70-200mm f/2.8

[JerryPH]

After using the 70-200 a bit more, I feel that indoors at distances under 50 feet, it has limited useage (at least on cameras with cropped sensors like my D200). Certainly if you wanted to use it as a portrait lens, you would need to stand back *at least* 30-35 feet.

Where it shines is low light bigger areas (soccer fields, ice rinks, back rows of a small concert hall, back of a church at weddings, etc...).

From about 10 feet back, I could not even get the 70-200 lens carrier into the picture:

In the house, that lens is useless... but the IQ, sharpness and bokeh it produces is nigh untouchable.

 

[notelliot]

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:

i see where he's coming from. i avoid using lens hoods and large lenses in public. people don't notice you, and therefore don't bother you.

 

[Socrates]

After using the 70-200 a bit more, I feel that indoors at distances under 50 feet, it has limited useage (at least on cameras with cropped sensors like my D200). Certainly if you wanted to use it as a portrait lens, you would need to stand back *at least* 30-35 feet.

Where it shines is low light bigger areas (soccer fields, ice rinks, back rows of a small concert hall, back of a church at weddings, etc...).

From about 10 feet back, I could not even get the 70-200 lens carrier into the picture:



In the house, that lens is useless... but the IQ, sharpness and bokeh it produces is nigh untouchable.

My D80 has the same size sensor. I use a 50mm f/1.4 as my "indoor portrait lens" and an 85mm f/1.8 as my "outdoor portrait lens."

 

[jcolman]

I just bought a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens a few weeks ago. I haven't shot much with it yet however, I pulled it out last night to shoot some shots of my mother-in-laws birthday party that we had at our home. I mounted it on my 5D which had a battery compartment mounted on it, and attached my 550EX. I felt like I was in the gym pumping weights! That **** gets heavy after a few minutes! However, I'm use to carrying a 17lb video camera around so I guess I can't complain too much about the weight, still I'm going to spring for a decent monopod to help with the weight.

 

[D-50]

I use my 70 to 200 all the time, currently its being used for product photography at a distance of roughly 3 feet from the product. I use this lens all the time and disagree with the statment you need to be 50 feet back to get a portrait, you definately need to step back but not that far by any means. I find this lens to be very useful and highly suggest getting one if your debating it.

 

[farski]

After using the 70-200 a bit more, I feel that indoors at distances under 50 feet, it has limited useage (at least on cameras with cropped sensors like my D200). Certainly if you wanted to use it as a portrait lens, you would need to stand back *at least* 30-35 feet.

Where it shines is low light bigger areas (soccer fields, ice rinks, back rows of a small concert hall, back of a church at weddings, etc...).

From about 10 feet back, I could not even get the 70-200 lens carrier into the picture:

In the house, that lens is useless... but the IQ, sharpness and bokeh it produces is nigh untouchable.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but even at 200mm and with a DX camera from 8ft away, a box of milk-bones (WxH = 6.5x9, probably a bit bigger than a face) fits in the frame with some room to spare. At 105, a good portraiture length, the box easily fits in the frame, even when held horizontally.

You say you couldn't get the lens case in the shot, but practically the top half of the shot is...empty? I'm confused.

that's from like 4-5 feet, and the box is at least twice the size of the case (sorry it's not rotated correctly)

 

[JerryPH]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but even at 200mm and with a DX camera from 8ft away, a box of milk-bones (WxH = 6.5x9, probably a bit bigger than a face)

There are all kind of portraiture. Very likely becuase I like to take portraits of weddings in nature the most (or the fact that my at home play studio is in a room in the basement and is about 10 X 10 in size), just the face would not be good enough. Standing back 10 feet to squeeze a face into a picture is still limiting. I always see portraits in my head as being 2 or more poeple and 1/2 or more of their bodies in the shot. Try to do that in a small reception hall with the B&G... its a challenge, I will say that. As I said, there are times to use it... and times that there are better options. Thats not a slight towards the lens, trust me.

Of course you could take a portrait of a single face from the neck up (at 10 feet away)... thats a portrait too, just not my idea of what I would want out of a portrait.

As to my shot, it was taken at 70mm and you are only seeing about 1/3rd of the case in the pic. If you have the lens, you have the cover... and you know how long those suckers are.

 

[JerryPH]

My D80 has the same size sensor. I use a 50mm f/1.4 as my "indoor portrait lens" and an 85mm f/1.8 as my "outdoor portrait lens."

2 very well known sharp lenses. I can see both as being excellent, with the 50 being the better choice in tighter quarters.

 

[farski]

There are all kind of portraiture. Very likely becuase I like to take portraits of weddings in nature the most (or the fact that my at home play studio is in a room in the basement and is about 10 X 10 in size), just the face would not be good enough. Standing back 10 feet to squeeze a face into a picture is still limiting. I always see portraits in my head as being 2 or more poeple and 1/2 or more of their bodies in the shot. Try to do that in a small reception hall with the B&G... its a challenge, I will say that. As I said, there are times to use it... and times that there are better options. Thats not a slight towards the lens, trust me.

Of course you could take a portrait of a single face from the neck up (at 10 feet away)... thats a portrait too, just not my idea of what I would want out of a portrait.

As to my shot, it was taken at 70mm and you are only seeing about 1/3rd of the case in the pic. If you have the lens, you have the cover... and you know how long those suckers are.

OK I suppose that makes sense, but in the context of someone asking what a lens is used for, I guess to me it seems a bit deceptive to say it has "limited use indoors under 50 feet," when really what you're saying is it can't do what it's not design for, which is true for all lenses. The fact that a 70mm can't take the same photos as a 28 isn't really a limitation...

If someone were to ask "what's a 50mm for," a response of "well it's limited in it's use outside _over_ distances of 10 feet" would be ridiculous.

 

[nikonkev]

It's not that big, really. Photo courtesy of google and whomever took it:

Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR mounted on a D200

 

[JerryPH]

If someone were to ask "what's a 50mm for," a response of "well it's limited in it's use outside _over_ distances of 10 feet" would be ridiculous.

Yes, if he context is not defined I agree, but we defined the context as being portraiture. Try taking a bust shot (never mind the full body for the moment, nor of anything more than 1 person) of anyone with the 70-200 at 70mm and measure how far back you have to be before you get their head/chest into the pictures. That is what I was saying. In my basement, I have to go into the next room to get the shot using the 70-200... lol

You cannot treat the 70-200 on a cropped sensor camera as being a general use lens (unless your definition of a geneal useage is outdoors all the time). Inside a house, taking pictures is near impossible for me, I cannot get much of anything into the frame. At a hockey rink, standing mid rink and shooting at the far goal, I can capture pockets of action, but I sure cannot capture 1/2 the ice rink in one click, even when standing as far high as I can at my local rink.

Don't get me wrong, I *love* my 70-200, I just cannot use it as often on my D200 as I can my shorter lenses. Hence, why I said limiting.

 

[JerryPH]

That white looks aweful. Looks like someone with Canon "L" glass envy!

BTW, you can buy them like that, but they are rare and more expensive. I also saw someone once paint their 70-200 a camo scheme. Blasphamy!

 

[usayit]

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

Iron is the type of shooter that doesn't like to attract attention which is exactly why it doesn't fit him (on top of the fact that its heavy and bulky). This is the exact reason why rangefinders (leica and epson) in his sig are a better fit.

I'm in the exact same boat and I have made the same decisions as Iron. I sold my 70-200 f2.8 to another forum member because I was miserable with such large, bulky equipment that just didn't fit me properly. It "taints" the environment (for lack of a better term) when someone sees me pull out a 1d MII with a 70-200 attached.

Smaller cameras and lenses go with me everywhere.....

 

[usayit]

That white Nikon lens isn't complete with the red ring... hehehe lol

If I was a nikon shooter, I definitely would be very shy about taking that out of my bag.

 

[schuylercat]

When I shot for a living, I seldom had my 70-200 off my camera. I'd rent really, really long glass for some racetracks, but usually I could be trackside, and not worry a lot about what happened a quarter mile away.

I had a Canon f/2.8L until I needed money, then I bought a Sigma 70-210 f/2.8 lens that was shockingly good - SLOW autofocus, but anyone using autofocus at an Indycar race got a lot of nothing anyway.

My old Sigma lens is still sith me, although it isn't compatible with my new camera. Sigh. When I go looking for a long lens someday, I'll reconsider Sigma.