Would I use a 70-200

Simonhi

Simonhi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
309
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title asks really ... It is the only one of the "holy Trinity" that i don't have and I'm seriously considering buying one.

Goodwood FOS is coming up in a months time and it would be my "go to" lens for this type of stuff. The only thing stopping me is that I'm not 100% sure how much use it would get.

I prefer mainly to shoot landscape stuff and when i do use my 24-70, which is most of the time, the 14-24 tends to come out for less attantion due to filter attachment, I am often somewhere between 24-40mm on it.

Would I get more out of my photography for having a longer lens ?

Cheers in advance.

Si.
 
If you've never thought 'damn I need more reach' then probably not worth getting one.

Having said that they are briliiant portrait lenses and offer you some interesting variation in landscapes when you can take full advantage of the squeezed perspective.
 
For any sort of motor sport shooting, a 70-200 f2.8 or an 80-200 f2.8 is a must IMO.

I've got some longer glass and loads of shorter lenses but I reckon my 80-200 stays on my camera for 75% of my trackside work.
 
I used a 70-200 on my 5D last year at Goodwood. If anything, it was a little short on an FF camera at the event. For all that, it did take some lovely shots.
 
Entirely depends on what you're shooting.........but from what you've said, it seems a 70-200 is the next obvious lens choice to add to your kit, for that extra bit of reach. Even if you are shooting landscapes.........the 70-200 can be used to great effect, telephoto landscapes for isolating certain areas at longer focal lengths are just as good as super wide angle shots...............just a different style of shot.

It's also a good lens to have as an additional to your walkabout lens when you want extra length, maybe for some wildlife or isolating subjects in the distance.
 
I use my 70-200 mainly for people shots, but it comes in real handy for walkabout shots or difficult to get to places or objects.

It's a great focal range to have in you arsenal.
 
It's a lot of money to drop on something you're not sure about, or want to get for completeness. And as others have said, 200mm may come up short on an FX body for motorsport. I used my 70-300VR on a D90, and when I moved to a D700 I was shocked at how much the FX sensor took off the long end. Definitely one to try before you buy I think. Have you considered renting one?
 
jpw said:
It's a lot of money to drop on something you're not sure about, or want to get for completeness.
Click to expand...

It's this that would stop me from getting it.

At the moment I'm really fixated on landscapes and whilst I'm interested other aspects of photography, particularly portraiture, I think the 70mm end of the 24-70 would serve me well for the meantime.

I could always go to Goodwood without camera (shock, horror) and enjoy the day rather than get involved in the elbow bashing bun fight that normally ensues. Plus going with mates can be a bit boring for them, with me trying to get a decent shot every few minutes.

I also did think that for some motorsport and wildlife stuff I would be using a 1.4 or 2.0 TC in any case to get the reach neede on a FF sensor.

I'm still not convinced I need one at the moment. Best make use of what I've got ? I could always get the 105 macro I've been looking fondly for a while :love:.

Somebody could convince me otherwise though, I just worry that it would spend alot of time being carried rather than used.
 
Simonhi said:
It's this that would stop me from getting it.

At the moment I'm really fixated on landscapes and whilst I'm interested other aspects of photography, particularly portraiture, I think the 70mm end of the 24-70 would serve me well for the meantime.

I could always go to Goodwood without camera (shock, horror) and enjoy the day rather than get involved in the elbow bashing bun fight that normally ensues. Plus going with mates can be a bit boring for them, with me trying to get a decent shot every few minutes.

I also did think that for some motorsport and wildlife stuff I would be using a 1.4 or 2.0 TC in any case to get the reach neede on a FF sensor.

I'm still not convinced I need one at the moment. Best make use of what I've got ? I could always get the 105 macro I've been looking fondly for a while :love:.

Somebody could convince me otherwise though, I just worry that it would spend alot of time being carried rather than used.
Click to expand...

why not rent one for a week or two and see how you get on with it?
 
a1ex2001 said:
why not rent one for a week or two and see how you get on with it?
Click to expand...

Good plan, but if I rent one for Goodwood, which I would, it is possible I would then convince myself it would be used and then not use it until I get to a track day / event or throw myself in to Wildlife, which I gather is expensive !!!
 
Why not pick up a second hand manual 135mm prime? Buy a converter and use an old mount like m42 too, it'd probably be even cheaper. You could do that for less than 50 quid easily. If you find yourself reaching for that very often then maybe a 70-200 is right for you but if it hardly ever comes out of the bag then stick with the cheap option or flog it for the amount you bought it for.
 
I'd say the 70-200 on FX would be perfect for Goodwood and that the 24-70 on the same body is way too wide really - unless you wanted a lot of very wide shots.

On the other hand, I like your suggestion of leaving the camera at home and enjoying the show - I might well do that myself this time, or just take the P&S :D
 
I do mainly landscapes and my 70-200 gets a lot of use. I'm continually surprised by the number of people who don't see how effective a telephoto is for selecting certain sections of a landscape, compressing various features, or adding an abstract aspect - for example.
 
True, why does landscape have to be about the widest panaramas you can fit into glass?

There are several top landscapers using stuff much longer than 70-200's :D
 
I have a 70-200 f/2.8 (a Sigma, not a Nikkor) but in an sort of 1/2 decent light, I usually use my 70-300 VR. Partially for the VR, partially foir the lighter weight and partially for the extra reach.

If you need the extra stops the f/2.8 gives and can handle the weight (and live without the extra 100mm) and cost, get the 70-200. I do like mine but find it stays in the bag quite often.
 
I am the very proud owner of a Nikkor 20-200 VR MkII, it is a fantastic lens that will work great on your D700. It ain't cheap but it is, IMHO, worth every penny :thumbs:.
 
jerry12953 said:
I do mainly landscapes and my 70-200 gets a lot of use. I'm continually surprised by the number of people who don't see how effective a telephoto is for selecting certain sections of a landscape, compressing various features, or adding an abstract aspect - for example.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same :|. For some landscapes (e.g. sunsets, mountain ranges, seascapes) it's essential to have both the reach and the compression, depending on your physical viewpoint.

I see no end of Scottish landscape shots posted (not necessarily just here) where the 'imposing' snow-capped mountains become just an afterthought in the distance at 50mm or less :(.

My 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is by far my favourite lens to use :). The VR system is the best I've ever used and is nearing essential when you get to the longer end of the focal range. It's useful for all kinds if stuff, particularly 'event photography', where you might want a combination of scenery shots (at the wide end) and isolated subject shots (at the long end).

If you had it, Simonhi, you'd probably make yourself use it it's a gem ;)!

johnaalex said:
I am the very proud owner of a Nikkor 20-200 VR MkII, it is a fantastic lens that will work great on your D700. It ain't cheap but it is, IMHO, worth every penny :thumbs:.
Click to expand...

But not proud enough to put it in your signature :D!?

Did you mean 20-200mm, BTW :|? I didn't know that Nikon had ever made one :shrug:. Perhaps it's just a typo.
 
I hate using ultrawides for landscapes shots, for exactly the reason Naboo says - anything worth noting in the middleground and foreground just disappears into the distance.
 
I think you're secretly hankering after this lens Simon. There is no doubt in my mind that you'll get a lot of use from it. I've got the VR1 and whilst I'm not fixated on Landscapes it's my most used lens. Go on, you know you wanna !
 
trevorbray said:
I think you're secretly hankering after this lens Simon. There is no doubt in my mind that you'll get a lot of use from it. I've got the VR1 and whilst I'm not fixated on Landscapes it's my most used lens. Go on, you know you wanna !
Click to expand...

Ok ok .. I'm sold ... see how easy that was ? ... I suppose I should buy one after I bought a 70-200mm foot from Really Right Stuff to go with my BH-55 Ball head (Read, ordered lots of goodies from RRS to be sent to a Las Vegas hotel which I didn't make it to due to the volcanic ash cloud, got it sent to blightly and got smakced hard with £300 import duty !!!)

Now all I need to know is where is the best place to buy one from ? Park Cameras seems to be the cheapest with stock at the moment.

Cheers

Si.
 
Oh, and if anyone watching this thread has a 70-200 do you use a teleconverter with it ? If so which one ?

Cheers,

Si.
 
I'd say get it, it's a stunning lens, the only downside with it is the weight coupled with a FF body is quite significant, but apart from that it's amazing. It's great for outdoor and landscape stuff as others have said, I think wide landscapes can look a little bit featureless and this would add something to your photography.
 
I have the 70-200F4is and the 1.4 tc... tis a fantastic pairing

have a look at my flickr page as all the recent wildlife shots are with this combo
 
Richard T said:
I have the 70-200F4is and the 1.4 tc... tis a fantastic pairing

have a look at my flickr page as all the recent wildlife shots are with this combo
Click to expand...

Would that be on a crop sensor ? I was looking at the 1.7 or even possibly splashing out on the recently released £450 2.0 III Teleconverter.
 
Simonhi said:
Oh, and if anyone watching this thread has a 70-200 do you use a teleconverter with it ? If so which one ?

Cheers,

Si.
Click to expand...

I used a Nikon 1.7x TC one mine when I first got it, but I wasn't happy with the AF performance (OK in bright light, but not so good when heavily overcast :(). The sharpness was noticeably (to me) reduced as well. In short, I felt like I'd taken my Ferrari of lens and turned it into a Skoda :thumbsdown:, just for the sake of a bit more magnification. YMMV.

Now, I use a Kenko 1.4x Pro300 DGX TC with it. It's better, from the AF and IQ perspectives, but it has a bad habit of losing the connection with the camera (especially so if I use it on my D90 and not my D700 :() and giving me an "F" error on the display :|. This is cured by twisting the lens until it connects again. I don't know whether to blame the camera, the lens, or the TC for this :thinking:.

In short, you will always lose something in return for the extra length gained - it's just a question of how far you want to tip the see-saw in either direction. If I had my choice of the Nikon TCs to use with this lens, it would definitely be the 1.4x ;).

Good luck!
 
Cheers Naboo ... I was hoping you would say either the 1.4 or the 1.7 cos dropping another £450 on a TC (to get the 2.0 III) could seriously upset the drinking for a couple of weeks :-)

Plus, I will prbably end up getting the 2.0 at some point and the 1.7 is probably to close to the 2.0 in any case.

And, (nearly done) I'm not sure I would be too happy only having a TC that would drop 2 stops on a lens, whereas (evetually) having both will give me the choice, best to get the 1,4 first methinks.

Cheers guys, I best get my plastic out !!! I'm gonna go with Park Cameras unless anybody comes up with a cheaper suggestion in the next couple of hours.

Si.
 
Hmmmm 1.7x on this is not a particularly happy combo... the 2x I have never tried but I think you know the answer already...

1.4x... well, I have one now but not tried it on the 70-200 (or anything else yet actually!) but it should be sorta ok.

Naboo is right though - it is like sticking a pair of heavy winter gloves on before handling something delicate... kinda spoils the sensation ;-)
 
desantnik said:
Hmmmm 1.7x on this is not a particularly happy combo... the 2x I have never tried but I think you know the answer already...

1.4x... well, I have one now but not tried it on the 70-200 (or anything else yet actually!) but it should be sorta ok.

Naboo is right though - it is like sticking a pair of heavy winter gloves on before handling something delicate... kinda spoils the sensation ;-)
Click to expand...

Cool 1.4X it is then :clap: !!!
 
I use my 70-200 f4 IS all the time for landscape stuff, it's fantastic. It takes the 1.4x II very nicely as well.

Get a 70-200, you wont regret it!
 
My 70-200 2.8 L is my walkabout lens, :)I don't leave home without it. It's a bit heavy but hey ho. I bought a 1.4 in February and have only used it once.:eek:

Ooops. just notived you're a Nikon man. LOL!

Lisa
 
desantnik said:
...

Naboo is right though - it is like sticking a pair of heavy winter gloves on before handling something delicate... kinda spoils the sensation ;-)
Click to expand...

:clap: Top marks for avoiding the 'condom analogy', desantnik :D!

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top