# 70-200mm f/2.8



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 14, 2008)

For those of you who are fortunate enough to own some big / fast glass, how often and for what do you use it to shoot.  I only recently dropped $2000 into what I have right now ( that includes filters & tripod too ), so I can't run right back to the store and drop another $1500......I plan to do so at some point and shoot sports at the very least with it, and I guess wild life too.  What else do you guys and gals use these fast lenses for?


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 14, 2008)

Weddings.  

Fast glass is important when shooting in dark churches etc.  Also, it's nice to have a very shallow DOF, when you want it, without having to rely on a prime.
Also, having a lens of that image quality is also a big plus.

I don't own it yet..but I've rented it and borrowed it...(IS version).

For shooting wildlife, I might go with the 100-400 L IS.  You loose a bit with the max aperture but you gain a lot on length...which is probably more important for wildlife.  For sports, the max aperture is probably more important.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 14, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Weddings.
> 
> Fast glass is important when shooting in dark churches etc. Also, it's nice to have a very shallow DOF, when you want it, without having to rely on a prime.
> Also, having a lens of that image quality is also a big plus.
> ...


 

Do you think the 70-300mm VR I have ( signature ) will do well for wild life, that's why I bought it........


----------



## Jon, The Elder (Feb 14, 2008)

I use it for 95% of my shooting....sports through portraits.  I have the Canon version and find it to be an excellent investment.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 14, 2008)

Jon said:


> I use it for 95% of my shooting....sports through portraits. I have the Canon version and find it to be an excellent investment.


 

Why such a big lens for portraits?  Why not a 50mm f/1.8 or something?  just asking......


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 14, 2008)

> Why such a big lens for portraits? Why not a 50mm f/1.8 or something? just asking......


Really, the only 'disadvantage' of using a long lens for portraits...is the working distance.  Long lenses will compress features rather than accentuate them (you normally don't use a super wide for portraits because of the distortion).  Also, a longer lens can give you a more shallow DOF for isolating the subject from the background.  (sure, a wide aperture can also do that).



> Do you think the 70-300mm VR I have ( signature ) will do well for wild life, that's why I bought it........


Should be pretty good...especially because it's not huge and heavy.


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 14, 2008)

Tennessee Landscape said:


> Why such a big lens for portraits?  Why not a 50mm f/1.8 or something?  just asking......



I think the idea is that you can keep a little more distance and keep the subject comfortable. It seems like the farther you are away, the more natural the poses are, but I could be wrong. 

I had the 55-200 with my d40x, which I sold as a package to afford my d80, but it stayed on my camera most of the time. I know it's not in the same ballpark as the big-dog fast tele's, but it still spoke to my shooting style. It's nice to have a large zoom range, I disliked not having a faster aperture though. 

Right now I'm looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and I think it's a killer deal for the price if you get a used one. The older ones tend to be sharper wide-open from the reviews I've read, and they can sometimes be picked up for under $500. Plus, chances are if you buy it used, you can sell it if you decide to go up to Nikon glass and not lose much, if anything. I hope to get one before my next big trip (in about a month) if I have the cash, and I think it'll be a fine holdover until I can sell it and pick up a Nikon. I went to Costa Rica with a slow zoom, and I kicked myself for how many blurry pictures of monkeys and what-have-you I had because of dark jungle.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 14, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Really, the only 'disadvantage' of using a long lens for portraits...is the working distance. Long lenses will compress features rather than accentuate them
> 
> 
> Should be pretty good...especially because it's not huge and heavy.


 

Oh...okay.....thanks & thanks


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 14, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> Right now I'm looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and I think it's a killer deal for the price if you get a used one. The older ones tend to be sharper wide-open from the reviews I've read, and they can sometimes be picked up for under $500. .


 

Wow!  < $500....I want a Nikon, but I would get a used Sigma for that just so I can get some sports photography and maybe a little cash rolling....then pick up the Nikon I want....


----------



## timyuan (Feb 14, 2008)

70-200 2.8 is very useful. espcecially at an indoor event. IS is also helpful.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 14, 2008)

I have that lens and think that I am going to test it at the local ice hockey rink this weekend. I wanted to do that earlier but had this silly vacation down south to go to... lol


----------



## farski (Feb 14, 2008)

http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...=NA&BCC=1&CC=9&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=70-200

if you were going cheap


----------



## Antithesis (Feb 14, 2008)

Tennessee Landscape said:


> Wow!  < $500....I want a Nikon, but I would get a used Sigma for that just so I can get some sports photography and maybe a little cash rolling....then pick up the Nikon I want....



Exactly what I was thinking. I'd check out the older Nikkor 80-200 f2.8D 'one-touch' as well, it'll be roughly a sharper, maybe a little sharper, then the sigma for around the same price. It has a pull zoom, and I don't like them at all, but if your not opposed to it, it's an option. 

Be careful about buying 'BGN' (bargain) gear off of keh.com, it's probably pretty beat up. Does anyone have any experience with their rating system? Does the bargain gear look pretty bad? 

I was looking on ebay and I saw a Sigma 70-200 Macro (the newer version) go for about $550 with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter. I was pretty bummed I didn't have the money to bid on it.


----------



## John_Olexa (Feb 14, 2008)

70-200 2.8 is my work horse lens. Use it for about 85% of my shooting. I use it for just about everything.

When I leave the house in the morning,Thats the lens I put on the camera at the ready.


----------



## Stratman (Feb 14, 2008)

Tamron is coming out with a 70-200 F2.8 in the very near future, it may even be out already for Nikon and Canon, I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of the Pentax version, supposedly only going to cost $699. Seems like a great deal if it is a good lens. Plus Tamron has a 6 year warranty on their lenses, which is a big plus in my book...  http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70200_di.asp


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 14, 2008)

I use my 70-200 VR for shooting sports, and inside.

Outdoors in broad daylight, I leave it in the bag and and use smaller/lighter lenses unless I specificly need to have very shallow depth of field.

I shoot my cheapo 55-200 a lot more than the 70-200, and my even cheaper 70-300 Tamron more as well for walkaround "casual" shooting. They weigh 2 pounds less, and their image quality is on par with the 70-200 in most cases when shooting at f/11.

Having said that, when it is time for the 70-200 (football, basketball, cloudy days, shooting inside) NOTHING substitutes... I use it in conjunction with a 1.7 Nikon teleconverter.


----------



## soylentgreen (Feb 14, 2008)

I find the 70-200 f/2.8 quite indispensible for my style of shooting. Granted, i can get closer to most wildlife than most people (I work at a zoo). It is a bit short in terms of true wildlife photography hence the 1.4x TC that is welded to my lens when speed is not a concern. Your 70-300 should be fine, the only thing is degree of image quality you prefer and speed. the f/2.8 will let you get a much higher shutter speed at lower ISO to get really good action shots. I like primes for long telephoto over zooms. The image quality they have over zooms is staggering. The 300 f/4 L IS and hopefully soon 400 f/2.8 L or f/5.6 L.


----------



## Tayfun (Feb 15, 2008)

Stratman said:


> Tamron is coming out with a 70-200 F2.8 in the very near future, it may even be out already for Nikon and Canon, I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of the Pentax version, supposedly only going to cost $699. Seems like a great deal if it is a good lens. Plus Tamron has a 6 year warranty on their lenses, which is a big plus in my book... http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70200_di.asp


 
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 is announced to be ready for Canon after 7th of March. For Pentax the date is to be determined. I am also waiting it for my K10D but can't be patient like you are :blushing: (I check everyday the website of Tamron and Sigma) And also new Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens for Pentax (with HSM) is announced which can be a very good choice.


----------



## schuylercat (Feb 15, 2008)

My 70-200 f/2.8 was the only lens I used for entire racing weekends, sometimes.  I wasn't shooting Nascar on oval tracks - I was shooting Indycars on big, twisty street and road circuits, most of the time from up close.  At tracks with long views I'd rent those big bazookas like the 400mm and 600mm, but I basically sold more shots with that 70-200 than any others.  Team portraits for web sites and sponsor brochures were usually shot with a 28-80 f/2.8, but I did a few shots from up a hill, shooting down on the car, driver, and team using the 70mm end of the long lens.  It was a money maker, given my subject matter.

Example:  Sold this to OnTrack Magazoine in 1992 or 1993.  Fast car, slow shutter, Fuji Sensia and a Canon 1N, using autofocus.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2216/2267263318_3254246c79_o.jpg

As a side note, I needed money at one point so I sold my Canon lens and bought a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO at a camera swap meet for about $200.  I used it for about two years until I quit shooting for money.  Never missed the Canon except while roaming the track and looking for a shot: the AF was screaming fast on the Canon, and if something popped up I could just hit the button.  The Sigma was a more prone to flare too, even with the hood on, and it didn't give me little pretty specules of lens flare - the image would just wash out.  I still have that Sigma lens (worked great with my EOS 1N, works just as well with my new 40D), and have a lot of faith in their high-end products.  Were I a Nikon shooter, I suspect my results might have been the same.

Good luck!


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 15, 2008)

Thanks for all the good feedback....I feel very confident that when I actually get to go buy the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, that I'll actually be able to get lots of good use........Thanks all......


----------



## D40 (Feb 17, 2008)

I have the Sigma and can say that it is a great lens for just about everything but small room shooting I love that lens!


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 17, 2008)

Well, after playing with it for a an hour and a half at an indoor ice rink yesterday, though I knew it in theory, I confirmed a few things using the 70-200 F/2.8 VR Nikkor and my D200:

- Indoor ice rinks have lighting that STINKS. 

- The 70-200 is a looooooong lens and for me to get the area of coverage that I wanted I had to go sit at center ice level at the farthest (highest) seats that I could get to. Even then, I later found myself moving over to the far side of the arena to get the shots I wanted. I blame more the darn crop factor than the magnification of the lens.

- The pics came out ok, but with auto WB, damn did I have to skew it in PP to get it close. Thank goodness for RAW files!

- Workout... that lens is heavy! (lhaha)


















Last lesson I learned... watching the 7-8 year olds was WAY more fun than watching the "big guns" play. I spent more time laughing and rooting than I was taking pics! :lmao:

Edit:  Please, I do not want anyone thinking that the pics came out this noise free straight out of the camera... I ran these pics through CS3 for WB and sharpness and Noise Ninja to clean up the noise.  A D200 is not  a D3... lol


----------



## kundalini (Feb 17, 2008)

You won't go wrong with the 70-200mm VR and I'm glad to have one, but I tend to use the 24-70mm f/2.8 or a prime a bit more indoors.


----------



## brileyphotog (Feb 22, 2008)

For sports, especially indoor sports, you can't really get away with anything slower than a 2.8


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 22, 2008)

I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS... and never use it. It's too big, too heavy, and I'm embarrassed by it. Maybe when my kids get older and more into sport (unlikely, we're not sport people) then I will use it. 

Or if someone offers me money for it, then I'll sell it.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Feb 22, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS... and never use it. It's too big, too heavy, and I'm embarrassed by it. Maybe when my kids get older and more into sport (unlikely, we're not sport people) then I will use it.
> 
> Or if someone offers me money for it, then I'll sell it.


 


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


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 22, 2008)

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:


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 12, 2008)

Hey guys. I am also looking now at a 70-200mm sigma. I know it is HSM but i would like you guys to confirm it will work on my D40X.

Thanks in advance


----------



## keith204 (Mar 12, 2008)

Auto Racing




Iron Flatline said:


> I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS... and never use it. It's too big, too heavy, and I'm embarrassed by it. Maybe when my kids get older and more into sport (unlikely, we're not sport people) then I will use it.
> 
> Or if someone offers me money for it, then I'll sell it.



I wish...  Since I use my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 so much, I could rationalize stepping up to Canon to get a hair more accurate focusing, and a bit better IQ wide open...since I use it wide open a lot, and need as fast focusing as I can get.



JimmyO said:


> Hey guys. I am also looking now at a 70-200mm sigma. I know it is HSM but i would like you guys to *confirm it will work on my D40X.*
> 
> Thanks in advance


yes.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 13, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> I spent more time laughing and rooting than I was taking pics! :lmao:


 
Many many years ago I coached 5-year old soccer.  We called it "centipede ball."


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 13, 2008)

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 (Mar 13, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> 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...).
> 
> ...


 
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 (Mar 13, 2008)

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 (Mar 13, 2008)

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 (Mar 13, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> 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...).
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 13, 2008)

farski said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

Socrates said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2008)

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 (Mar 17, 2008)

farski said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2008)

nikonkev said:


>


 
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 (Mar 17, 2008)

Tennessee Landscape said:


> 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 (Mar 17, 2008)

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 (Mar 17, 2008)

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.


----------



## AlexParlett (Mar 17, 2008)

Only ever take it off if i am doing fisheye or wideangle work, so anything but landscapes or some random conceptual ideas use it for pretty much everything, though it can be a bit awkward when working in areas with a lot of predestrians, had tendencies for people to walk almost into it.


----------



## Joves (Mar 17, 2008)

I shoot with my 80-400 VR all the time. I dont mind the weight much, I got to work the fat off somewhere.
 Tenn your 70-300 should be fine for some wildlife stuff as long as you are close enough. I like to set up temp blinds for some places I go. Then the aniamls move in closer and, dont know Im there.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 18, 2008)

Joves said:


> I shoot with my 80-400 VR all the time. I dont mind the weight much, I got to work the fat off somewhere.
> Tenn your 70-300 should be fine for some wildlife stuff as long as you are close enough. I like to set up temp blinds for some places I go. Then the aniamls move in closer and, dont know Im there.


 

Yeah, I'm not really worried about bringing them in close....I bow hunt, so I know how to get animals in close. especially if I don't have hunting rules and regs to contend with...like baiting ..... plus I have an excellent ghilie suit.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 18, 2008)

nikonkev said:


> 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


 
That gets me all excited, but I don't like the white, I want black instead......


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 18, 2008)

I also like the black better, and thats what I bought.  I was not about to pay $200 to make my lens look terrible... lol


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 18, 2008)

I see Nikon has jumped into the colored lens market. I kinda wish they were the Nikon logo yellow though, if they were I would so switch.


----------



## pm63 (Mar 18, 2008)

That lens is HUGE! 1.43kg according to Amazon!

How come it's so much bigger than the 55-200? And how come it needs 21 elemets?

Also, some of you are "embarrased" by such a lens... but you shoot big DSLRS which scream "pro!" to your average P+S consumer, so you're hardly "shaming" yourself even more if you mount such a lens.


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 18, 2008)

pm63 said:


> That lens is HUGE! 1.43kg according to Amazon!
> 
> How come it's so much bigger than the 55-200? And how come it needs 21 elemets?
> 
> Also, some of you are "embarrased" by such a lens... but you shoot big DSLRS which scream "pro!" to your average P+S consumer, so you're hardly "shaming" yourself even more if you mount such a lens.


 

21 elements for the f/2.8 all the way through the focal range....


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't care one rats hind end about what a lens looks like, all I care about is what the IMAGES it makes look like.

The 70-200 VR is a beast of a lens weight-wise, because it is a true f/2.8 zoom. It is lovely in every respect except weight... 

I have it and the 55-200 VR, which I use when I want a small, light lens for shooting in broad daylight. Unless you are shooting wide open with the lenses... if you shoot them both at f/11 or so... the image quality is virtually identical.

I know the "lens hounds" here will shudder when I say that, but I own em both and I shoot them both, and it is just plain the way it is...

Having said all this, the 70-200 is VASTLY superior when you are NOT shooting at f/11  ... and for about 10 times the money, it should be.


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2008)

pm63 said:


> Also, some of you are "embarrased" by such a lens... but you shoot big DSLRS which scream "pro!" to your average P+S consumer, so you're hardly "shaming" yourself even more if you mount such a lens.



I think it has more to do with what you like to shoot and how you wanna shoot it.

Busy streets of NYC.. um no..
Wedding or format event (and I'm not the official photog).. um no...
A sports event... sure...

My other camera is comfortable enough to carry at all times.... something I can't do with a large DSLR... and no one even takes notice.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> Wedding or format event (and I'm not the official photog).. um no...



With all due respect, you sound a bit like somebody who has never shot a wedding...

The 70-200 VR is PERFECT for weddings... I would have that on a third D3 body at all times were I shooting, with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 on my main D3 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 on my backup D3.

If this sounds a bit expensive, well... to me, there is only one way to do a wedding... the RIGHT way... and that means the best equipment money can buy (there is a reason when I did weddings I was one of the most expensive photographers around).


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 18, 2008)

> That gets me all excited, but I don't like the white, I want black instead......


 
The grass is always greener....Having the black one, I would prefer to have the white (Canon envy).....

I absolutely love the lens, and it is the one I probably take 80% of my pictures with. If made to choose to only have one lens in my bag, this would be it without hesitation.
But, when you are outside a lot, in the sun, the black lenses get far hotter than the white ones. I've never had it affect the quality of my pictures, and it has never seemed to bother the operation of the lens, but it has gotten hot enough at times that I now keep a small piece of old white T-shirt and a few rubber bands to put on it if I am going to have it on a tripod out in the sun all day.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 18, 2008)

If the lens gets hot, imagine how the camera feels. Makes little sense to me to cover the lens, but not the camera, which I would not do anyways (talk about looking strange and attracting attention  )

Concerning Nikon/Nikkor and wedding lenses... apparently, over at the local pro wedding forums, 85-90% of all 'togs that use Nikon bodies, use the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR, so it does seem to be the lens to have for weddings. I can see why too.


----------



## usayit (Mar 18, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> With all due respect, you sound a bit like somebody who has never shot a wedding...
> 
> The 70-200 VR is PERFECT for weddings... I



Sabbath.. read again... you missed "and I'm not the official photog" part.

I'm a guest.. not the official wedding photog... I wanna enjoy the wedding too.. not lug around the heavy lens and be mistaken for the photographer.

OF COURSE if I were the wedding photographer and my focus was shooting the wedding, I would carry the 70-200 f2.8 and other high quality fast lenses.   OF COURSE I would not care about weight and looks...  I'm there to shoot and not enjoy the festivities.   Yes.. shot a few...


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 18, 2008)

> If the lens gets hot, imagine how the camera feels. Makes little sense to me to cover the lens, but not the camera, which I would not do anyways (talk about looking strange and attracting attention ;-) )


 
Not much worried about the strange looks, I get those without the camera....

But I usually use a large enough piece to rubber band to the lens, and have enough left to "flap" over the camera if needed. Most of the time, though, I am in a home-made blind, with the front of the lens protruding out into the sun.


----------



## kundalini (Mar 18, 2008)

Tennessee Landscape said:


> That gets me all excited, but I don't like the white, I want black instead......


Here you go Tennessee.







Hope that helps.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> Sabbath.. read again... you missed "and I'm not the official photog" part.
> 
> I'm a guest.. not the official wedding photog... I wanna enjoy the wedding too.. not lug around the heavy lens and be mistaken for the photographer.
> 
> OF COURSE if I were the wedding photographer and my focus was shooting the wedding, I would carry the 70-200 f2.8 and other high quality fast lenses.   OF COURSE I would not care about weight and looks...  I'm there to shoot and not enjoy the festivities.   Yes.. shot a few...



I did indeed miss that part of it.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 18, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Here you go Tennessee.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The VR is on and the power is off...


----------



## kundalini (Mar 18, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> The VR is on and the power is off...


Dammit. I noticed that when I cropped.  Was hoping nobody else could tell.  :blushing:


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 18, 2008)

ROFL!
You should have taken a blurry pic!


----------



## kundalini (Mar 18, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> ROFL!
> You should have taken a blurry pic!


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 18, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> I don't care one rats hind end about what a lens looks like, all I care about is what the IMAGES it makes look like.
> 
> The 70-200 VR is a beast of a lens weight-wise, because it is a true f/2.8 zoom. It is lovely in every respect except weight...
> 
> ...



You might not care about the color, but I am sure Nikon does. Canon has been doing the white-ish lens for a while now, and man has it been a marketing success. Anyone that sees my with my camera automatically asks me if its a Canon because they have noticed most Canon users have the "white stuff".

I wish canon made them in black though as well, I actually contemplated taking a sharpie to it and making my own black Canon 70-200 mm F/2.8L. I talked myself out of it though.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 18, 2008)

kundalini said:


>



Still on


----------



## roadkill (Mar 20, 2008)

You guys have all sold me on this lens


----------



## judson (Mar 20, 2008)

When I shoot, I have the 70-200 on one body and the 17-55 on another.  It is an incredible piece of glass!


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 20, 2008)

Plus a 70-200 paired with a FF camera vs. a crop body will give you a field of view compare to a 45-50mm on a 1.5 or 1.6 crop body. 

I use my for most everything that I can. The bokeh is so much nicer than my cheap 50mm f/1.8


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 20, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Here you go Tennessee.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

That is strait up BADA$$:thumbup::thumbup:

Put that in my signature!


----------



## Tennessee Landscape (Mar 20, 2008)

judson said:


> When I shoot, I have the 70-200 on one body and the 17-55 on another. It is an incredible piece of glass!


 

STRAIT UP DOGGIE!!!!

That's the ultimate setup


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 20, 2008)

kundalini said:


>


 
OMG, I cracked up when I saw that!
Ok, its official, the people around me in this internet cafe think I've lost it.


----------



## MX962 (Mar 21, 2008)

nikonkev said:


> 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


Copyright = Copyright 2006 Jeffrey Eric Francis Friedl is the owner of this image


----------



## usayit (Mar 21, 2008)

68Whiskey said:


> You might not care about the color, but I am sure Nikon does. Canon has been doing the white-ish lens for a while now, and man has it been a marketing success.



In marketing, it is very dangerous for a company to mimic the marketing strategy of another.  Generally sends out a message to their customer base that they lack innovation to come up with their own.  Simply put it becomes "cheesy" and degrades the branding.  Canon did very well... the marketing guy that came up with that white lens idea deserved a good paycheck.

I think the "crackle" anthracite or grey finish would be great.  The crackle finish would add a bit more grip to the entire lens. 



> I wish canon made them in black though as well, I actually contemplated taking a sharpie to it and making my own black Canon 70-200 mm F/2.8L. I talked myself out of it though.



Before you resort to sharpies and spray paint,  check this out:
http://www.lenscoat.com/


----------



## andrew99 (Mar 21, 2008)

usayit said:


> In marketing, it is very dangerous for a company to mimic the marketing strategy of another.  Generally sends out a message to their customer base that they lack innovation to come up with their own.  Simply put it becomes "cheesy" and degrades the branding.



Totally agree, especially when something is so obviously associated with one company.


----------



## solrac8126 (Mar 21, 2008)

shame on you nikon!


----------



## tjphotography (Mar 25, 2008)

I own the nikon 70-200 VR and it is an awesome lens.  I use it mainly for weddings, especially during ceremonies where I can get close to the action from a distance.

Obviously, it can be used for other types of photography.

I try to keep the shutter speed at least 1/250 to keep images sharp.

Travis
www.tjphotography.com


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 25, 2008)

tjphotography said:


> I own the nikon 70-200 VR and it is an awesome lens. I use it mainly for weddings, especially during ceremonies where I can get close to the action from a distance.
> 
> Obviously, it can be used for other types of photography.
> 
> ...


 
That's defeating the purpose of the VR!


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 25, 2008)

But in terms of freezing the action its not, VR wont help you there. 

I think its amazing that your shoting indoors in a dim lit church shooting at 1/250 and im guessing without a flash.

Oh well, my 70-200mm f/2.8 should be here by thursday.


----------



## lostprophet (Mar 25, 2008)

well I have a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS and a Canon 300mm F2.8 IS

I use them for wildlife both with and without Canon Extenders and I have also used them for Sports.

I've also used to 300mm F2.8 to take photos of flowers, I get a few funny looks when I'm doing that


----------



## Mav (Mar 25, 2008)

At the weddding I shot awhile ago, even an f/2.8 would have been too slow.  I did a pretty good job getting stuff with my 85/1.8 though.  1.4 would have been even better!  No flash stinks!  With regards to using these things indoors, geeze I use my 70-300VR right out to 200-300mm in my own living room, LOL.  I like nice tight head shots.

I'd love to get a 70-200VR but can't possibly justify it at the moment.  I'd get a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D which is almost a no brainer, except that my D40 won't drive the screw driven focus.  My D80 will, but I'm trying to avoid anymore non AF-S glass.  One of these Sigmas or this new Tamron might have to hold me over.  I'd definitely like an f/2.8 telephoto zoom for faily use, but for now I'm getting by fine with my 70-300VR.  I just beat up flash batteries some more.


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 9, 2008)

Should be getting my sigma 70-200mm soon. Ill be using it mainly on a D1H but i look forward to seeing how it works with my d40x. Ill keep you guys updated.


----------



## uplander (Apr 9, 2008)

The 70-200 f2.8 L and the 100-400 L both make great candid portrait lenses

These were taken at a distance with a 100-400L. Putting you subjects at a distance leaves them un threatened by the camrea and makes for great pics


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 9, 2008)

Love the bokeh!


----------



## leaving0hio (Apr 10, 2008)

68Whiskey said:


> You might not care about the color, but I am sure Nikon does. Canon has been doing the white-ish lens for a while now, and man has it been a marketing success. Anyone that sees my with my camera automatically asks me if its a Canon because they have noticed most Canon users have the "white stuff".



I don't mean to thread jack, but didn't Canon have a practical purpose for making the bigger L's white?  I thought i read something somewhere about heat expansion of the fluorite elements.  Or is it just marketing kool-aid?


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 10, 2008)

Chances are its a little of both. I remember reading an adverstisment in a magazine a few years ago saying "White is cooler". And it went on to explain that they don't overheat or something when shooting out in the hot sun. Im pretty sure no one has ever been shooting with a black one and had it spontaneously combust, lol.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 10, 2008)

JimmyO said:


> I think its amazing that your shoting indoors in a dim lit church shooting at 1/250 and im guessing without a flash.


 
If he is shooting at 1/250th in a church, let's hope that he used the meter and is shooting at that speed becuase he can.  With the 70-200, I see no reason he cannot, if the meter says he can.

There are certain parts and times of the day in my local place to practice at (St-Joseph's Oratory in Montreal), that I can shoot at 1/250th or faster.


----------



## JimmyO (Apr 10, 2008)

I guess once i get mine it will all make sense =)


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 10, 2008)

I think so too.  It is hard to see the difference a fast lens makes in any scenario until they've played with it a few times.


----------



## PhotoJoe22 (Apr 11, 2008)

bought a nikon 80-200 2.8 about 10 years ago before I even had a decent casmea (6006)  and it's still my most used lens.It's been to many a sabres and bills games and never had a problem


----------



## rjackjames (Apr 12, 2008)

The 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM.....its an awesome lens I use it when I dont want to be close to the subject.....also I standout and drws a crowd too....its heavy so I wont consider it a walk around lens but once you het used to it its light like a feather.


----------

