70-200mm lens

[MorningDusk]

Wow, I haven't been to Photo Camel in quite some time but I figured I would come back sooner or later.

Anyways, I was just curious to know if anybody has this lens or used it before. I am thinking about purchasing this lens (the AF-S VR one) and was wondering to those who own it, their opinions about it.
I have heard, in reviews, that this is a fantastic lens but its quite a heavy but its worth the money.

So, if anybody has this lens I would love to see pictures taken with it.

[dsp]

I have this lens and I really like it. It's very sharp. I don't find it heavy at all. I use it for football, soccer, lacrosse, zoo trips, etc. No problem hand holding it all day. Here are few shots using the 70-200VR. I can't blame any IQ problems on the lens, I'm sure any issues are my fault. I say buy it, you won't be disappointed.


Couple football:




Soccer:


Zoo:

[cyclohexane]

Originally Posted by MorningDusk

Anyways, I was just curious to know if anybody has this lens or used it before.

Yes, plenty of us have it. If you're asking about it, you probably want it. You should buy it. =)

I have heard, in reviews, that this is a fantastic lens but its quite a heavy but its worth the money.

It is heavy when compared to, say, something like a 55-200mm kit lens, but it's much lighter than 300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4, 400mm f/2.8, etc.

I handhold mine all day without issues. Basically, it's one of the two lenses one must own for photojournalism, though you can shoot many, many, many things with it.

-----------------------------------------------

Will get you some samples in a bit.

[cyclohexane]

In a nutshell, the lens is sharp wide-open, great bokeh, focuses fast, and the VR works.

Probably the only issue (besides the price tag) is the placement/design of the various switches, as they're hard to distinguish by feel and easily moved. A piece or two of gaffer's tape solves the problem handily, as I don't change three of the four switches with any regularity.

[MorningDusk]

Wow! What gorgeous pictures dsp & cyclo!

This lens (the 70-200) seems outstanding as I am either going to get this one or the 70-300. Its a tough decision in my personal opinion.
The only thing thats different between the two is 1. the 70-200 has an f stop that goes down to 2.8 and the 300 goes to 4.5 (i believe) 2. the 70-300 has an extra 100 than the 200.

I am personally stumped which one I should get. Decisions decisions.

ETA: I mainly photograph horses and riders at events and shows. Just thought I would add this to let you know what I photograph mainly.

[badpickev]

yes but the 70-300 is a lot slower. you will have motion blur more often

[cyclohexane]

The 70-300 and 70-200 are very, very different lenses. The 70-300mm is a f/5.3 at 200mm, which is nearly a two stop loss of light compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8, not to mention lost DOF control. 1/125 of a second vs 1/500 of a second is a huge difference in terms of stopping action, especially since you're photographing horses and riders, which I presume to be moving. Sure, you can raise your ISO, but the image quality at ISO 200 vs. ISO 800 isn't the same. Also, if you can't raise your ISO any more... oops.

If all your events are in broad daylight with clear skies, you could use the 70-300mm (and save some money), but I'd lean heavily in favor of the 70-200mm f/2.8.

[MorningDusk]

Originally Posted by badpickev

yes but the 70-300 is a lot slower. you will have motion blur more often

really? wow, I did not know that! so maybe saving up that money for the 70-200 is a good thing.

[MorningDusk]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

The 70-300 and 70-200 are very, very different lenses. The 70-300mm is a f/5.3 at 200mm, which is nearly a two stop loss of light compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8, not to mention lost DOF control. 1/125 of a second vs 1/500 of a second is a huge difference in terms of stopping action, especially since you're photographing horses and riders, which I presume to be moving. Sure, you can raise your ISO, but the image quality at ISO 200 vs. ISO 800 isn't the same. Also, if you can't raise your ISO any more... oops.

If all your events are in broad daylight with clear skies, you could use the 70-300mm (and save some money), but I'd lean heavily in favor of the 70-200mm f/2.8.

Wow Michael! that you so much for that information! Yes, that helped me so much comparing the two lenes like that. Which now is making me lean (once again) to the 70-200. Even though it has 100mm lens than the 300, the 200 seems much much better than the 300 indeed! right now I am using the kit lens (18-55) so when I get the 200 it might take a while for me to get used to the weight.

[badpickev]

other fast lenses to look at are the nikon 80-200 f2.8, the sigma 70-200 f2.8, and i think the tamron 70-200 f2.8 is becoming available now. please note none of these have VR but they do cost about half of the VR lens. optically these lenses are close to the VR

but really there is the 70-200 VR and then there is everything else

[One on one]

How does anyone feel about the 80-200 F2.8 option? It's considerably cheaper although it doesn't have VR.

[cyclohexane]

How does anyone feel about the 80-200 F2.8 option? It's considerably cheaper although it doesn't have VR.

The AF/D version still available new isn't nearly as sharp wide open, but should be comparable stopped down to, say, f/5.6. Focusing is slower but still workable on most cameras (screw drive motor), no instant override for focusing, and the plastic "M-A" ring for enabling/disabling AF likes to break. Not a bad option, but there's a reason it's cheaper. Also, the bokeh is different.

The 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S, on the other hand, is also fairly sharp wide open and fast focusing, with instant override. Optically not as good as the 70-200mm, but a competitive option. Unfortunately, this lens is discontinued and only available used.

[MorningDusk]

I feel so silly not knowing this, but I am wondering if it helps.

What is that attatchment called that you can put at the end of the camera that supposedly blocks/filters unwanted light?

I seriously cannot put my tounge on what that attatchment is called. I believe they usally come with the lens. Like the bigger lenses I believe.

[cyclohexane]

What is that attatchment called that you can put at the end of the camera that supposedly blocks/filters unwanted light?

Unwanted as in for reducing the amount of light reaching the sensor/film plane, or as in reflections on water/glass?

For simply reducing the amount of light, you use a neutral density filter. These come in various densities and will take 1, 2, 4, 8, etc. stops of light, depending on how much light you want to keep out.

For removing reflections on water, darkening skies, etc. you use a polarizer, which you turn until the desired effect is achieved. A good circular polarizer is approximately $2/mm diameter, so for a lens that takes 77mm filters you're spending around $154 USD.

[cyclohexane]

Even though it has 100mm lens than the 300, the 200 seems much much better than the 300 indeed!

All things being, equal, a 300mm is usually better than a 200mm, but in this case things aren't equal, as the 70-300 trades two stops of light for the 100mm of extra reach. Often, it isn't worth the two stop loss of light.

Comparing the 70-200mm f/2.8 to a 300mm f/2.8, this is the difference:

200mm:


300mm:


Neither image was cropped; both were only formatted for web-viewing. Shooting position was approximately the same, but the images are from one and two months ago, so I'm not 100% sure. Not very many different places to be at this venue anyways, so I'm always about the same distance from the players.

Ignoring the obvious differences in sharpness (different lenses, obviously) and content, with identical available apertures and identical subject to camera distance the longer lens affords, in addition to a tighter view allowing for more pixels on the subject, greater separation from the background.

(By the way, I wouldn't consider these fantastic images, but they were what I had from about the same spot. The first one suffers from motion blur despite the 1/500 second shutter speed and the second's got an obscured face)

[dsp]

Originally Posted by MorningDusk

What is that attatchment called that you can put at the end of the camera that supposedly blocks/filters unwanted light?

I seriously cannot put my tounge on what that attatchment is called. I believe they usally come with the lens. Like the bigger lenses I believe.

Hood? Doesn't filter, but blocks stray light and usually comes with the lens.