Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Question What about an advanced telephoto lens

    Advice on the 70-200mm f/2.8

    Assuming you already have upgraded your 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 “kit” lens to something of a bit more quality, such as a CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 or the TAMRON 17-50mm f./2.8 or the TAMRON 28-75mm f/2.8, you are probably in the market for a telephoto lens.

    Experience has shown that if you want a serious telephoto lens on your camera, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is the way to go. It offers indoor capability, plus a much sharper image, overall, than a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. The design of a 70-200 is far more complex than the average 70-300 and as such, the image is usually sharper and better focused. It weighs more than the 70-300, because of the amount of glass involved and is usually longer. The nice thing about a 70-200 is that it normally does not change outer dimension, no matter what zoom length you have chosen, so it would be hard to mechanically damage.

    In order to save a lot of time and money, in my opinion, the “best bang for the buck” is the TAMRON SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD MACRO, for around $700. Now, this lens is not the fastest-to-focus, in the class, but the image quality is very much on par or equal to the best in the class. It is also as bright as any of the others, also, at f/2.8. You will find yourself hard-pressed to find anything at a lower cost, new.

    An f/2.8 lens is designed to give you a fighting chance, indoors, where a f/4 lens simply cannot. If you are shooting in reduced light, it will be a struggle at f/2.8 … but probably impossible with a f/4. Also, f/2.8 allows you a softer background, when you take well considered shots.

    With a TAMRON 28-75mm f/2.8 & the 70-200mm f/2.8, you will have most bases covered, in two lenses, for just around $1000. If you chose to go the SONY route, using the CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM … you are looking close to $2500. Can you imagine what you could also get for that extra $1500? I mean, if you are making money with your camera, that’s one thing … it is a business write-off, but if you are just having fun with your hobby? Well, to me, that is entirely different. I know how to spend my money.

    Just food for thought, in these economically challenged times.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,760
    it is a business write-off

    DING DING DING

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    So if one has listened to advice and suggestions and so far has been well pleased what addirtional advice would one give to me. I have the Tamron 17-50 and the Tamron 70-200mm as we know, so do we fill in the gap? do we sell the 17-50 and go for the 28-75? or do we go in another direction? There is this 85MM that looks pretty sweet! And a flash unit 42 or all the way with a 58 would really round out the kit.
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    Sean if you aren't missing the lack of high speed 50-70, I think you should start investing in some of the serious primes. CZ or G. And flashes like you mentioned.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I often considered gap-fill and wound up with just the 28-75 as my outdoor run about lens. Indoors, it is usually the 17-50.

    One of the "busts" on the CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 is the loss of DOF at the high end. With the 28-75mm f/2.8, you do not get that, so that's the way I roll. Having both the 17-50 and the 28-75 costs just as much as having JUST the 16-80 ... without the "DOF" penalty. When you put a CP-filter on the 16-80, you will know exactly what I mean. Suddenly, we are up around f/6.3 ... instead of f/4.5 ... due to the filter.

    The CZ 85mm f/1.4 PRIME's advantage is the wide aperture, of course, and that it weighs less than the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, to use. I had that (having BOTH) scenario with my Canon EOS 20D. I found myself using the 70-200mm much more than the 85mm. Then again, you have to step up to get close with the 85mm ... the 70-200mm allows you to stay were you are and just give it a twist, as it were. Ahhh ...
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-20-2009 at 04:30 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    Filling the gap is pointless...step a few feet forward or back, no more gap. Not worth spending more $ for that 20mm difference IMO.

    I'd stick with the 17-50 so you have the wide angle on the camera when you need it.
    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I totally agree ... and as far as wide goes ... grabbed me a 10-20 to cover that base, too.

    BTW: In my opinion, and for what it is worth and between you, me and the four walls ... (nuff said, already, Geez!) having an assortment of good glass is hot stuff. The more ... the merrier.

    As you can plainly see, everyone has their own way of doing things ... which is great, unless you are trying to coordinate & concentrate firepower on a specific point. You make due with what you have on hand ... and if that's a lot of good stuff, the better for you, I say.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-20-2009 at 05:21 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Can you imagine what you could also get for that extra $1500? I mean, if you are making money with your camera, that’s one thing … it is a business write-off, but if you are just having fun with your hobby? Well, to me, that is entirely different. I know how to spend my money.
    yes, i could imagine. i could imagine that what you'd get is better glass.
    quality over quantity.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    yes, i could imagine. i could imagine that what you'd get is better glass.
    quality over quantity.
    I agree, but, for these two lenses specifically, it seems that the Tamron is probably the better of the two 17-50mm vs the 16-80mm.



    I've been wanting to consolidate my lesnes lately and think I have my first permanent keeper, the 100mm Sony F/2.8 macro. It's just perfect. Much better than the Tamron 90mm. Sharper, faster to AF, and has a longer MFD (which does wonders for 1:1). Now I don't need any psudo macro zooms (1:2, 1:3, etc....) with ultra close MFDs. I'll take a longer MFD which leads to faster AF speeds and leave the macro to the dedicated macro lens.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    I am right there with you on this, Ryan. That was precisely why I chose the TAMRON SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD MACRO. That puppy has a fixed outer dimension and does not scare off the subjects, when you focus. You can also back off substantially with it for your 1:1 MACRO. It also has no CA to speak off, because of the twin LD elements, which eliminates a typically annoying side-effect from long glass.

    Name:  180mm-elements.jpg
Views: 135
Size:  41.1 KB

    For the $600 I paid for it ... it has been an excellent PRIME lens.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 02-20-2009 at 07:32 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr® & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •