I have a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on a Rebel XT that satisfies my photography needs for the most part (portraits, group "casual" pictures). However, I am tempted to get the canon 70-200 L f/4 IS given it outstanding reviews (my hands are not very steady, so IS is a must & the f/2.8 versions seem to be very heavy) and my craving to take tack sharp pictures.

Here is the main question. How can I make this 70-200mm (112-320) range useful to me on a Rebel XT given my photography is primarily limited to "casual/tourist" pictures? I rarely take "picture postcard" shots and always involve my family, friends or events in my shots. The only one I have come across is that it is better to take portraits with zoom lenses standing back, than a close up wide angle lens (I don't know if or why this is true). I thought some of the more experienced photographers could give me ideas.

Vijay

The longer focal lengths obviously allows you to frame similarly to the shorter zooms if you were across the street from your group or you see something far away that you like to capture more details.. The thing is whether you want to carry an extra $1,000 highly visible lens on you all the time when you're the "casual/tourist." The 70-200 zooms are great for those settings where you have the space to frame such focal lengths, necessarily variable subject distances for the zoom, and create better bokeh with the longer focal lengths.

The tack sharp pictures come from careful focusing and not due to $1,000 lenses.

By the way, I only use a 28mm if I were the "casual/tourist." I took an extra 20mm with me when I hiked the Half Dome this past spring.

The 70-200 f4 will definitely provide you with nice photos from a technical perspective if used correctly. That being said, on a crop body, you are going to be looking at head shots and head and shoulder portraits of people unless you are a good distance away. The thing with a telephoto portrait lens is that the background will be blurred out significantly. It makes for a lovely photo of the person, but if you are looking to place that person in a specific environment, it won't help. For instance, take a photo of your wife standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon at 200mm f4 and you might as well take the photo in your backyard - the background will not be in focus.

The reason the longer lens is better for portraits is two fold. One, as mentioned above, you get a nicely blurred, uncluttered background. The longer the focal length and the greater the distance the subject is from the background, the more out of focus the background is going to be. Two, wider angle lenses tend to distort the perspective when too close. The nose tends to look bigger than it should. With the telephoto, everything is nice and compressed.

As for other "casual/tourist" pictures, it is hard to say because it really depends on your style. Some people are drawn to the "reduction" of the compositions when shooting telephoto. It allows you to get in tight with your lens and pick apart a scene by taking close crop photos of the various parts. Suffice it to say, with a 17-50 and a 70-200, there will be very little that you won't be able to photograph effectively.

EltonTeng is right though. The long white lens does draw more attention, sometimes unwanted attention. If you travel alot, it is a nice travel lens. Just keep your eyes (and your hands) on it at all times.

Hope this helps.
Michael

Thank you for your tips. Since I am unsure about using this range, I decided to go with a Sigma 55-200 lens (which seem to have surprisingly good reviews for a 150$ lens) and experiment with it a bit before jumping into a big ticket lens.