and 1.4 TC)

Remember you are talking about field sports. Seriously, if you are mostly going to shoot ultimate frisbee/soccer, go as LONG as you can afford! Primes are the way to go.

I'll mount the 400 F/5.6 on my 20D for college football and soccer and keep it there. On my back-up cam (5D), I'll have my 70-200 F/2.8 & 1.4 TC, which maybe gets used 15% of the time, if that. You'll almost always want longer in field. I've shot for Real SL (ML Soccer) and all the guys are shooting 400 2.8 w/ TC's. The F/5.6 doesn't break the bank ($1100), and produces absolutely stunning pics in sharpness, color, and contrast (oh, and even bokeh). I imagine most of your games are played during the day, so plenty of light. If not, the 20D rocks in terms of noise so crank it up to keep the shutter speed above 1/500 and you'll get a lot of keepers. You will almost always be at the long end of any of the lenses you mention and stay there, trust me, so keep it simple and buy prime.

Pic 1-3: All 400mm on 20D (cropped 30%) I'm roughly 30-40 yards away for most of these shots (Again, much closer than field sports):

http://Winzeler.smugmug.com/photos/97468527-L.jpg

http://Winzeler.smugmug.com/photos/84406032-L.jpg

http://Winzeler.smugmug.com/photos/115709313-L.jpg

The 70-200 is a great lens and a workhorse for sports, but you'll always be cropping a lot to get tight, in your face, action shots.

In terms of IS, you don't need it to stop the action in sports, but it has come in handy for panning action shots.

Example (24-105 F/4 IS):

http://Winzeler.smugmug.com/photos/80349993-L.jpg

Conclusion:
Used 20D w/400 F/5.6 = $1800. That's a $$$ set-up for field action!!! Next, pick-up a 70-200 2.8, and you're set.

[PearlJam09]

Not to be ignorant, but obviously I'm just getting into this, so some terms I don't know. Whats TC mean? What's it do for me.

I'm thinking that the 70-200 F/2.8 might be a touch out of my price range, but that a used 20D and a 70-200 F/4 would suit my needs for now and is fairly economical. (can probably find camera for 7-800 and lens goes new for about 600, haven't searched for used yet, but I bet there are some out there somewhere). It's also lighter, from what I've read and will be better for hand held and walking around the field, and I can always throw it on a monopod if I need to.

I don't think going with prime is a good idea because in Ultimate, I'd be <3 yards from the sideline and action could be anywhere from 2 yards to 60 yards away and it can change quickly, which is why I was primarily looking at zoom instead of primes.

If anyone wants to add, I'd love to hear more suggestions. Thanks.

[Staggerwing]

Not to be ignorant, but obviously I'm just getting into this, so some terms I don't know. Whats TC mean? What's it do for me.

TC=Tele-converter=an optical module that fits between the lens and camera body.

A 1.4x tele-converter will turn a 70-200/2.8 lens into a 98-280/4.0 lens. Likewise, a 2x tele-converter will turn a 70-200/2.8 into a 140-400/5.6. Before you rush to add one to your list, note that you lose 1 stop, off of max. aperture, for the 1.4x and 2 stops for the 2.0x. You also lose optical quality because you are adding another 4-7 elements in the optical train.

I wouldn't consider a 2x, but a 1.4x might be an OK stopgap when used with either a 70-200/2.8 or a 300/2.8. I wouldn't bother using one on any lens slower than f/2.8, especially trying to shoot action.

[mtbakerskier]

I wouldnt worry about the body so much at this stage in the game. Spend 90&#37; of your budget on good glass, and then upgrade the body as dlsr's get cheaper and cheaper. The glass wont go down much in value, while the bodies loose there value almost over night.

If you got good glass even the dreble will take good pics

[Summit]

NO. He needs a 20D or better (20D is just fine. I use one)

Sports=Framerate matters=Body kinda matters

Get a used 20D used if you are on a budget.

If you cannot afford a Canon 70-200 2.8 ($1100) get a Sigma 70-200 2.8 ($890) if you can't afford that, get a Sigma 50-150 2.8 ($680 not sure you can TC it). You want 2.8 glass on a 20D. The AF sensor is sluggish and less accurate for anything slower than 2.8.

If you cannot afford those, then consider the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-300 IS.

And a 70-200 2.8 with a 2x TC on it is a 400mm 5.6... no its not as good as a 400mm 5.6 prime, but it it only costs $250 instead of $1100 and is a whole lot smaller and lighter.

I put this together from bhphoto.com:

$710 Canon 20D USED
$890 Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM
$210 Sigma EX 2x TC
$ 75 Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkII
$ 70 Sandisk Ultra III 4GB CF card
$ 40 Hoya 77mm HMC UV0 filter
------------------------------------------
$1995

If you wanted to spend an extra $200, drop the 50mm and get the Canon 70-200 and 2X instead of the Sigmas.

[PearlJam09]

I wouldnt worry about the body so much at this stage in the game. Spend 90% of your budget on good glass, and then upgrade the body as dlsr's get cheaper and cheaper. The glass wont go down much in value, while the bodies loose there value almost over night.

If you got good glass even the dreble will take good pics

I realize that, but if I'm shooting sports, I think I'd probably want something that has a decent continuous mode (Canon 20D used vs Digital Rebel XTi). I think I'm still going to end up with the 70-200 f/4 due to price and size. As much as I'd like to go up, this is only gonna be a secondary hobby to me, so investing a ton into it, at least at this point isn't what I want to do. Plus if lenses hold their value and I want to upgrade, I could always sell what I've got to move up I think.

[Summit]

I think I'm still going to end up with the 70-200 f/4 due to price and size. As much as I'd like to go up, this is only gonna be a secondary hobby to me, so investing a ton into it, at least at this point isn't what I want to do. Plus if lenses hold their value and I want to upgrade, I could always sell what I've got to move up I think.

OK but don't get the 70-200 f/4 when there is 2.8 glass in close reach! The f/4 lens cannot be 2x'd and it is pointless to 1.4x it (even if you can). Who wants a 100-280mm f/5.6 anways? Sigma 50-150 2.8 is physically smaller and only $100 more than the canon f/4. Remember if you are a 35mm shooter, then you get a free 1.6x effect on the 20D. That makes the 50-150 an 80-240mm in 35mm equivelent fl

If the $2000 setup I proposed above is too much, then get this:

$710 Canon 20D USED
$679 Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 EX HSM DC
$ 70 Sandisk Ultra II 4GB CF card
$ 30 Hoya 67mm HMC UV0 filter
------------------------------------------
$1489

[PearlJam09]

How about this setup:

30D used: 950
Canon 70-200 F/4: 560
4Gig CF: 70
Filter 30
_____________________

1610

Since glass holds its value longer, and the camera is slightly newer, the camera will last for a while without having to upgrade for newer features and the glass can be resold for 85&#37; or so and that can be used to upgrade to the 2.8 later on if the F/4 isn't cutting it.

[hop]

I find it hard to believe you can't find a used 70-200 2.8 canon lens out there for the price of the f4 you quoted. Sure it's only a hobby and you can always upgrade later, but you might as well do it right the first time around and you can always sell if you don't like the lens. I'd spend less on the 20D and more on the lens. The 20D is a totally adequate camera for what you want to do anyways.

20D $710
70-200 2.8 $1100 (new? my 80-200 2.8 was $500 used)
4G CF $70
Filter $30
Total $1910

FWIW my Nikon 80-200 2.8 is the lens I use most often on my D200.

[mtbakerskier]

I realize that, but if I'm shooting sports, I think I'd probably want something that has a decent continuous mode (Canon 20D used vs Digital Rebel XTi). I think I'm still going to end up with the 70-200 f/4 due to price and size. As much as I'd like to go up, this is only gonna be a secondary hobby to me, so investing a ton into it, at least at this point isn't what I want to do. Plus if lenses hold their value and I want to upgrade, I could always sell what I've got to move up I think.

Get the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 before you EVER consider the Canon F4

[Summit]

If you want to take pictures of fast moving subjects and you want to use a 20D/30D to do it, you want to use the center AF cross sensor and 2.8 glass. End of story.

You are better off with the 2.8 and a 20D than the 4 and a 30D... all the 30D is is a slightly larger frame buffer and tigher spot meter... whoopty do!

It is worth paying another 15-30&#37; more for the good glass.

70-200 2.8 > 50-150 2.8 >> 70-200 4

if you are so concerned about size, get the 50-150 2.8... it is smaller than the 70-200 4

(a 50-150 on a 20D is almost exactly the same as a 70-200 on a 1DmkII)

[Junker]

Pearl
What about the Ef 80-200mm f/2.8. It was the lens that was replaced by the 70-200mm 2.8. I've seen them sell used for little more than a 70-200 f/4. May be a good option.

[Shepherd Wong]

I agree with the others. For snow and good sunlight f4 is fine, but iffy light and other contitions I find a lot of my shots are in the 2.8-4 range. I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro and love it. Maybe you could find a deal on a used non-Macro version of it?

[grapedrink]

get a used 20D, don't bother with a 30D now that the rebates are over. this one is a no brainer. regarding the 70-200 lenses:

F4: half the size, half the weight. not sure about non IS versions but F4 IS is sharper than F2.8 IS at all apertures. F4 is plenty fast if you're shooting outdoors during the day, even if its completely overcast. the difference in weight is noticable.

F2.8: you will get faster and more accurate autofocus with an F2.8 lens on a 20D, and trust me, you'll want any improvement you can get. just remember the biggest reason why people pay thousands of dollars for a 1D camera is because of its autofocus speed and accuracy. if you're shooting sports, its what makes or breaks most of your shots. your viewfinder will also be brighter and you'll get better bokeh and smaller depth of field when shooter at F2.8. if you're shooting at night under lights, or any kind of indoor sports you will need F2.8 or better, F4 literally will not cut it. i took pictures at my nephews hockey game a few weeks ago at a municipal rink. at F2.8 iso 3200 the best shutter speed i could get was 1/400 and even then several shots were underexposed. also with the F2.8 you can use a $200 2x teleconverter to make it a 140-400mm F5.6 lens. a 2x teleconverter on the F4 makes it an F8 and you lose your autofocus capability which makes it pointless.

[grapedrink]

http://Winzeler.smugmug.com/photos/80349993-L.jpg

by the way this panning shot is awesome, i've tried to get shots like this a couple of times but never with much success, any tips?

[Summit]

ktrials that is a really good shot you have!

grapdrink i got good at panning by going to a busy street corner and shooting panning shots of cars a lot

[mtbakerskier]

but F4 IS is sharper than F2.8 IS at all apertures.

Wana bet? The F2.8 version, stoped down is NOTICEABLY SHARPER at F4 than the F4 version is wide open at F4!

[grapedrink]

Wana bet? The F2.8 version, stoped down is NOTICEABLY SHARPER at F4 than the F4 version is wide open at F4!

are you talking about the newer IS versions? every review i've read says tthe opposite, example:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm

[mtbakerskier]

are you talking about the newer IS versions? every review i've read says tthe opposite, example:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm

@ F 4
The 70-200 F2.8L is the sharpest, the 70-200F2.8L IS is the second, and the prosumer 70-200 F4L is the least.

Thinkabout who is writing those reviews 99% of the time its amatures that don't have a clue. Secondly As you stop a lense down it ALWAYS gets sharper, until after you reach F11 or so, where it starts to get less sharp again.

Both versions of the 70-200 F2.8L are very sharp wide open, and only get sharper as you stop them down up to about F11. Most people seem to mix up sharpness with depth of field when writing these reviews.

[grapedrink]

@ F 4
The 70-200 F2.8L is the sharpest, the 70-200F2.8L IS is the second, and the prosumer 70-200 F4L is the least.

Thinkabout who is writing those reviews 99% of the time its amatures that don't have a clue. Secondly As you stop a lense down it ALWAYS gets sharper, until after you reach F11 or so, where it starts to get less sharp again.

Both versions of the 70-200 F2.8L are very sharp wide open, and only get sharper as you stop them down up to about F11. Most people seem to mix up sharpness with depth of field when writing these reviews.

right, however i'm talking about the new F4 IS, not the regular F4.. it appears to be significantly improved.

[mtbakerskier]

right, however i'm talking about the new F4 IS, not the regular F4.. it appears to be significantly improved.

It still inst going to be as sharp at F4 as either of the F2.8 versions. IS lenses ARE NEVER as sharp as non IS glass.

[grapedrink]

It still inst going to be as sharp at F4 as either of the F2.8 versions. IS lenses ARE NEVER as sharp as non IS glass.

word. i'm just going by reviews not first hand experience. you're the pro, i have no desire to argue with you :)

[mtbakerskier]

word. i'm just going by reviews not first hand experience. you're the pro, i have no desire to argue with you :)

Heh. I wasnt arguing, jsut pointing out a few facts. In fact it kinda pisses me off how all of these sites post such crappy reviews as fact...

I mean how about they actually post some real test pics? You wouldnt think it would be that hard for them.

[cj001f]

wheee... its photo dick swingin in a whole new forum!

pst: ALL PHOTO REVIEW ARE OPINION!

[Summit]

I would give Klaus's reviews some credence. He has personally run photozone.de for longer than that egotisitical green has been pimping photo.net

His methodology is consistent between reviews. What you cannot control for is variation in the lens samples, but we would assume that Canon L lenses have pretty tight tolerances.

With regard to the f/4 IS... it costs the same as the 2.8 non IS. The size weight difference is not so big as everyone says. The f/4 is less than 1" smaller and only 1lb lighter than the 2.8.

I still think an 70-200 f/4 IS is a foolish purchase because of the availability of the f/2.8 at the same price.

[pechelman]

As you stop a lense down it ALWAYS gets sharper, until after you reach F11 or so, where it starts to get less sharp again.


hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

eta, my first instinct says diffraction, but it just doesnt seem that its small enough to make a difference. im a little fuzzy on optical physics and what dimension has to be what in relationship to the wavelength of light before weird stuff happens etc etc

[Summit]

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

diffraction :)

[pechelman]

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

eta, my first instinct says diffraction, but it just doesnt seem that its small enough to make a difference. im a little fuzzy on optical physics and what dimension has to be what in relationship to the wavelength of light before weird stuff happens etc etc


diffraction :)

guess i kinda knew it all along then

great link that explains it well
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

[mtbakerskier]

hmm
I didnt know that it starts to get softer above ~F11.
I dont understand why this would happen either.

Got a link to anything that explains the physics or maybe briefly 'splain it to me?

eta, my first instinct says diffraction, but it just doesnt seem that its small enough to make a difference. im a little fuzzy on optical physics and what dimension has to be what in relationship to the wavelength of light before weird stuff happens etc etc
One of the Major and older photo mags has ran some prety good tests of nearly every lense evermade, There measuring the actual resolving resolution of the lenses at each aperture, and you will notice, that EVERY lense always gets less sharp at the higher f stops. Ussually occuring just abouve F 11 or so. There was a good site that had all of the mathmatical reasoning behind it, but i dont remember what it was.

[AstroPax]

http://Winzeler.smugmug.com/photos/80349993-L.jpg

by the way this panning shot is awesome, i've tried to get shots like this a couple of times but never with much success, any tips?

According to the EXIF data, he shot that at 1/40 sec.

Practice following a target. Go stand next to a freeway and practice on the moving cars.

I shot the following at 1/200 sec...but was able to get away with the faster shutter speed cause the motorcycle is moving substantially faster than the above bicycle.

http://nikon.astropax.com/motorsports/ama_001.jpg

[grapedrink]

that is awesome

[Natedogg]

great link that explains it well
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

I never knew this...

Whats the skinny with Ansel Adams and f/64 then??? I was under the (mis?)interpretation that it was for ultra-sharp images...

[truth]

According to the EXIF data, he shot that at 1/40 sec.

Practice following a target. Go stand next to a freeway and practice on the moving cars.

I shot the following at 1/200 sec...but was able to get away with the faster shutter speed cause the motorcycle is moving substantially faster than the above bicycle.



Not so much the speed of the bike as it is the speed at which the wheels are spinning. 1/200 sec might have frozen the wheels on the bicycle. Depending on your angle the pan from the bike to the bicycle might not have been much faster.

[AstroPax]

I never knew this...

Whats the skinny with Ansel Adams and f/64 then???

He was an original member of "Group f/64". They were straight photographers...photo purists.

"Any good modern lens is corrected for maximum definition at the larger stops. Using a small stop only increases depth; beyond a certain point definition is actually impaired"--Ansel Adams, June 3, 1937

-Astro

[Natedogg]

"Using a small stop only increases depth; beyond a certain point definition is actually impaired"--Ansel Adams, June 3, 1937

Huh...

I guess that still doent answer my question though. Why would he use f/64 if 'beyond a certain point definition is actually impaired'?

[Tippster]

He didn't. f/64 is a very rare f-stop... mainly seen on lenses for view cameras (the really large camera he mainly shot with.) This is how these guys separated themselves from the Medium Format and 35mm crowd. Just because the lens COULD go up to f/64 didn't mean they used it that way.

Most of Adams' landscape stuff was shot at f/16 or so, I think, which would put it in the middle of the range for such a lens.

Good Wiki entry on f/64: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64

[Natedogg]

I gotchya. I was told a long time ago that he built his own camera that went to f/64 so he could get ridiculous depth of field and sharpness.

Anyway, good to know regardless. I knew there were optimal f-stops for certain lenses and whatnot, but never knew the reason.

<edit> Hrrmmmm, I dont wanna sound like that annoying idiot who keeps beating a dead horse, but that "good" wiki article says exactly what you are saying is not true.


The term f/64 refers to the smallest aperture setting on a large format camera, which secures maximum depth of field, rendering a photograph evenly sharp from foreground to background.

[AstroPax]

The term f/64 refers to the smallest aperture setting on a large format camera, which secures maximum depth of field, rendering a photograph evenly sharp from foreground to background.

<edit> Hrrmmmm, I dont wanna sound like that annoying idiot who keeps beating a dead horse, but that "good" wiki article says exactly what you are saying is not true.

No, it's not saying f/64 will give the best sharpness (as compared to f/32, for example), it's just saying that the more you stop down, the more DOF you will get. Increased DOF, but increased diffraction also. Yeah, the author(s) of that article could have phrased it a little better.

Since we seem to be discussing diffraction relative to large format:

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm

Regardless, no need to over-complicate things. Personally, if I want near maximum sharpness with an f/2.8 lens attached to my D2Xs or D200, I just shoot in the neighborhood of f/8, with a tripod. For example:

http://nikon.astropax.com/wildlife/golden_002.jpg
280mm, 1/100 Second @ f/8, Tripod

-Astro

[PearlJam09]

Ended up purchasing a used 20D off of Craigslist and a used 70-200 F/4L from Adorama. Took it to ultimate practice this weekend and ended up with a few alright ones and more than a few not so good ones. Just have to learn how to get the focus set faster and know when people are gonna do stuff for me to shoot.

Here's samples. I really liked taking these and look forward to getting more experience:
Push Pass
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u42/pearljam09/IMG_5802.jpg

Sky for the score
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u42/pearljam09/IMG_5819.jpg

Nice form
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u42/pearljam09/IMG_5832.jpg

Next MJ?
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u42/pearljam09/IMG_5864.jpg

Huck it!
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u42/pearljam09/IMG_5894.jpg

[Natedogg]

Ended up purchasing a used 20D off of Craigslist and a used 70-200 F/4L from Adorama.

Nice dude. If you dont mind me asking, how much?

[PearlJam09]

Nice dude. If you dont mind me asking, how much?

The lens from Adorama was 499. The camera came with a 28-105 F/3.5-4.5, 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 and 18-55 f/4.5-5.6 and was 800. So the last two lenses combined are about 50 bucks or less and the first one goes on ebay for about 120. So figure lenses were 170 and body was 630. Also picked up a 4GB CF card from Adorama for 70, but has a 30 mail in rebate that I have to still take care of.

[The Jackamo]

What you cannot control for is variation in the lens samples, but we would assume that Canon L lenses have pretty tight tolerances.

even then, there can be some variances. i remember looking to klaus' reviews last year when i was looking to get a 70-200 f/4.0 and saw that his review indicated that there can be differences between samples of even L glass. (i still went for it though, glad i did - awesome lens, definitely lighter than it's f/2.8 counterpart and much more portable).

mtbakerskier: like summit said, klaus definitely has a method down. whenever i start thinking about new glass, i always look to his reviews first as they're very through and quantitative - i trust his numbers and opinions.

[AstroPax]

Here's samples. I really liked taking these and look forward to getting more experience:

Those look good to me.

But I would have bumped-up the ISO from 100 to at least 200 to get a faster shutter speed at the same aperture (f/4).

Yeah, I know, that's 20/20 hindsight...easy for me to say. But as far as image quality goes, your Canon should handle higher ISO's with no problem....so you should take advantage it.

-Astro

[PearlJam09]

Those look good to me.

But I would have bumped-up the ISO from 100 to at least 200 to get a faster shutter speed at the same aperture (f/4).

Yeah, I know, that's 20/20 hindsight...easy for me to say. But as far as image quality goes, your Canon should handle higher ISO's with no problem....so you should take advantage it.

-Astro

I'll try that at my tournament this weekend as long as its not raining and I can actually take the camera out. Might even bump it up to 400 if necessary in the cloudy weather. Thanks for the tip.

Crossing fingers for no rain.