The 70-200mm range lens.


Status
Not open for further replies.

buddy

Senior Member
May 19, 2003
676
0
16
Singapore, Central
Visit site
#1
Most manufacturers e.g. Nikon, Canon, Sony make a large 70-200 f2.8 lens. Might be a silly qn for some but I am curious to find out what people use these lenses for.

I know some people use these lenses for outdoor portraits/events (you have to stand pretty far away because of the min focussing range, wouldnt a 85/100mm be better?), and some people use them for nature (200mm is too short to shoot the majority of wildlife/birds I feel..) and some people for indoor sports e.g. basketball, badminton (seems like its too short for outdoor sports like football, tennis, golf). This lens is not a typical lens people carry for travel as its heavy, and wide angles are typically preferred and its a tough lens to use for street shooting because of its size. Indoor shots would not work well unless you have a big space to work with because of the min focussing limit and it will probably lose out to the f1.8 lenses as these are a full stop faster.

So what do people usually use these types of lenses for? Thanks for any comments..
 

geraldkhoo

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2007
2,571
0
36
The Tiny Red Dot
sgstrobist.blogspot.com
#2
I use it mainly to shoot events. It has a distance that is far enough to reach without people knowing that obviously you are shooting them. Because it is a fast lens, I seldon use flash in indoor events shoots that have adequate lighting for f/2.8.

I personally find that having a zoom lens is more versatile in events as some places may have a restriction of space and may not have the correct distance to shoot if using a prime. Having said that, I am trying to experiment shooting an event with a prime though :what:

Actually, in a 1.5/1.6 crop factor camera, it actually has a reach of about 105-300mm for a 70-200mm lens... which is quite good.
 

flipfreak

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2007
7,030
0
36
Singapore
www.rogerchua.com
#5
the minimum focusing distance for the canon 70200 f/2.8 is 1.3m. i think its not far for portraits unless you like to get upclose with your models. and the lens will cover the usual portrait focal lengths like 85 and 135. and it has IS which none of the primes has.
 

Stratix

New Member
Oct 13, 2005
936
0
0
#6
actually, the lens is good for indoor as well. since length is what you have, you can shoot discreetly for the candids.

dont be limited by your thoughts. =)
 

ceecookie

Deregistered
May 22, 2007
364
0
0
27
#7
Im pondering whether to get the 70-200mm F/4 L USM.
Not sure if i be using that range or sticking to WA:think:
 

a.c.e

New Member
Jul 27, 2007
239
0
0
#9
well, not sure am i right. here's my point.
it's f2.8 is the largest a tele zoom lens can archives,it's impossible to get f1.8. and it was all the way from 70-200.
in these case, you call it a fast lens. the focal length is about from 1m-1.3m is resonable to me as it has already zoom in much enough, unless you want to shoot macro.
people use this lens for event both indoor and outdoor, sports, street shot, portraiture and wildlife. hardly landscape due to the limit of 70mm, normally landscape use 11-28mm range lens. eventually, there are people walks the world with only this lens.
these lens are not normal zoom lens, they usually are the tip top lens of their company. they are better coated,which provides better image(sharpness,colours, ect...)they are far more faster cause they have better focus system which only use by this type of tip top lens, and they have f2.8 thought out the whole distance from 70-200mm which normal lens has only f3.5 to f6.5 and normal lens will have smaller ampreture as you zooms more. eg.at 170-200mm you might only be allowed to use f6.5 and f3.5 might be able to mantain only from 70-85mm only. you not counter this problem on a 70-200f2.8. this is also why a 70-200mmf2.8 lens so expansive. big ampreture of f2.8, better coating and faster AF system.
as a bobbylist, this is also a light weight lens which we are able to move it around with it. even if there is a 70-300mm let's say, the pic produce comfirm lose out and how heavy will it be?
ok, that's my point of view. please correct me if anything above are wrong. and forgive me for typing so long and hard to understand, hope it's readable.:sweat:
 

xunjas

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
6,494
0
0
Singapura
www.isaackiat.com
#10
the bigger the aperture, the more expensive the lens... 85mm f/1.2 cost 3.6K SGD.. Imagine 70-200mm f/1.8L IS USM.. perhaps some 1 can give an estimated pricing such a lens.. the lens elements for L lens would add higher costs to the lens as well. Bigger aperture and L lens elements and

The companies provide affordable zoom lenses as well, they do have have a fix f/4 or f/2.8 aperture and probably use affordable lens elements as well...

Specs of such lenses are to marketing strategy by the company.. Different lens specs for different groups of photographers who have different needs and budget..

70-300 can shoot gd image quality photos.. 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 can shoot even higher better quality photos in terms of saturation, contrast, detail and background blur compared to affordable zooms.. =)
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#11
the bigger the aperture, the more expensive the lens... 85mm f/1.2 cost 3.6K SGD.. Imagine 70-200mm f/1.8L IS USM.. perhaps some 1 can give an estimated pricing such a lens.. the lens elements for L lens would add higher costs to the lens as well. Bigger aperture and L lens elements and

The companies provide affordable zoom lenses as well, they do have have a fix f/4 or f/2.8 aperture and probably use affordable lens elements as well...

Specs of such lenses are to marketing strategy by the company.. Different lens specs for different groups of photographers who have different needs and budget..

70-300 can shoot gd image quality photos.. 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 can shoot even higher better quality photos in terms of saturation, contrast, detail and background blur compared to affordable zooms.. =)
For the 70-200 and any zooms, max is f/2.8 as i believe it's hard and very costly to produce anything below that aperture and the size will also be affected, same with costs.
 

xunjas

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
6,494
0
0
Singapura
www.isaackiat.com
#12
For the 70-200 and any zooms, max is f/2.8 as i believe it's hard and very costly to produce anything below that aperture and the size will also be affected, same with costs.
if companies can produce bigger apertures zoom for 70-200mm, they would have done it also..
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#13
if companies can produce bigger apertures zoom for 70-200mm, they would have done it also..
actually the can... its just that the market segment is pathetic... if they can produce something like 200-500 f4, i don see why they can't do that for a 70-200 f2, just that no 1 would probably buy or carry it because its just not practical...
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#15
actually the can... its just that the market segment is pathetic... if they can produce something like 200-500 f4, i don see why they can't do that for a 70-200 f2, just that no 1 would probably buy or carry it because its just not practical...
Sigma already has the 200-500 f/2.8 and it's a real monster of a lens which i saw with my own eyes during the recent Imaging Expo.
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#16
Sigma already has the 200-500 f/2.8 and it's a real monster of a lens which i saw with my own eyes during the recent Imaging Expo.
actually wanted to type f2.8 but was thinking of CZ 1700mm f4 for MF at the point of time.. :bsmilie: thats a real beast weighting 256kg iirc...
 

xunjas

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2006
6,494
0
0
Singapura
www.isaackiat.com
#17
actually the can... its just that the market segment is pathetic... if they can produce something like 200-500 f4, i don see why they can't do that for a 70-200 f2, just that no 1 would probably buy or carry it because its just not practical...
They can, but wouldn't cos it may not be viable in the market.
probably the profits aint enough to sustain the production 70-200mm f/2 lens.. 70-200 f/2.8 would be more affordable and can cater to more people. =)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom