Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

I have shot in the past with film. Moved to digital last year. I now have a D800. Everyone I know, everything I see, read, watch, has people recommending the 70-200 vr2. Sure it looks killer and I am sure it takes awesome photos. But, Imay be slightly inexperienced with the long lenses. I seem to prefer wider angles. I also love primes. I like the simplicity and the faster glass. I have a 50 1.8g, have a 85 1.g, and plan to order the 28 1.g. I also have a tamron 90macro. I also have the tokina 16-28. And soon want to get the tamron 24-70. My favorite lens for everyday use is 24-70, but in more controlled environments I would much prefer a prime.

Is it redundant to hit the 28mm 3 times in my lens bag? I guess I don't need the 28 1.8 but it just seems fitting for completing the 1.8g trio. A waste? I am slightly feeling wasteful buying it.

I would love to skip and sell the tamron 90 since I have the 85 1.g but I occasionally need macro. Plus my time with 85 1.g is limited, its a headshot lens for me. The tamron is actually excellent for headshots but being macro the aperture shifts outside of 2.8 and the outside focusing looks kind of silly, I know superficial.

I do a lot of video, product photography, family portraits, real estate, but there is a definite lack of wedding photogs in the area and I keep getting asked to do them. I guess this is where the 70-200 comes into play. I really ant to know how and why I would use it. I know everyones style is different so it is hard to direct, but explain why you love the 70-200. I had a 55-200vr with my last setup and never used it. I generally stick in the 24-70 range. If I did get a 70-200 I would most likely get the new tamron I love the tamron stabilization and its $1000 cheaper. I seem to just like the Nikon primes and the tokina or tamron zooms.

Thanks

Jan 26, 2013 at 06:15 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Ps, I really don't have any cool birds in the area, that I have seen

So bif is probably out. As for weddings I know 70-200 keeps you out of the way, but what else? It seems to me that in a wedding you really don't need to be that..out of the way. But again, that is not really my gig. As for sports, maybe a few things for fun, but rarely do I shoot sports related stuff.

Jan 26, 2013 at 06:28 AM

PeaktoPeek
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

If you don't use it, I can't imagine why you would buy the most expensive 70-200. I use that range in landscapes a lot, but I am more interested in the f/4 version. As far as multiple 28 coverage, the lenses are all different and there will be times you don't want to haul around the 16-28 or you need something faster. I don't see a problem with having a set of primes at all, it gives you a great option of going light.
Paul

Jan 26, 2013 at 06:32 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Thanks Paul for the response. Yeah I don't use it and expense is a concern but more importantly my inexperience with a few subjects have led me to wonder why I don't use one. It's a confidence issue, I see the 70-200 mentioned so often that I wonder what I may be missing/doing wrong. I just have found the 70-200 to feel too long and inconvenient. But the lens clearly has merit.

Jan 26, 2013 at 06:41 AM

scottam10
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Longer lenses are great for portraits - 85mm or longer is ideal. Wide angle lenses are not flattering for head-and-shoulder portraits as they exaggerate the nose.
Longer lenses also allow you to blur the background to draw attention to your subject.
As you say, they also let you take photos from a comfortable distance without getting in people's faces.

Of course you can also achieve this with 85mm and/or 135mm prime lenses - I love my 85mm, but a 70-200mm zoom gives you a lot more flexibility and has a stabilizer.

Of course you don't HAVE to use a long lens if it doesn't fit your style, but I suggest you put one on your camera and have a go - you might find you like it

Jan 26, 2013 at 06:44 AM

afm901
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

popinvasion,

Go and rent a 70-210 VR2 and take it out for the day. Take no other lenses with you. Just shoot the 70-210. Take all kinds of photos with it. Shoot portraits and candids. Shoot street scenes. Use it in ways that you wouldn't think you would or could.

Go home and look at the results. At that point you will have a good idea.

The Tamron does not even compare to the 70-210 VR2.....

Scott

Jan 26, 2013 at 09:00 AM

Mark_L
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Speed and flexibility. It is very fast focusing and tracks well, nikon's fast primes are not all too quick in the focusing department. VRII means I can get sharp shots at 200mm at 1/50. If you can't move around lots or have time to change lenses lots it is very useful plus nikon's 200mm is insane money and ancient 135mm is poorer performing making it an easy choice.

Jan 26, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Chestnut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

popinvasion, there really isn't a reason for you to have the 70-200 if you don't use that focal range much. Yes, it's great glass, but if you don't need it, you don't need it.

It's fast, offers great flexibility in that range, and has very good IQ. Especially for sports, it's my primary workhorse (70-200 VR-I).

Yes, I have the VR-I version, and couldn't justify jumping to the VR-II for how much I'm using it (or not using it) lately. For portraits, I've been using either my Nikon 200//2 VR-I and my Sigma 85/1.4, so the 70-200 is sitting in my bag a lot, and when I travel, I tend to just carry the MUCH cheaper and lighter 70-300. (and I shoot both FX and DX) That 70-300 really is an under-rated and under-appreciated lens outside of here. But for that lens, I hear the Tamron is just as good as the Nikon, and might even have better performance at 300mm.

If you shoot wide a lot, a really nice gem is the Nikon 24/1.4G. I LOVE that lens. For the money you'd spend on the 70-200 VR-II, I think you may get a lot more satisfaction and use out of the 24mm/1.4G.

Hope this helps!

Jan 26, 2013 at 05:10 PM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Thanks for all the replies. I love primes but at this point I can't justify a $1500 or more prime. I have looked at some of the cheaper 70-200 80-200 etc options. The thing is, I do like to shoot wide open and I do a lot of video so I want vr, otherwise there are some brilliant options. The new tamron 70-200 with cc, looks great at $1500. I am just still not sure I would use it much.

Jan 26, 2013 at 10:27 PM

gatorwesty
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Buy the 70-200 on ebay used at a good price, pay with paypal "bill me later", get 18 months interest free, use the lens and have a ball with it, sell it for what you paid for it within 18 months, but you will probably keep it. I am enjoying the hell out of my vrI, until I sell it for what I paid for it.................., and get the vrII used on ebay and pay with "bill me later" etc etc etc....

Jan 26, 2013 at 11:17 PM

mfletch
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Why would you buy an expensive lens that you don't think or know if you would use? You would love the 28 1.8, but if you haven't bought yet, it might be worth taking a look at the new Sigma 35 1.4 also.

Jan 27, 2013 at 02:00 AM

Vox Sciurorum
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

I recently sold my 70-200, the first AF-S version with a good maximum reproduction ratio (no focal length "breathing"). I wasn't using it much. For long and close shots a 300 mm f/4D will do the job better and cheaper. I didn't have a lot of need to use the focal length range between 105mm and 200mm.

It was a good lens, but not the right lens for me. If I were shooting weddings or horse shows I might have a different opinion.

Jan 27, 2013 at 02:11 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

mfletch wrote:
Why would you buy an expensive lens that you don't think or know if you would use? You would love the 28 1.8, but if you haven't bought yet, it might be worth taking a look at the new Sigma 35 1.4 also.

I hear ya. I don't have any rental areas nearby and when I check into renting its not cheap. I would rather not waste money trying something out. And I agree with your point. As for the sigma, yeah wow that is a super nice lens and I have thought deeply about it vs the 1.8. I think I just need wider, as I already have a 50. . not that 35 is all that similar but I would like a little more of a difference. Ideally I wish the 28 was a 24. 1.8 I would love the 24 1.4 but I just cannot justify the price.

Jan 27, 2013 at 02:47 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

gatorwesty wrote:
Buy the 70-200 on ebay used at a good price, pay with paypal "bill me later", get 18 months interest free, use the lens and have a ball with it, sell it for what you paid for it within 18 months, but you will probably keep it. I am enjoying the hell out of my vrI, until I sell it for what I paid for it.................., and get the vrII used on ebay and pay with "bill me later" etc etc etc....

Its a sound strategy, although I no longer operate with credit. Just a resolution/pact I made. But I do like your style.

Jan 27, 2013 at 02:48 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Vox Sciurorum wrote:
I recently sold my 70-200, the first AF-S version with a good maximum reproduction ratio (no focal length "breathing"). I wasn't using it much. For long and close shots a 300 mm f/4D will do the job better and cheaper. I didn't have a lot of need to use the focal length range between 105mm and 200mm.

It was a good lens, but not the right lens for me. If I were shooting weddings or horse shows I might have a different opinion.

Yeah that is kind of my dilemma for my current uses I don't need those lengths, but I continually get asked to do paid gigs that may require that type of lens so I may be able to justify it but my experience with them are quite limited. I actually think if I had the 70-200 that I would most likely keep it on either 70 or 200 most of the time. While it is nice to have the option I just know what I like and I obviously am curious about what I am missing.

Jan 27, 2013 at 02:50 AM

Jammy Straub
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

I sold my 70-200 VR, never really missed it except in the studio. Never liked it for weddings either. To each their own. I'm an up close and wide shooter. Being a fly on the wall does not suite me.

Give me something like a 17-35 (or 24-70) and a 135mm f/2 and I'm good.

Jan 27, 2013 at 04:16 AM

Jan Brittenson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

A 70-200 is very useful for scapes of all kinds. On a recent trip to NYC I brought only the 85/1.8G and wished I had the 70-200/2.8VRII with me - constantly. Except for its size and bulk. So much so that I almost bought a 70-200/4 VR when I briefly stepped into B&H. What actually kept from it was the need to deal with the box and packaging (I save it in case I decide to sell something) and the mediocre Nikon QC (many lenses require a service trip before they perform). So I decided to wait and just order it when I got home instead.

Another place where the 70-200 excels is sports. Either small court (like basketball) or near-field for field sports like football (pick your variety - soccer or gridiron). In the latter case you have one camera with a 200-400 or 500 on a monopod and the 70-200 on a second body: when the action moves in close to your position you switch to the zoom. Photojournalism as well: you often shoot from a designated press area and a zoom gives you quick and easy framing control without multiple cameras with different lenses.

I don't shoot weddings or portraits so really have no input on whether a 70-200 or any other lens would be useful for either of those.

The two below as an example were shot from the Brooklyn Bridge pedestrian+bike path with the 85/1.8G (on a D800E), but I would have had a lot more framing options with a 70-200, and the VR would have let me shoot the first at ISO 400 instead of 1600. But 1600 is quite okay on the D800E since it needs less sharpening than the D800. The second I had a good bracing point for.

Jan 27, 2013 at 04:21 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Jammy Straub wrote:
I sold my 70-200 VR, never really missed it except in the studio. Never liked it for weddings either. To each their own. I'm an up close and wide shooter. Being a fly on the wall does not suite me.

Give me something like a 17-35 (or 24-70) and a 135mm f/2 and I'm good.

That is pretty much where I have been as well. I just can't help but wonder though, it seems that many use the 70-200 and many mention it as their first lens recommendation so it has had me puzzled.

Jan 27, 2013 at 04:47 AM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Jan,

Nice shots. I really like the 85 1.g. Your points on the 70-200 were pretty spot on, I generally dont do any work in those areas so no wonder I have not found much use for a 70-200.

Jan 27, 2013 at 05:16 AM

Two23
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.

Over the past year I've done six weddings. I use a combo of D300, D5100, and D7000 bodies. My most used lens is th3 17-55mm f2.8 (equiv. to your 24-70mm), but in every wedding I have used the Nikon 70-200mm VR f2.8 for many (if not most) shots during the ceremony. With it, I can stand in the back and take shots from a ladder that otherwise are impossible. I can't imagine doing weddings for pay and not have this lens. The f4 version would not work for me as it won't isolate my subjects as well.

Kent in SD

Jan 27, 2013 at 05:25 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end