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

Discussion in 'Photography Board' started by Experiment_626, Jun 14, 2012.

  1. grizzy77

    grizzy77 Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


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


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  2. Avatar

    Google AdSense Guest Advertisement


    to hide this advert.
  3. grizzy77

    grizzy77 Mouseketeer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    95
    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.
     
  4. Experiment_626

    Experiment_626 Stealth Geek

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,652
    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
     
  5. Experiment_626

    Experiment_626 Stealth Geek

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,652
    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
     
  6. 2Tiggies

    2Tiggies DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    19,672
    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?
     
  7. mom2rtk

    mom2rtk DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    32,955
    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.
     
  8. 2Tiggies

    2Tiggies DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    19,672
    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 :lmao: 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
     
  9. Experiment_626

    Experiment_626 Stealth Geek

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,652
    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
     
  10. NLD

    NLD DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,514
    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

    [​IMG]
    PAPSRS-1670 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

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

    [​IMG]
    PAPSRS_WRAPforKids-1851 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

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

    [​IMG]
    20120131-DSC_0448 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr

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

    [​IMG]
    20120131-DSC_0218 by nicole_lynn_, on Flickr
     
  11. NLD

    NLD DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,514
    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.
     
  12. South Carolina

    South Carolina DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Two taken from the top of the Contemporary with the 70-200, also a good example of the range of the lens. Top photo is 200mm and bottom is 70mm.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Ms. Shuttergirl

    Ms. Shuttergirl DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,043
    South Carolina - I love these two shots. Do you mind if I ask your exact settings. They are stunning.
     
  14. MolonLabe

    MolonLabe DTOM

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    wow, first thank you to everyone who shared their 70-200 pics.

    I really think my thoughts for wanting to have a 70-200 f/2.8 for wdw were right on target.

    For those of you using them, do you prefer the 70-200 over a 50-150 f2.8?
     
  15. South Carolina

    South Carolina DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Thank you Ms. Shuttergirl. I sent you a PM with the EXIF information on both photos.
     
  16. MarkBarbieri

    MarkBarbieri Semi-retired

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    5,910
    The 70-200 f/2.8 is one of my favorite lenses. It's a great lens for taking pictures of people.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  17. MolonLabe

    MolonLabe DTOM

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    969
    I was robbed! ;)

    Great pics, I was hoping you'd post them to the thread :teacher:
     
  18. wkrider

    wkrider DVC home: Wilderness Lodge Villas

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,002
    Just ordered this lens for my K-7. Very excited about using it.:cool1::cool1:
     
  19. wkrider

    wkrider DVC home: Wilderness Lodge Villas

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,002
  20. Mckymousefn

    Mckymousefn DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
  21. Mckymousefn

    Mckymousefn DIS Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,255
    Would you mind sharing with me? :rolleyes2
     

Share This Page