/p/ - Photography » Thread #3515937

[38 / 7 / ?]

53KiB, 838x588, 70200f4.jpg

70-200 lens - how do you use yours?

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 21:33:21 No.3515937 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3515956 >>3515966 >>3516026 >>3516059 >>3516615 >>3517181 >>3517208 >>3517243 >>3518247 >>3518248 >>3518546

I just bought a 70-200 F4 lens for my system. Initially I wanted three primes: 28, 50, 85. Now I decided to go with the 70-200 F4 instead of the 85 for portraits to go with my 28 & 50.

I have never used a telephoto lens, so I was wondering what kind of pictures you use your telephoto for, besides portraits. I am still discovering the possibilities, but at least for now the lens seems a bit big for my taste.

Thanks for any input and inspiration.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 21:35:30 No.3515938 Report

Quoted By: >>3515949 >>3515966 >>3515968

for things far away

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 21:55:59 No.3515944 Report

Quoted By:

the one you have with you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 22:13:00 No.3515949 Report

Quoted By: >>3515962

>>3515938
well 200 doesnt seem to reach that far away, does it?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_2995.jpg, 547KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 22:24:44 No.3515956 Report

Quoted By: >>3516106

>>3515937
Before I had a macro lens, I used my 200mm telephoto for close up flower shots. It was a weird workaround. I would zoom in as much as I could and move as close as I could to the minimum focus distance. It was fun trying to be creative with limited gear.

Now I just use the 200mm for concerts and events. I don't bother with it for portraits since it's slower than my primes.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1174.jpg, 813KiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 22:43:40 No.3515962 Report

Quoted By: >>3516006 >>3516059

>>3515949
Don't underestimate 200mm. I got stuck at the very back of a concert hall that was probably about 150-200 feet from the stage and still managed to get decent shots. It's not perfect with people's heads in the way all the time, but I'm happy with it considering the circumstances. And if you get right up to front row, you can get some real close ups of the performers.

This was shot on a crop sensor so it's technically more than 200mm but you get the idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 22:46:25 No.3515966 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515937
>I have never used a telephoto lens
>seems a bit big for my taste.
That's the nature of the beast. 70-200mm is hardly telephoto on FF.

I'm still trying to get the "perfect" setup. I've got 3 zooms (wide, normal and long) and 3 primes. A long prime is the next thing.

Obviously you can't fit all these in a camera bag but when you go out you have an intention. Just take a couple.

A fast medium tele zoom should be the first choice, then whatever.

>what kind of pictures you use your telephoto for
>>3515938

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 22:47:46 No.3515968 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515938
This, but not so far away that you'd better use a 400 or 600mm prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Aug 2019 23:50:32 No.3516006 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515962
>technically more than 200mm but you get the idea.

it's only technically more if the pixel pitch of the crop sensor you shot on is greater than any full frame your lens fits to currently, otherwise it's just a cropped in full frame sensor shot

equivalent focal length is only relevant in field of view terms

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 00:46:59 No.3516026 Report

Quoted By: >>3516125

>>3515937
>what kind of pictures you use your telephoto for

Unironically landscape/cityscape photos. Some of my absolute favourite landscapes have been taken at focal lengths at or above 70mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 02:40:18 No.3516059 Report

Quoted By: >>3516641

>>3515937
>portraits
>F4

>>3515962
>tops of heads
manlet

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC03871s.jpg, 821KiB, 2608x2608

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 06:34:11 No.3516106 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515956
Lmao I do the same but with my kit lens which gives me a maximum of 75mm on crop and a minimum focus distance of 30cm.

Can't wait to have an actual macro one day as I have to heavily crop with my current setup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 09:18:57 No.3516125 Report

Quoted By:

>>3516026
Can you post one or two? Would be interested to see them

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO melb skyline.jpg, 718KiB, 1500x751

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 12:10:17 No.3516156 Report

Quoted By: >>3516195

The first telephoto lens I ever used was the 55-250 on my 1300D. I used it for absolutely everything because it was all I could afford and was much better than the kit 18-55. Since then I've upgraded bodies and bought more lenses since I can now afford to. I'm comfortable with my 70-200 2.8 to do just about anything (given I have enough space) since I'd been using a 55-250 on a crop sensor since I first started getting into photography.

I use it for street photography, I use it for portraits, taking photos of cars, though I haven't used it for landscapes yet, but I like what my 55-250 could achieve so I can assume the 70-200 can only be better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 13:39:17 No.3516195 Report

Quoted By: >>3517312

>>3516156
nice pic, thanks for sharing. I´m thinking of maybe returning the 70 200, but have not yet decided. normally i like to keep my kit small and light, but wanted to try something new.

thb i´m a bit jelous of my gf RX100Va. Takes great images in such a small package. Might aswell just sell all of my stuff and get the new MKVII. I´m just so fucking undecided all the time, doenst help to have GAS at the same time :/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO R1-09454-036A.jpg, 1019KiB, 805x1200

Anonymous Sun 04 Aug 2019 13:44:23 No.3516200 Report

Quoted By:

70-180 ED, mostly use it for tele stuff

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Aug 2019 09:42:52 No.3516615 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515937
I got my 70-200/2.8 some 3 years ago. It is great for tighter framing, portraits, events and tight framed landscapes, or landscapes-in-a-landscape.
It has such a nice image, never crossed my mind to sell it. It certainly helps I got it for $500 like new condition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Aug 2019 10:28:05 No.3516641 Report

Quoted By:

>>3516059

At 200 you get decent enough subject separation, but I do agree since I'd rather get an 85 or 105/135 prime for portraits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 12:43:19 No.3517181 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515937
I dont have one yet because I really want a f2.8 version for my needs but the sony gm 2.8 is far too expensive. I'm waiting to see if Tamron will eventually announce one I can pair with the a7m3 but if they don't I'll roll with Sigma.
As for use, I'll use it for some portraits alongside my 85 but mostly for outdoor festivals where the reach comes in handy for the performers on stage and getting some crowd reactions. I also have plans to shoot a few small theater plays where I could in the past somewhat get by with the 85 and crop mode. The extra reach I'll have with the 70-200 would mean no need for crop mode and lost pixels or that god awful digital/optical zoom feature. Tbf I used them in a pinch but anything beyond 1.4x zoom looked like ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 13:50:24 No.3517208 Report

Quoted By: >>3517221

>>3515937
Why would you get a f4 when there's a f2.8?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 14:59:32 No.3517221 Report

Quoted By:

>>3517208
Size and weight, also the 2.8 GM is way too expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 15:58:35 No.3517243 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515937

Pretty much portraits (yes, really), stage/event shoots (so you can stay like 5m away and still get close ups, this is especially useful with lens kits) and candid shoots (so your subject can relax and forget that you are here for natural scenes).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 16:02:32 No.3517250 Report

Quoted By: >>3517285 >>3517286

How do I get an affordable one working on Sony Fe?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 17:21:31 No.3517285 Report

Quoted By:

>>3517250
I think they only viable choice now is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 sport with MC-11 adapter or though a few months ago, there were rumors that Tamron would announce a telephoto of 70-200 following the success of the 28-75 2.8. Sadly, what they did announce instead was the 17-28 and recently 35-150 which no one asked for. Anyway...I'm still saving money but from what I've looked at the Sigma seems like the best option atm and you'd save about $1200usd if you got it instead of the GM. It even has a focus hold (custom) button you could set for eye af iust like the Sonys

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 17:21:31 No.3517286 Report

Quoted By:

>>3517250
Buy an old mk I Canon or Nikon one and an adapter

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Aug 2019 19:01:12 No.3517312 Report

Quoted By: >>3517576 >>3517641

>>3516195
Tbh I think everyone should have a 70-200 and a 24-70. Those two lenses will cover about 90 percent of the shooting you’ll ever do, and keeps your kit bag from weighing a fuck ton. If you need more specialized lenses like a 400mm or a 85mm then you’ll already know that as you’re going out to shoot.

Just keep the 70-200 anon. It’s honestly one of the most versatile lenses, but it also makes you work less for good shots which is a pro/con depending how you look at it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Aug 2019 08:03:32 No.3517576 Report

Quoted By: >>3517641

>>3517312
Yeah but all the 24-70 weigh a ton if you don’t go for the f4 versions. The new ones are even bigger, like the Panasonic one...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tamron_a036_28_75mm_f_2_8_di_iii.jpg, 204KiB, 2000x2000

Anonymous Wed 07 Aug 2019 13:08:43 No.3517641 Report

Quoted By: >>3518060 >>3518166

>>3517576
Pic related. This f/2.8 isn't very heavy, just 550g. Nice IQ too. And you'll probably be just fine with 28-75 instead of 24-70.

>>3517312
> Those two lenses will cover about 90 percent of the shooting you’ll ever do, and keeps your kit bag from weighing a fuck ton.
Actually I personally tend to prefer to use a wide angle prime and a 50mm-ish prime. They actually also cover 90% of typical travel photography needs, and do so with less weight.

Sure, you can also add a 70-200mm or something in case you often like shooting animals or details on buildings or ships out on the sea. But I actually tend to omit that because I rarely care.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Aug 2019 07:23:11 No.3518060 Report

Quoted By:

>>3517641
So glad I got the 28-75 rather than the kitlens my cam would've come with. It'sunbelievable how sharp it is and didn't cost an arm and a leg comparing with the big brother equivalents. Buying the body alone and then the lenses I wanted was the best decison I made.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Aug 2019 13:59:18 No.3518166 Report

Quoted By: >>3518693

>>3517641
Any word on a 70-200 from Tamron?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Aug 2019 17:04:02 No.3518247 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515937
I put it on my camera and take photos with it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Aug 2019 17:04:33 No.3518248 Report

Quoted By: >>3518454

>>3515937
i own a 200mm 2.8L primepipe because im not a zoomer pussy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Aug 2019 00:15:57 No.3518454 Report

Quoted By: >>3518531 >>3518547

>>3518248
>he doesn't have a 300mm prime
Wassup shorty?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Aug 2019 10:03:47 No.3518531 Report

Quoted By:

>>3518454
>doesnt own a 400mm 2.8 for a hobby

Get a real job you bum

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Aug 2019 11:52:32 No.3518546 Report

Quoted By:

>>3515937
Whenever you can ditch 'landscape' and 'nighttime', it's the perfect lens on full frame.

Events, fairs, kids + zoo on apsc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Aug 2019 12:01:16 No.3518547 Report

Quoted By:

>>3518454
I have a 300mm prime but it's only f/4...

It's an awesome and light PF one though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Aug 2019 19:55:42 No.3518693 Report

Quoted By: >>3519671

>>3518166
The new 17-28 mm is already receiving great reviews, they definitely will complete the trifecta. I wouldn’t expect it for at least another year at least, maybe 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Aug 2019 01:08:38 No.3519671 Report

Quoted By:

>>3518693
Do you think they'll make it 70-200 or 75-210ish? Seems like Tamron's ranges differ slightly from the others to set themselves apart a bit

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

70-200 lens - how do you use yours?