Fed up with zooms.

soupdragon

soupdragon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,644
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Going back over my snaps It appears I use my zooms at either long or wide with nothing in-between.
So I'm thinking of trading up my zooms, 24-105 v2, 70-200 2.8 v2 and 100-400 v2 (plus a shed load of cash I imagine) for either a 200 f2 or a 300 2.8 v2.

Any thoughts on which would be the most versatile? I have 1.4X and 2.0X v3 extenders.
 
What do you shoot? BIF or sports? Crop sensor or full frame
 
motor sports, wildlife and aircraft plus the usual high days and holidays.
I have a 1dx mk2 plus other smaller lenses.
 
300mm and 1.4 then
 
I have the 300mm and it works fine with 2x converter and is light enough to handhold.
 
I'm kind of warming to the 200 f2.
It seems easy enough to extend lenses but making them shorter appears tricky.
 
soupdragon said:
I'm kind of warming to the 200 f2.
It seems easy enough to extend lenses but making them shorter appears tricky.
Click to expand...

Not long enough for airshows IMO. I used to use a 300mm Nikon f4 on FF which was fine at small shows like Old Warden (could be a bit long at times) but often too short at places like Duxford.
 
My favourite places are the mach loop, santapod and the oyster beds in Langstone harbour.
 
It's a tough call for me. I'd like both but I just can't run to it.
To my mind, I'd like to think the 200 f2 plus 1,4 converter would be as near as makes no difference the same as the 300 2.8.
 
Sounds like a good case for hiring before buying, and careful assessment of priorities.

TBH this doesn't read entirely logically. The OP talks about focal length, but the 200/2 and 300/2.8, are more about their maximum apertures. And they're both big, heavy and costly, nothing like the lenses they're intended to replace. There's a wiff of GAS about it, too ;)
 
Having owned most of Nikon's telephoto primes including 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/f4 anf 600mmf4 I can vouch that they are fantastic at what they are meant for, however there have been countless times over the years when I've been using a zoom,
24-70,70-200,200-400 etc where I have been able to get shots that I definitely would have not been able to capture had I been using a prime at the time. Both have their advantages, unfortunately neither one is the perfect solution and they are all compromised in certain situations.
If you want to have the best options then you need both, most of us can't afford to own them all so compromise rules the day.
Changing teleconverters takes time where as zooms are a flick of the wrist.
Nikon's excellent 200-400f4 can be bought now secondhand for a little over £2,000 for an earlyish example, and it works well with a 1.4tc. so you would get between 200mm or 840mm approx depending on fll frame or crop body. A cheaper option
Would be Sigma's excellent 150-600mm or Tamron's equivalent. A long prime is going to cost more if you opted for a Nikon lens.
cheers
 
I've got both the 200/2 and 300/2.8 II and they're both excellent with and without the extenders so it's really a choice of whether you want to be limited at the short end or the long end.

A 200/2 and a 300/4 or a 300/2.8 and a 200/2.8......I'd go for the 200/2-300/4 option.

Bob
 
Having started off with various fixed-lens cameras as a kid, buying a family hand-me-down 35mm SLR with 50mm and 135mm prime lenses as a young teenager, then saving up for a top-quality 35mm SLR when I left school and started work (then having 18 months before I could afford an alternative to the 50mm prime it came with!), and these days being divided between shooting film on a variety of old fixed-lens medium format folding cameras, TLRs, box cameras, etc. the one thing that keeps me shooting modern DSLRs and latter-day 35mm SLRs is the zoom lens. Don't get me wrong, I can handle a fixed-lens camera or prime lens on an SLR till the cows come home... but counter that with the feeling of almost 'carefree freedom' that a modern, image stabilised, high-quality zoom gives then I personally wouldn't want to burn my boats and go down the 'prime lens only' route.

I know we're all different, but perhaps think long and hard about your course of action, Tony? And if you do decide to say farewell to your zoom lenses, then hopefully you'll agree that I at least put a sound case for the modern zoom lens and gave you the opportunity to reconsider... which I'd like to think might get me a healthy discount and first refusal on that Canon100-400 IS L Mk 2 you are about to dump? ;) Providing, of course it's in mint condition and as nice as I'm thinking it might be! :D
 
Last edited:
TLR-330 said:
Gear acquisition syndrome alert!
Click to expand...
There is a certain amount of truth in what you say, I'll not deny that.

There are times though when the background blur of my zooms just ruins the look of some shots. Particularly people pics.
From what I've seen the 200 f2 is peerless in this regard, although I only have tinternet examples.

The 300 2.8 is highly regarded in this respect too and, whilst it's lighter, it is a fair bit longer physically.
 
soupdragon said:
There is a certain amount of truth in what you say, I'll not deny that.
Click to expand...
You have already answered your own question but you don't really want to see it. Your lenses are either not long enough or not short enough. I don't know if you go out to photograph specific things (people, landscapes, wildlife ... whatever catches your eye) and you may have one or two lenses with you or it takes too long to change so you end up shooting at the extremes of the lenses. Anyway, I am not one to spoil people's fun, I really want to encourage it. I find the 200 and 300mm fixed focal lengths rather specialist but I am not sure for what (sports?) the same way a 500 and 600mm lens would be mainly for wildlife. Why don't you start from the shorter end and ideally you want to buy in addition to what you got and you can always get rid of your kit later

PS. I only got a crop Nikon and 18-105 kit lens + 4 more and the kit lens is used on most photos.
 
You might use a given zoom nearly always towards its extremities, but both those extremities are always present and you don't have to swop anything out to use both.
 
soupdragon said:
Going back over my snaps It appears I use my zooms at either long or wide with nothing in-between.
So I'm thinking of trading up my zooms, 24-105 v2, 70-200 2.8 v2 and 100-400 v2 (plus a shed load of cash I imagine) for either a 200 f2 or a 300 2.8 v2.

Any thoughts on which would be the most versatile? I have 1.4X and 2.0X v3 extenders.
Click to expand...

There's something odd about this. If you only use these zooms at their extreme ends, then you use the 70-200mm at 70mm, and don't use the 24-105mm at 70mm. You use the 100-400mm at 100mm and don't use the 70-200mm at 100mm. That seems odd.

I recall once doing an exercise in which I summed up the focal lengths I used on my various zooms. I found that with my 10-20mm (on a crop sensor) I used 10mm much more often than any other focal length. I thought that was probably because I often wanted a wider angle than 10mm would give me, so ended up against the 10mm stop trying to make the best of it. I replaced the 10-20mm with an 8-16mm and discovered that I was right. I now shoot at 10mm no more than any other wide focal length, and also shoot at 8mm much less often than I used to use 10mm.

So it occurs to me that there could be another explanation of why you so often end up shooting at the extreme ends of your zooms: you very often find yourself with the worng zoom on the camera, and find yourself racked up to one or other end trying to make the best of it not being long enough or wide enough. If that's the case, then you need to think of ways of making it easier to change lenses, such as using a lens change bag, or carrying a second body with the other more likely zoom on it. and so on. In fact if my hypothesis is correct then switching to primes would make your problem worse, in that you'd find yourself much more frustratingly often with the wrong lens on the camera.
 
soupdragon said:
There is a certain amount of truth in what you say, I'll not deny that.

There are times though when the background blur of my zooms just ruins the look of some shots. Particularly people pics.
From what I've seen the 200 f2 is peerless in this regard, although I only have tinternet examples.

The 300 2.8 is highly regarded in this respect too and, whilst it's lighter, it is a fair bit longer physically.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a bit of GAS when you recognise it for what it is, can afford it, and don't expect miracles ;) And there's nothing like a new lens to get you reinvigorated and out and about :thumbs:

I still think hiring is a good plan considering the amount of cash involved and FWIW the 200/2 is sublime, but quite a rare beast, more specialised, may be harder to re-sell. Most folks cover much of what that lens can do with a 135/2 (Sigma 135/1.8 Art?) or 70-200/2.8. On the other hand, 300/2.8 is as safe as it gets with this kind of thing and to answer your earlier question about versatility it's a very popular combo with extenders. But don't sell that 100-400 Mk2 just yet... :D
 
chris malcolm said:
There's something odd about this. If you only use these zooms at their extreme ends, then you use the 70-200mm at 70mm, and don't use the 24-105mm at 70mm. You use the 100-400mm at 100mm and don't use the 70-200mm at 100mm. That seems odd.

I recall once doing an exercise in which I summed up the focal lengths I used on my various zooms. I found that with my 10-20mm (on a crop sensor) I used 10mm much more often than any other focal length. I thought that was probably because I often wanted a wider angle than 10mm would give me, so ended up against the 10mm stop trying to make the best of it. I replaced the 10-20mm with an 8-16mm and discovered that I was right. I now shoot at 10mm no more than any other wide focal length, and also shoot at 8mm much less often than I used to use 10mm.

So it occurs to me that there could be another explanation of why you so often end up shooting at the extreme ends of your zooms: you very often find yourself with the worng zoom on the camera, and find yourself racked up to one or other end trying to make the best of it not being long enough or wide enough. If that's the case, then you need to think of ways of making it easier to change lenses, such as using a lens change bag, or carrying a second body with the other more likely zoom on it. and so on. In fact if my hypothesis is correct then switching to primes would make your problem worse, in that you'd find yourself much more frustratingly often with the wrong lens on the camera.
Click to expand...

Not quite what I meant.
I use 70-200 at 70 or 200
24-105 at 24 OR 105
100-400........................
 
HoppyUK said:
Nothing wrong with a bit of GAS when you recognise it for what it is, can afford it, and don't expect miracles ;) And there's nothing like a new lens to get you reinvigorated and out and about (y)

I still think hiring is a good plan considering the amount of cash involved and FWIW the 200/2 is sublime, but quite a rare beast, more specialised, may be harder to re-sell. Most folks cover much of what that lens can do with a 135/2 (Sigma 135/1.8 Art?) or 70-200/2.8. On the other hand, 300/2.8 is as safe as it gets with this kind of thing and to answer your earlier question about versatility it's a very popular combo with extenders. But don't sell that 100-400 Mk2 just yet... :D
Click to expand...

To my mind, a 200 f2 coupled with either a 1.4 extender or 2.0 extender equates to.....

200 f2, 280 f2.8 and 400 f4 which is not too shabby a range.

Using a special skill I have called "Hindsight" I can see that at the time I bough my zooms, the grand some total cost is in very round figures, is about the same as a 200 f2.
The only thing I will lose is the wide angle end of the world.
I have and 85 1.2 so that covers mis range.

Does that make any sense?:thinking:
 
If I thought I could get a quick sale on the forums I'd be doing it now.
 
I do a lot of motorsport and the 300 2.8 II is the lens I choose for about 80% of my shots, reverting to my 70-200 when I need something a bit wider.

Although there's only a very slight difference in using it with a 1.4 III extender, when i've tried the 2x I've been a bit disappointed with the focus speed, image quality and keeper rate. Hence I bought a 400 2.8 IS (Mk 1) for when I need more reach, and that also works very well with the 1.4x

Oddly, I've been thinking of going the other way and swapping both for a 200-400 f4 and using the built in 1.4x for times when I would have used the 400 2.8. Both lenses are so good at what they do I'm reluctant to part with them, but can't afford to keep them and get a 200-400.
 
soupdragon said:
<snip>

Does that make any sense?:thinking:
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense on paper, but the practical reality of swapping a 100-400 zoom for a 200mm prime and a couple of extenders weighing three times as much might be rather different.

Personally, I would want to try the weight* for real over a day, and reassure myself that the AF was up to scratch in all likely conditions and situations.

*Think 'carrying solutions' ie sling strap, double slings, sling bags and shoulder-cum-waist bags like the excellent ThinkTank Speed Demon etc. Basically spreading the weight and easing fast access. You're probably already ahead of me on this... ;)
 
TLR-330 said:
Yes. You like having lenses with the biggest aperture there is ;) Perfect sense ... :runaway: BTW. On the basis of the last response you can get rid of your shortest zoom straightaway.
Click to expand...
Talk to me privately?
 
JohnStewart said:
I do a lot of motorsport and the 300 2.8 II is the lens I choose for about 80% of my shots, reverting to my 70-200 when I need something a bit wider.

Although there's only a very slight difference in using it with a 1.4 III extender, when i've tried the 2x I've been a bit disappointed with the focus speed, image quality and keeper rate. Hence I bought a 400 2.8 IS (Mk 1) for when I need more reach, and that also works very well with the 1.4x

Oddly, I've been thinking of going the other way and swapping both for a 200-400 f4 and using the built in 1.4x for times when I would have used the 400 2.8. Both lenses are so good at what they do I'm reluctant to part with them, but can't afford to keep them and get a 200-400.
Click to expand...
The 200-400 is just a fantasy lens for me but I can see where you are going with that.
 
JohnStewart said:
I do a lot of motorsport and the 300 2.8 II is the lens I choose for about 80% of my shots, reverting to my 70-200 when I need something a bit wider.

Although there's only a very slight difference in using it with a 1.4 III extender, when i've tried the 2x I've been a bit disappointed with the focus speed, image quality and keeper rate. Hence I bought a 400 2.8 IS (Mk 1) for when I need more reach, and that also works very well with the 1.4x

Oddly, I've been thinking of going the other way and swapping both for a 200-400 f4 and using the built in 1.4x for times when I would have used the 400 2.8. Both lenses are so good at what they do I'm reluctant to part with them, but can't afford to keep them and get a 200-400.
Click to expand...

I dropped on a 200-400 a few months ago at slightly more sensible money than usual where I didn’t think l could lose much if I didn’t get on with it....sold my 300 2.8 and that helped.....biggest thing is the weight...I got a lowepro bag that can take the lens with camera and hood attached but a monopod and manfrotto 393 add quite a bit more weight ( think I’ll try ditching the head) but Sod’s law I’ve had gout and haven’t made it up the Mach loop...which would have been a good test...both weight and performance wise....

Second biggest thing is the bokeh when wide open but I must admit it’s grown on me.....

It’s been great for motorsport and surf so far with 560 mm reach on a full frame sensor in the past at the loop 300 mm or 300 plus a 1.4 could just be too much particularly when the jets get quite close so I like to think the zoom and extender switch will help me get down to 200 mm quickly....

I would hire one for a day ...... if only to see if the weight is ok...

My personal cheaper alternative would be a 100-400 mkll...[emoji106]
 
Canon brook said:
I dropped on a 200-400 a few months ago at slightly more sensible money than usual where I didn’t think l could lose much if I didn’t get on with it....sold my 300 2.8 and that helped.....biggest thing is the weight...I got a lowepro bag that can take the lens with camera and hood attached but a monopod and manfrotto 393 add quite a bit more weight ( think I’ll try ditching the head) but Sod’s law I’ve had gout and haven’t made it up the Mach loop...which would have been a good test...both weight and performance wise....

Second biggest thing is the bokeh when wide open but I must admit it’s grown on me.....

It’s been great for motorsport and surf so far with 560 mm reach on a full frame sensor in the past at the loop 300 mm or 300 plus a 1.4 could just be too much particularly when the jets get quite close so I like to think the zoom and extender switch will help me get down to 200 mm quickly....

I would hire one for a day ...... if only to see if the weight is ok...

My personal cheaper alternative would be a 100-400 mkll...[emoji106]
Click to expand...

I have the 100-400 mk2 and whilst it is good, it's not stellar.
 
soupdragon said:
Talk to me privately?
Click to expand...
Can't see the option to do so. There is a good reason for having a bigger f stop, and my point was, that you wrote you can live with the 85mm at the short end hence you could get rid of the 24-105 and put the money towards one or the other of the lenses you are looking at.
 
You realize that the only time those lenses really make sense is when that particular FL is ideal and the max aperture is required/desired right? In every other situation there is negligible benefit for a large expense. And for most of these situations f/2-2.8 probably isn't going to be what you want to use (not enough DOF for a fast moving subject).

I use f/2.8 lenses primarily, and for most of the things you list I use either the 120-300/2.8 or the 400/2.8... BUT, I almost always have a TC attached (and usually a 2x) which means stopped down an additional stop if I want to get the max IQ from it. And for these types of subjects/situations (fixed position/changing subject distances) the only time a fixed FL is optimal is really when it is still too short for the longer shots (i.e. never).

The main reason I put up with the expense/weight of these lenses is for the low light situations where having the fast aperture trumps all else... and that is VERY rare these days w/ the high ISO capabilities of modern DSLRs. The other reason I put up with the 400/2.8 is because I can have an 800/5.6 with minimal loss of IQ and more flexibility (no/different TC) compared to a dedicated 800/5.6 (I owned one of those as well). IMHO, replacing your 100-400 with one of these lenses would be a bad move unless you like/need to shoot in the dark. I also have an 80-400/4.5-5.6 which is my second most used lens for these types of subjects... and the only reason it is second is because it's usually too short.
 
soupdragon said:
Not quite what I meant.
I use 70-200 at 70 or 200
24-105 at 24 OR 105
100-400........................
Click to expand...
The reason for this is probably because of the variability of distances with these types of subjects, and the reality that the extreme ends is probably as close to ideal as you can get for a given situation...
i.e. when using 24mm ideally you'd want a 16 or 20mm, and at 105mm you'd want a 135-150mm. But it's the lens that is on the camera at the moment the opportunity presents itself, so you make do. Or maybe you want even more of a difference and time allows, so you switch lenses and use that one at it's extreme i.e. switch to the 70-200 and use 200mm, because it's the longest you have w/ you (and it's still too short! dammit!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top