Got me a 70-200 2.8 S last year and pondered whether I'd rather have a 100-400. Decided not to be reactionary and actually see how much I would use it. I found that the reality is...not much.
Most of what I would use it for were landscapes and environmental portraits. It is phenomenal at this but...I am never shooting it at f2.8, I am never taking advantage of lightning fast focus, and ultimately it's just not for me. I do believe I will sell it or trade it for a 100-400, which will do most of what I was using the 70-200 for and more of what I do more often...critters.
Anyway...while it's still clean...pretty certain that's what I'm gonna do.
I am definitely glad I kept it for a while rather than wondering if it was a good decision. If you're on the fence like I was...don't make a knee-jerk decision but don't keep something you know you're not gonna use...unless you just want to.
Just sharing another experience with everyone and curious as to who has gone through similar with certain pieces of gear.
As someone who has wasted tremendous of funds on hardly used gear I returned to renting lenses/bodies when uncertain. It's a good way to try out at a reasonable cost and you can sometimes buy that gear at a reduced cost if you want to keep it. I also don't use any 70-200/2.8s anymore, preferring an f/4. I don't want to utilize the wide apertures anyway.
You're right, it is not easy to predict whether you're gonig to like a given lens. One needs to understand his usage patterns well. Last week I used Claude to build me two tools.
1. The first one scans all my images, about 70k, and creates a sqlite database with all EXIF data.
2. The second tool allows me to ask questions against the database without having to mess with SQL.
For example: "Print me aperture values sorted by frequency for each lens I use", or "show me % of landscape vs portrait orientation for 50mm focal length". Or "print me a list of lenses by popularity, along with their weight".
This allows me to understand deeper how I use my equipment. Yes, it can be surprising. For years I've been shooting with auto-ISO and being obsessed with high ISO noise. Turns out, less than 0.2% of my images were exposed above ISO1600. And, as I suspected, the lighter/slower lenses got more use than faster/heavy lenses.
P.S. You may be wondering how did the lens weight get into the EXIF data. That's where AI comes in, as it detects the lens info in EXIF, pulls the lens specs along with its weight, from the Internet.
Roaming Scott has a very good point. I too have many top tier lens that I have gone back and forth with what I like to use. Your wants and desires often change due to circumstance and needs.
jbear wrote:
That's what I found...for my shooting...if I needed 70-200...I'd go back to my f4 with an adapter. It was fantastic.
Either the Tamron G2 or Nikon 70-180mm f2.8 variant would also do great for landscapes and portraits and they're significantly smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm.
I have the Nikon-branded version and it's an underrated lens imo.
For the price of the Nikkor 100-400mm, you could actually get the Tamron 70-180mm G2 and either the 50-400mm or 150-500mm. Afaik the Nikkor is the better lens than the two long Tamrons, but not a day and night difference either.
jbear wrote:
That's what I found...for my shooting...if I needed 70-200...I'd go back to my f4 with an adapter. It was fantastic.
The old 70-200 f/4 was fantastic. I missed having it for the eight or so years that my main 70-200 was the f/2.8G VRII. The f/4 was so much lighter, better at close focusing, portrait rendering was the same, etc. But I do need the f/2.8, and it didn't make sense to have both.
If you're not using the aperture, focus speed, or generally leaning wider, then I think it's safe to trade the 70-200 out for a 100-400. If you miss a dedicated 70-200, then you could always add back the old f/4, the Tamron/Nikon 70-180 f/2.8, etc.
Ha. I have the same dilemma now. I bought the 70-200 Z v1 for a trip. I did use it sporadically and mostly used for portraits. Wondering if i should trade it in and get something else.
For the purpose of consistency and to add to the discussion on FM, I am reposting the same exact comment I made on BCG...
"I've owned both lenses in question on two occasions, and I have settled on the 70-200 f2.8S... for now.
There are many reasons to choose the 100-400 over the 70-200 f2.8, as the former is an outstanding all purpose lens that would allow you to pair it with a 24-70 or 24-120, and you could have a two lens kit that would meet the needs of a lot of photography. In addition, the 100-400 is a great lens when you require close focusing.
In my case, I shoot a lot... most days of the week, and bad weather does not stop me from shooting. The internal zoom in the 70-200 is a critical design feature that I want/need. I can pair the lens with either converter and still retain this internal zoom. While I give up a little in image quality with the 2x, by f/8 all things are equal. In addition, I have both a 180-600 Z, and 400mm f2.8TC. The 70-200 is a good addition to my wildlife lenses. If you ever aspire to buy a 180-600 or 400 f4.5, the 70-200 is a better "2nd lens." If you aspire to buy a 600PF in the future, then the 100-400 is a better 2nd lens.
I suggest you think about what you hope to accomplish with your photography, and define your system to meet those goals.
There is no perfect lens combo, but there are some that make more sense than others.
jbear wrote:
Just sharing another experience with everyone and curious as to who has gone through similar with certain pieces of gear.
Bought and re-sold pretty quickly the 50mm 1.4 Z for the 1.8Z
Bought and so far have held on to a 300mm 2.8 AF that I don't really use much but since I bought it so long ago and renting 300/2.8 Nikons are considerable I don't think I've lost $ on this one. I'm on the fence about selling it because I hardly ever use it but its just so good when everything comes together.
Biggest $ loss or waste of time for Nikon Lenses for me was a 18-35mm AF-S VR G, it was a nice lens but I didn't use it enough to make it worthwhile so I sold it within the past 3 years.
I recently purchased the 24-70mm 2.8 II but its just a matter of shooting and it'll quickly earns its keep versus renting.
EB-1 wrote:
As someone who has wasted tremendous of funds on hardly used gear I returned to renting lenses/bodies when uncertain. It's a good way to try out at a reasonable cost and you can sometimes buy that gear at a reduced cost if you want to keep it. I also don't use any 70-200/2.8s anymore, preferring an f/4. I don't want to utilize the wide apertures anyway.
EBH
If you can use F 3.2 and/or 3.5 they're still giving benefits over the lenses that start at F4.
old-gregg wrote:
You're right, it is not easy to predict whether you're going to like a given lens. One needs to understand his usage patterns well. Last week I used Claude to build me two tools.
1. The first one scans all my images, about 70k, and creates a sqlite database with all EXIF data.
2. The second tool allows me to ask questions against the database without having to mess with SQL.
For example: "Print me aperture values sorted by frequency for each lens I use", or "show me % of landscape vs portrait orientation for 50mm focal length". Or "print me a list of lenses by popularity, along with their weight".
This allows me to understand deeper how I use my equipment. Yes, it can be surprising. For years I've been shooting with auto-ISO and being obsessed with high ISO noise. Turns out, less than 0.2% of my images were exposed above ISO1600. And, as I suspected, the lighter/slower lenses got more use than faster/heavy lenses.
P.S. You may be wondering how did the lens weight get into the EXIF data. That's where AI comes in, as it detects the lens info in EXIF, pulls the lens specs along with its weight, from the Internet....Show more →
That's pretty hi-tech and cool.
My low tech version years ago was grouping my "best" or favorite 20-30 pictures together and using a program to plot the focal lengths and then I'd go back through and list the F-stops.
OffTrail wrote:
The old 70-200 f/4 was fantastic. I missed having it for the eight or so years that my main 70-200 was the f/2.8G VRII. The f/4 was so much lighter, better at close focusing, portrait rendering was the same, etc. But I do need the f/2.8, and it didn't make sense to have both.
In my case owning both makes sense, and the tradeoff (as you mention) is lower weight versus light gathering. If f/2.8 is needed, like event work, then the 70-200E is ideal. It is otherwise a boat anchor that merely matches the 70-200G optically.
neoshazam wrote:
If you can use F 3.2 and/or 3.5 they're still giving benefits over the lenses that start at F4.
Please, could you explain why one third of stop, or half stop, gives benefits over a 70-200/4?
I understand that for events under very low light, 1 stop does provide benefits.
But in most situations, f/3.5 and f/4 produce the same image. Probably vignetting (which is a design-dependent feature) plays a major role.
neoshazam wrote:
If you can use F 3.2 and/or 3.5 they're still giving benefits over the lenses that start at F4.
I understand that there may be better IQ or less light falloff with an f/2.8 lens at f/4 than an f/4 lens at f/4, but I'm usually wanting DOF so f/5.6-f/8 is typical or even f/10 (with its huge Airy discs) if necessary. I often focus bracket at f/8 to get everything infinity to close in focus. I'm not capturing images of humans in situ nor into the 3D/borkah mythos either.
Landscape shooters naturally gravitate toward the 24-105/120 + 100-400 combination. That covers an enormous range with little overlap.
The 70-200/2.8 is a different kind of lens. It’s the lens that lets you leave the 85 and 135 primes at home. It really shines as a professional workhorse for events, motorsports, and any situation where you need fast AF, low-light capability, and don’t want to be changing lenses frequently.
For your use case landscapes and portraits you might actually be better served by a couple of slower f/4 zooms and two fast primes.
Ripolini wrote:
Please, could you explain why one third of stop, or half stop, gives benefits over a 70-200/4?
I understand that for events under very low light, 1 stop does provide benefits.
But in most situations, f/3.5 and f/4 produce the same image. Probably vignetting (which is a design-dependent feature) plays a major role.
There might be additional benefits but mainly I was just thinking about 2.8 has the option to shoot at 2.8 or 3.2 or 3.5 and an F4 lens starts at F4
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not finding any Voigtlander for sale in the 70-200/2.8 or f/4 range. Was that many years ago?
EBH
I was referring to 35/2 and 50/2 Apo-Lanthars.
To save costs and size, modern lenses tend to not have ligh fall-off as corrected as older designs.
The reason is trivial.
