Other than carrying wide lenses, I love using 100-200mm for landscapes as well.
all shot with tamron 70-300, which most people will tell you not to get.
the thing is, picking out details in a vast landscape can be very useful. landscapes are not all about wide, sprawling rolling fields of grass, or great expenses of sea. i find that using a telephoto lens in the forest, generally works well, because forests tend to grow haphazardly. and are forests not landscapes?
it is not just forests, even sea; urban, all these can be done with something more than just wide angle or "normal" focal lengths.
there is no one lens or focal range for any genre. use your imagination. of course, saying that you want to take a good photograph of a bird with a fisheye lens may be pushing it too far, but i'm sure you get what i mean.
one of my most favourite "landscape" photographs, or some would call it a painting, is taken with a 200mm lens (no crop factor) here. cheers.
Last edited by night86mare; 15th March 2009 at 09:47 AM.
Its really a matter of personal styles of shooting for the individual and also type of scene presented / available. Personally, for scenery, I prefer to capture the "sense of space" of the place rather than the minute details.
To date, my last overseas trip to US last year, I didn't get to use my 85mm f/1.8 (it was my longest lens on the trip ) for more than 5~10% of my shots. I was shooting an equal amount in the 12-24 and 17-50 ranges.
Its really just preference.
I use the 70-200mm f4 for event, though I wish there is the 2.8 at the f4 weight
Every lens is useful, the barrier is cash. With the barrier removed i would like to try all lens and all bodies
considered as a less utilized lens for me. that's why i never bought one. but rented it many times. so no point buying it when you can rent and use it when needed which usually happens once a month or less.
Gives you the extra cash for other needs.
There are some very good tips here which I can definitely use. Excellent.
My most used lens for the last 3 months after I bought it. Cost of the 70-200 f/2.8IS to me is justifiable from all the great shots I couldn't have gotten without it. Range on my crop is great, it can sometimes do birds with lots of cropping too.
I've shot portraits, wild/domestic/zoo animals, street photography & candids, and lots of low-light events. It's been serving me very well.
While I don't want to hijack the thread, is there a chance that my 70-200 needs focus calibration? I find that AF is perfect up to after 180mm, where it usually front focuses for odd reasons. Centre point AF is always used.
I have thought of getting the 70-200f2.8 or 80-200 f2.8 as potrait lens and double up as telephoto lens with a 2x tele. However its too heavy for me as potrait and walkabout, woories about loss in details and sharpness and MF when you put a pice of tele in between as telephoto. Otherwise this piece of glass might be a very versatile lens. It can replace my 70-300mm VR anytime.