Show me images from a 70-200 f/2.8 in the parks

[KarenAylwood]

I was JUST thinking about whether or not I should lug my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 with me on our next trip. Ughhhhh!!! These amazing pictures are telling me I need to!!

[NLD]

This thread is making me wish I'd pulled my 80-200 out more on the last trip... only carried it a couple days and then only pulled it out for two shows.

[giantstu]

The Canon 70-200 2.8L IS is my everyday lens sometimes cobined with a 1.4x converter, i have also carried my 400 2.8L for the day at animal kingdom

[HPS3]

All of these shots are fantastic!!!! Is this the Pro thread? LOL! I would have never guessed to use a Tele zoom at WDW. Most of my shots are wide.

[wbeem]

Originally Posted by HPS3

All of these shots are fantastic!!!! Is this the Pro thread? LOL! I would have never guessed to use a Tele zoom at WDW. Most of my shots are wide.

Most of the time, I will visit a park with just one lens. When I take the 70-200mm with me, I adapt to its strengths.

For example, it's great for portraits. It has a better bokeh than my other lenses, so it's great for isolating subjects. Naturally, it has more reach for subjects that are farther away (performances, animals).

Sometimes you need to put your viewer right in the face of your subject. Then there's no doubt where they should look. With some wide angle shots, there are so many things going on that a person may not know which element is the important subject. You have to pick a subject that stands out above all others in your photo.

Here's an example of using a wide-angle lens with an identifiable subject.



The octopus is definitely the star of the show here. Otherwise, who would really care about a picture of some tables in a restaurant? Not that interesting.

Any lens can be the right lens in the park if it helps you tell a story or pop your subject.

[grizzy77]

Playing hide & seek behind America (got to keep the kiddies happy while "drinking around the world" during food & wine)

[grizzy77]

If you have a large bag then why is this putting you over what will fit? What are you taking with you?

I take my 5d, 17-40, 70-200 or 100 2.8 macro, & a prime (either my 28mm or 50mm). You might be overdoing it.

[Experiment_626]

Originally Posted by grizzy77

If you have a large bag then why is this putting you over what will fit? What are you taking with you?

I take my 5d, 17-40, 70-200 or 100 2.8 macro, & a prime (either my 28mm or 50mm). You might be overdoing it.

I have two camera bodies(D300 and D7000), a 50 mm f/1.8, a 35mm f/1.8, a 10-20 UWA, an 8mm fisheye, a 17-50 f/2.8, a 55-300 VR, and the aforementioned 70-200. Getting all that in one bag is a challenge at best, and is indeed overdoing it most days. I already know I'll likely leave the 50mm in the car — but the space I'd save from that isn't all that meaningful. Might leave one of the bodies out most days, but I'd like to have the D300 set up for family photos at times — probably not on days I'd take the 70-200!

SSB

[Experiment_626]

Thanks for the samples, folks.

What I see confirmed what I suspected, pretty much. I might bring in the big lens on day where I wanted to shoot shows, details, and candid family portraits. Otherwise, it is just too big and unwieldy, given that I have alternatives. Many of those same shots could be achieved with my 55-300. Even though it isn't as fast, it has more reach. Also, it is much lighter and has VR which the 70-200 doesn't. But I could still see carving out a day for it — it reduces the background to a beautiful wash of color. In truth, though, the 55-300 does a pretty good job of that on close-up subjects, and (IIRC) focusses more closely, which tends to compensate for the smaller max aperture. And it gives pretty decent bokeh as well, to be honest.

SSB

[2Tiggies]

Originally Posted by Experiment_626

Also, it is much lighter and has VR which the 70-200 doesn't.

I have always been curious as to whether there is any point having a long range lens without VR unless you are using a tripod most or all of the time. I just assumed that zooming in to, say 150 mm for the sake of a random example, is going to subject the image to so much camera shake unless it's on a tripod. How does your non VR handle that hand held?

[mom2rtk]

Originally Posted by 2Tiggies

I have always been curious as to whether there is any point having a long range lens without VR unless you are using a tripod most or all of the time. I just assumed that zooming in to, say 150 mm for the sake of a random example, is going to subject the image to so much camera shake unless it's on a tripod. How does your non VR handle that hand held?

I have the Sigma 50-150 without OS. It wasn't available back when I bought it. I love the range of this lens and always figured I'd upgrade when the new OS version came out. Well, it just did. But it's about pound heavier and an inch longer so now I'm not sure I'll do it. I can carry this one along without feeling like I'm lugging around a hulk of a lens. I do like this range, but don't want that much more weight. I guess for now I'll just make do. But yes, there are many occasions where I wish I had OS, even with the 2.8.

[2Tiggies]

Originally Posted by mom2rtk

I have the Sigma 50-150 without OS. It wasn't available back when I bought it. I love the range of this lens and always figured I'd upgrade when the new OS version came out. Well, it just did. But it's about pound heavier and an inch longer so now I'm not sure I'll do it. I can carry this one along without feeling like I'm lugging around a hulk of a lens. I do like this range, but don't want that much more weight. I guess for now I'll just make do. But yes, there are many occasions where I wish I had OS, even with the 2.8.

Thanks for that. I noticed the weight differences (and of course it costs more for stabilization) but I don't mind carrying a heavy kit around with me. I really am a bit of an object of teasing when it comes to that But I know what my interests and limitations are at this stage so for me it's going to have to have some sort of OS

Thanks

[Experiment_626]

Originally Posted by 2Tiggies

I have always been curious as to whether there is any point having a long range lens without VR unless you are using a tripod most or all of the time. I just assumed that zooming in to, say 150 mm for the sake of a random example, is going to subject the image to so much camera shake unless it's on a tripod. How does your non VR handle that hand held?

I've had some success in handholding the lens in good light, mostly shooting flowers at close to the minimum focus distance -- if I shoot at my high-speed advance rate. I might shoot six or eight shots and get one keeper. But that's a pretty demanding use where the slightest movement means the difference between a sharp image and a blur. Even with VR, it's tricky; the VR handles minor side-to-side movement with aplomb, but it can't do anything about tiny movements forward and backward.

Truthfully, the main reasons I wanted the lens were for possible sports photography (where I'd expect to have it on a monopod) and in portraits, where I'd likely have it on a tripod. So, while it would certainly be nice to have VR (or "VC" as Tamron calls it), I didn't think it was critical for my use.

SSB

[NLD]

I have a 80-200 without VR and it does fine. You just have to keep the shutter speed fast enough. That does mean cranking up the ISO in poor light.

Indoors, no windows, dimmed fluorescents at 200mm: f/2.8, 1/200, ISO 5000


PAPSRS-1670 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

Indoors, mostly window light at 200mm: f/4, 1/200, ISO 1600


PAPSRS_WRAPforKids-1851 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

Outdoors, shade at 116mm: f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 1600


20120131-DSC_0448 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

Obviously inside, dark, stage lights at 80mm: f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 2500


20120131-DSC_0218 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

[NLD]

By the way, grizzy77.... all your shots, are lovely, but I love that second one of the prayer flags. Never seen them shot that way.... just lovely.