70-200mm f/2.8

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 14, 2008

For those of you who are fortunate enough to own some big / fast glass, how often and for what do you use it to shoot. I only recently dropped $2000 into what I have right now ( that includes filters & tripod too ), so I can't run right back to the store and drop another $1500......I plan to do so at some point and shoot sports at the very least with it, and I guess wild life too. What else do you guys and gals use these fast lenses for?

Big Mike · Feb 14, 2008

Weddings.

Fast glass is important when shooting in dark churches etc. Also, it's nice to have a very shallow DOF, when you want it, without having to rely on a prime.
Also, having a lens of that image quality is also a big plus.

I don't own it yet..but I've rented it and borrowed it...(IS version).

For shooting wildlife, I might go with the 100-400 L IS. You loose a bit with the max aperture but you gain a lot on length...which is probably more important for wildlife. For sports, the max aperture is probably more important.

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 14, 2008

Big Mike said:
Weddings.

Fast glass is important when shooting in dark churches etc. Also, it's nice to have a very shallow DOF, when you want it, without having to rely on a prime.
Also, having a lens of that image quality is also a big plus.

I don't own it yet..but I've rented it and borrowed it...(IS version).

For shooting wildlife, I might go with the 100-400 L IS. You loose a bit with the max aperture but you gain a lot on length...which is probably more important for wildlife. For sports, the max aperture is probably more important.

Do you think the 70-300mm VR I have ( signature ) will do well for wild life, that's why I bought it........

Jon, The Elder · Feb 14, 2008

I use it for 95% of my shooting....sports through portraits. I have the Canon version and find it to be an excellent investment.

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 14, 2008

Jon said:
I use it for 95% of my shooting....sports through portraits. I have the Canon version and find it to be an excellent investment.

Why such a big lens for portraits? Why not a 50mm f/1.8 or something? just asking......

Big Mike · Feb 14, 2008

Why such a big lens for portraits? Why not a 50mm f/1.8 or something? just asking......

Really, the only 'disadvantage' of using a long lens for portraits...is the working distance. Long lenses will compress features rather than accentuate them (you normally don't use a super wide for portraits because of the distortion). Also, a longer lens can give you a more shallow DOF for isolating the subject from the background. (sure, a wide aperture can also do that).

Do you think the 70-300mm VR I have ( signature ) will do well for wild life, that's why I bought it........

Should be pretty good...especially because it's not huge and heavy.

Antithesis · Feb 14, 2008

Tennessee Landscape said:
Why such a big lens for portraits? Why not a 50mm f/1.8 or something? just asking......

I think the idea is that you can keep a little more distance and keep the subject comfortable. It seems like the farther you are away, the more natural the poses are, but I could be wrong.

I had the 55-200 with my d40x, which I sold as a package to afford my d80, but it stayed on my camera most of the time. I know it's not in the same ballpark as the big-dog fast tele's, but it still spoke to my shooting style. It's nice to have a large zoom range, I disliked not having a faster aperture though.

Right now I'm looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and I think it's a killer deal for the price if you get a used one. The older ones tend to be sharper wide-open from the reviews I've read, and they can sometimes be picked up for under $500. Plus, chances are if you buy it used, you can sell it if you decide to go up to Nikon glass and not lose much, if anything. I hope to get one before my next big trip (in about a month) if I have the cash, and I think it'll be a fine holdover until I can sell it and pick up a Nikon. I went to Costa Rica with a slow zoom, and I kicked myself for how many blurry pictures of monkeys and what-have-you I had because of dark jungle.

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 14, 2008

Big Mike said:
Really, the only 'disadvantage' of using a long lens for portraits...is the working distance. Long lenses will compress features rather than accentuate them

Should be pretty good...especially because it's not huge and heavy.

Oh...okay.....thanks & thanks

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 14, 2008

Antithesis said:
Right now I'm looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and I think it's a killer deal for the price if you get a used one. The older ones tend to be sharper wide-open from the reviews I've read, and they can sometimes be picked up for under $500. .

Wow! < $500....I want a Nikon, but I would get a used Sigma for that just so I can get some sports photography and maybe a little cash rolling....then pick up the Nikon I want....

timyuan · Feb 14, 2008

70-200 2.8 is very useful. espcecially at an indoor event. IS is also helpful.

JerryPH · Feb 14, 2008

I have that lens and think that I am going to test it at the local ice hockey rink this weekend. I wanted to do that earlier but had this silly vacation down south to go to... lol

farski · Feb 14, 2008

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...=NA&BCC=1&CC=9&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=70-200

if you were going cheap

Antithesis · Feb 14, 2008

Tennessee Landscape said:
Wow! < $500....I want a Nikon, but I would get a used Sigma for that just so I can get some sports photography and maybe a little cash rolling....then pick up the Nikon I want....

Exactly what I was thinking. I'd check out the older Nikkor 80-200 f2.8D 'one-touch' as well, it'll be roughly a sharper, maybe a little sharper, then the sigma for around the same price. It has a pull zoom, and I don't like them at all, but if your not opposed to it, it's an option.

Be careful about buying 'BGN' (bargain) gear off of keh.com, it's probably pretty beat up. Does anyone have any experience with their rating system? Does the bargain gear look pretty bad?

I was looking on ebay and I saw a Sigma 70-200 Macro (the newer version) go for about $550 with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. I was pretty bummed I didn't have the money to bid on it.

John_Olexa · Feb 14, 2008

70-200 2.8 is my work horse lens. Use it for about 85% of my shooting. I use it for just about everything.

When I leave the house in the morning,Thats the lens I put on the camera at the ready.

Stratman · Feb 14, 2008

Tamron is coming out with a 70-200 F2.8 in the very near future, it may even be out already for Nikon and Canon, I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of the Pentax version, supposedly only going to cost $699. Seems like a great deal if it is a good lens. Plus Tamron has a 6 year warranty on their lenses, which is a big plus in my book... http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70200_di.asp