Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jeff323, May 21, 2010.
Particularly the Canon f/4 non-IS version?
anything. Portraits, walkaround, some sports( due to f/4), candids, landscape! etc.
I would not say its a walk around lens but maybe thats just me. I think it would be great for portrait and sports photography.
I'm with HBOC. I use my 80-200 for anything... some landscapes, street photography, outdoor sports, nature, portraits, animals, kids... almost anything. Of course, it's all telephoto, from medium to long(-ish.)
It will give a different 'look' than a "normal" zoom (17-55) more compressed, more subject isolation on closer subjects, more reach... but whether it's the right lens for you here...it kind of depends on what you really want to do with it in the first place, and whether it's the best focal length range for that expectation.
You can also use it for wildlife if you can close the range. For example, I take a lot of shots of ducks and other birds with a 200mm f/2.8L. Yes, completely wild and skittish birds may not let you get close, but not so at the pond of a local public park. Also, I have used the same 200mm lens for taking photos of moose at a distance, where my 400mm prime is too long.
The 70-200 you mentioned is perfect for the following shots (I used the 200mm prime, but next winter will be using a 70-200mm f/4L USM):
Same photo, but cropped around 100% (don't remember at the moment):
This moose was around 150 yards away (cropped photo, same 200 prime):
The 70-200 is one of those Canon lenses that a lot of people like. It's one of "the best bang for the $," and I plan to buy one very soon.
I use my 70-200 as a walkaround lens more than my 18-55. I find it a good candid lens, since you can keep your distance. The 1.3m minimum focus distance is also close enough for you to get some nice flower shots.
1/160 f/4 ISO 1600
1/1000 f/4 ISO 100
1/500 f/4 ISO 400
Here is a picture I shot yesterday with the Canon 70-200 L (non-IS). I might look a little less sharp since I compressed it for the web.
These people who use a 70-200 as a walk around lens, is this because there is some hesitation/intimidation to get closer to your subjects?
Full frame. For crop, you should get a 50-150.
Perhaps at times, especially if said closeness would ruin a moment. Or, in the case of the picture of the catcher posted earlier, if the subject would be less than thrilled that you came onto the field to shoot him with a 28mm prime from three feet away.
A reason I like tele-zooms like the Canon is that I am a sucker for the telephoto "compression" effect, and for being able to often use the shallow depth of field as a compositional element, even while being able to shoot at a high-performance aperture like f/8 (depending on background, of course).
If you're thinking of buying it for extra reach, don't immediately ignore the option of the 200mm f/2.8 prime - it's smaller, lighter, sharper and faster than the zoom, and if you think you'll mostly be using the long end of the zoom... it could be a great option. Second-hand they sell for £350-400ish.
So on a crop camera like the Rebels, would it:
be suitable for a walk-around camera?
be at all useful for nature/wildlife/plants?
be crippled by the lack of IS with handheld shooting?
Speaking of the 70-200 f/4:
1.) it depends on what type picture you're trying to get. It's the equivalent of a 100-300 lens on crop bodies (approx.) If you want telephoto shots with the foreground/background compression effect in a city, or wherever you are, or want some subject isolation, it can work. I know someone who uses a 300mm f/4 on a DX Nikon body for street shots in Tokyo... and they're very unique and beautiful. So, it's doable... whether it's suitable is up to you. I generally prefer a 17-55 range for more flexibility if I had to choose one single walkaround lens, but each has it's own separate strengths.
2.) Yes, good for nature, and some wildlife (see AlaskaMoose's shots/comments above.) But it's not a macro lens, if that's what you're wanting for plants. You can get some good subject isolation with the 70-200 at close focusing distance, however, and that may be enough. Don't expect to be able to do much bird shooting, especially small birds--not enough reach, unless they're at your window on a feeder. In the wild you'll not get close enough to effectively fill the frame.
3.)Possibly with the f/4. Not as much with an f/2.8 lens. In bright daylight you should have no problems as long as you use good technique. You can always carry a monopod/tripod for those darker areas in the woods.
i'm getting this lens with the IS in the future, after i get the 17-55 2.8
I would personally rather spend a few more bucks and get the 70-200 2.8!
I'm waiting for delivery of my DA* 200mm F2.8; will be mighty handy come next soccer season in the wet!
Well, I would have to agree with you, but if one does most of the shooting when there is plenty of daylight, coupled to wanting L glass at quite a nice price, nothing beats the f/4L without IS. For example, there is plenty of daylight in the interior of Alaska where I live, so the f/4L is just about perfect for me. At a little over $600.00, I just can't pass that opportunity. Take a look at the price differences:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&N=0&Q=&Ntt=Ef 70 200mm F/2.8l&A=endecaSearch
The f/2.8L with IS costs even more
Oh i was talking used prices. I never buy lenses new. I have seen the 70-200 2.8 go for like $1100.
As far as the IS, the only experience I have with it is with the 55-250. IS doesn't really help. Now the difference between the 70-200 IS and the 55-250 is amazing, but i think the compo between the IS on both is valid. There is no substitution for a faster lens. My 17-40 is not fast, and even if it has IS, I think a 2.8 would be faster. But again, I don't have a 2.8 to compare a f/4 IS against each other.
as much as i'd love too, there A LOT more bigger and heavier for the 2.8. the F/4 seems just perfect for me, and i want to use the IS just in case for low light type shots when i can increase the shutter speed and hold it a bit.
but of course if i had the money, 2.8 with IS wouldn't be soo bad.
I'm a much bigger fan of the 70-200mm f/4L IS as a general purpose walkaround lens; you'll miss the IS if you don't have it.
The 2.8L versions just aren't as portable, but they have their place. Personally, when I need the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for a specific purpose I just rent it for a day or weekend. YMMV.
The EF-S 18-200mm is versatile (lighter, smaller, wide zoom range) but the disadvantages (some lens distortion issues, sharpness, variable aperture, only for crop sensor camera backs) may outweigh its advantages. Still, mine gets regular use for backpacking or outdoor events with my kids.