70-200mm f/2.8

sabbath999 · Feb 14, 2008

I use my 70-200 VR for shooting sports, and inside.

Outdoors in broad daylight, I leave it in the bag and and use smaller/lighter lenses unless I specificly need to have very shallow depth of field.

I shoot my cheapo 55-200 a lot more than the 70-200, and my even cheaper 70-300 Tamron more as well for walkaround "casual" shooting. They weigh 2 pounds less, and their image quality is on par with the 70-200 in most cases when shooting at f/11.

Having said that, when it is time for the 70-200 (football, basketball, cloudy days, shooting inside) NOTHING substitutes... I use it in conjunction with a 1.7 Nikon teleconverter.

soylentgreen · Feb 14, 2008

I find the 70-200 f/2.8 quite indispensible for my style of shooting. Granted, i can get closer to most wildlife than most people (I work at a zoo). It is a bit short in terms of true wildlife photography hence the 1.4x TC that is welded to my lens when speed is not a concern. Your 70-300 should be fine, the only thing is degree of image quality you prefer and speed. the f/2.8 will let you get a much higher shutter speed at lower ISO to get really good action shots. I like primes for long telephoto over zooms. The image quality they have over zooms is staggering. The 300 f/4 L IS and hopefully soon 400 f/2.8 L or f/5.6 L.

Tayfun · Feb 15, 2008

Stratman said:
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

Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is announced to be ready for Canon after 7th of March. For Pentax the date is to be determined. I am also waiting it for my K10D but can't be patient like you are :blushing: (I check everyday the website of Tamron and Sigma) And also new Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens for Pentax (with HSM) is announced which can be a very good choice.

schuylercat · Feb 15, 2008

My 70-200 f/2.8 was the only lens I used for entire racing weekends, sometimes. I wasn't shooting Nascar on oval tracks - I was shooting Indycars on big, twisty street and road circuits, most of the time from up close. At tracks with long views I'd rent those big bazookas like the 400mm and 600mm, but I basically sold more shots with that 70-200 than any others. Team portraits for web sites and sponsor brochures were usually shot with a 28-80 f/2.8, but I did a few shots from up a hill, shooting down on the car, driver, and team using the 70mm end of the long lens. It was a money maker, given my subject matter.

Example: Sold this to OnTrack Magazoine in 1992 or 1993. Fast car, slow shutter, Fuji Sensia and a Canon 1N, using autofocus.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2216/2267263318_3254246c79_o.jpg

As a side note, I needed money at one point so I sold my Canon lens and bought a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO at a camera swap meet for about $200. I used it for about two years until I quit shooting for money. Never missed the Canon except while roaming the track and looking for a shot: the AF was screaming fast on the Canon, and if something popped up I could just hit the button. The Sigma was a more prone to flare too, even with the hood on, and it didn't give me little pretty specules of lens flare - the image would just wash out. I still have that Sigma lens (worked great with my EOS 1N, works just as well with my new 40D), and have a lot of faith in their high-end products. Were I a Nikon shooter, I suspect my results might have been the same.

Good luck!

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 15, 2008

Thanks for all the good feedback....I feel very confident that when I actually get to go buy the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, that I'll actually be able to get lots of good use........Thanks all......

D40 · Feb 17, 2008

I have the Sigma and can say that it is a great lens for just about everything but small room shooting

I love that lens!

JerryPH · Feb 17, 2008

Well, after playing with it for a an hour and a half at an indoor ice rink yesterday, though I knew it in theory, I confirmed a few things using the 70-200 F/2.8 VR Nikkor and my D200:

- Indoor ice rinks have lighting that STINKS.

- The 70-200 is a looooooong lens and for me to get the area of coverage that I wanted I had to go sit at center ice level at the farthest (highest) seats that I could get to. Even then, I later found myself moving over to the far side of the arena to get the shots I wanted. I blame more the darn crop factor than the magnification of the lens.

- The pics came out ok, but with auto WB, damn did I have to skew it in PP to get it close. Thank goodness for RAW files!

- Workout... that lens is heavy! (lhaha)

Last lesson I learned... watching the 7-8 year olds was WAY more fun than watching the "big guns" play. I spent more time laughing and rooting than I was taking pics! :lmao:

Edit: Please, I do not want anyone thinking that the pics came out this noise free straight out of the camera... I ran these pics through CS3 for WB and sharpness and Noise Ninja to clean up the noise. A D200 is not a D3... lol

kundalini · Feb 17, 2008

You won't go wrong with the 70-200mm VR and I'm glad to have one, but I tend to use the 24-70mm f/2.8 or a prime a bit more indoors.

brileyphotog · Feb 22, 2008

For sports, especially indoor sports, you can't really get away with anything slower than a 2.8

Iron Flatline · Feb 22, 2008

I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS... and never use it. It's too big, too heavy, and I'm embarrassed by it. Maybe when my kids get older and more into sport (unlikely, we're not sport people) then I will use it.

Or if someone offers me money for it, then I'll sell it.

Tennessee Landscape · Feb 22, 2008

Iron Flatline said:
I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS... and never use it. It's too big, too heavy, and I'm embarrassed by it. Maybe when my kids get older and more into sport (unlikely, we're not sport people) then I will use it.

Or if someone offers me money for it, then I'll sell it.

Embarressed? what the heck? too bad it's not a nikon, I'd offer money for it.....

JerryPH · Feb 22, 2008

Embarrassed? I was certainly looked at during the ice rink photoshoot, but no more than that. I think more people thought me a professional with that big thing on the end of my monopod or dangling from my neck.

It was certainly nothing to be embarrassed about! :lmao:

JimmyO · Mar 12, 2008

Hey guys. I am also looking now at a 70-200mm sigma. I know it is HSM but i would like you guys to confirm it will work on my D40X.

Thanks in advance

keith204 · Mar 12, 2008

Auto Racing

Iron Flatline said:
I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS... and never use it. It's too big, too heavy, and I'm embarrassed by it. Maybe when my kids get older and more into sport (unlikely, we're not sport people) then I will use it.

Or if someone offers me money for it, then I'll sell it.

I wish... Since I use my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 so much, I could rationalize stepping up to Canon to get a hair more accurate focusing, and a bit better IQ wide open...since I use it wide open a lot, and need as fast focusing as I can get.

JimmyO said:
Hey guys. I am also looking now at a 70-200mm sigma. I know it is HSM but i would like you guys to confirm it will work on my D40X.

Thanks in advance

yes.