200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008.

  1. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

    The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cynicor

    Paul Furman Guest

    Cynicor wrote:
    > I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    > photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    > Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    > at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.
    >
    > The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    > with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    > use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    > it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    > and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.


    Normally people *do* use the lens wide open for sports:
    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/nikkor_200_2_ed_
     
    Paul Furman, Feb 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Cynicor wrote:
    >> I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    >> photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    >> Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    >> at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.
    >>
    >> The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    >> with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    >> use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    >> it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    >> and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

    >
    > Normally people *do* use the lens wide open for sports:
    > http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/nikkor_200_2_ed_


    Right - maybe the company uses it for other events where they can't set
    up lights. But it would seem unwieldy in this situation.
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #3
  4. Cynicor

    John Navas Guest

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    >photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    >Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    >at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.
    >
    >The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    >with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    >use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    >it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    >and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.


    The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
    no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
    focal lengths.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 19, 2008
    #4
  5. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
    > <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >> I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    >> photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    >> Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    >> at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.
    >>
    >> The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    >> with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    >> use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    >> it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    >> and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

    >
    > The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
    > no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
    > focal lengths.


    We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
    going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
    photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
    I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #5
  6. Cynicor

    John Navas Guest

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:11:31 -0500, Cynicor
    <> wrote in
    <>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
    >> <> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>> I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    >>> photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    >>> Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    >>> at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.
    >>>
    >>> The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    >>> with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    >>> use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    >>> it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    >>> and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

    >>
    >> The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
    >> no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
    >> focal lengths.

    >
    >We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
    >going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
    >photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
    >I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)


    I can look critically at 8x10 prints side by side and tell the
    difference. I'll bet you could too.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 19, 2008
    #6
  7. John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:11:31 -0500, Cynicor
    ><> wrote in
    ><>:
    >
    >>John Navas wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
    >>> <> wrote in
    >>> <>:
    >>>
    >>>> I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    >>>> photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    >>>> Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    >>>> at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.
    >>>>
    >>>> The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    >>>> with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    >>>> use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    >>>> it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    >>>> and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.
    >>>
    >>> The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
    >>> no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
    >>> focal lengths.

    >>
    >>We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
    >>going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
    >>photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
    >>I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)

    >
    >I can look critically at 8x10 prints side by side and tell the
    >difference. I'll bet you could too.


    I doubt that. But it makes no difference anyway.

    With a fixed focal length there are going to be more
    shots that require cropping than there will if the zoom
    is used.

    The significance is apparent when two locations are
    selected to give the same relative field of view, one
    with the fixed 200mm and the other (which will be
    closer) with the zoom at 70mm. The comparison to look
    at is a shot is made with the zoom set at 200mm compared
    to a cropped image of the same area made by that fixed
    lense in the more distant location location.

    With top of the line lenses (for example Nikon's f/2.8
    zooms) the zoom will perform better.

    The fixed 200mm focal length lense at f/2 has two very
    slight advantages. One is potentially lower light and
    the other is potentially shallower depth of field. The
    difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
    (compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).

    What you've said is perhaps valid if comparing typical
    consumer grade 70-200mm f/~4 zooms, which is probably
    the only kind you've ever worked with.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 19, 2008
    #7
  8. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    []
    > The fixed 200mm focal length lens at f/2 has two very
    > slight advantages. One is potentially lower light and
    > the other is potentially shallower depth of field. The
    > difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
    > (compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).



    ... and, just possibly, if it is heavier it may have the advantage of
    greater stability (against vibration and jitter).

    The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
    would be using auto-focus for such shots.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 19, 2008
    #8
  9. Cynicor

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    > >We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
    > >going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
    > >photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
    > >I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)

    >
    > I can look critically at 8x10 prints side by side and tell the
    > difference. I'll bet you could too.


    there are too many variables between different photos to attribute any
    perceived difference to a specific lens. also, to even begin to see a
    difference requires pixel peeping, something in which you claim you
    have no interest. i am certain that you will not be able to reliably
    identify the lens used any better than pure chance.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2008
    #9
  10. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >[]
    >> The fixed 200mm focal length lens at f/2 has two very
    >> slight advantages. One is potentially lower light and
    >> the other is potentially shallower depth of field. The
    >> difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
    >> (compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).

    >
    >.. and, just possibly, if it is heavier it may have the advantage of
    >greater stability (against vibration and jitter).


    The Nikon 200mm f/2.0G weights 6.4 lbs, while the
    70-200mm f/2.8 is exactly half that, at 3.2 lbs. The
    fixed lense is actually 1/2" longer, but it has a 4.9"
    diameter as opposed to the 3.4" diameter of the zoom.

    They both have VR, but (particularly at 6.4 lbs) I just
    can't imagine shooting a entire hockey game handheld!
    Hence the VR doesn't strike me as having value for that
    particular job.

    I haven't used either. I have the older 80-200mm f/2.8
    AF ED zoom, which probably provides a very good basis
    for guessing that the two newer lenses are excellent
    tools, as it is roughly the same as the 70-200mm zoom,
    absent VR and with slower AF.

    In a nutshell, if I were making significant money from
    shooting hockey or anything similar, I would replace the
    80-200mm with the 70-200mm just to get the faster AF
    (and the occasional handheld using VR would be an added
    frill).

    >The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
    >would be using auto-focus for such shots.


    I can't imagine anyone not using AF for hockey.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 19, 2008
    #10
  11. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    > They both have VR, but (particularly at 6.4 lbs) I just
    > can't imagine shooting a entire hockey game handheld!
    > Hence the VR doesn't strike me as having value for that
    > particular job.


    Plus, you really want to shoot at 1/250 to freeze action, and the VR
    isn't going to have much effect at that speed. If you're shooting slow
    enough to use the VR, you're going to get subject motion blur.

    > In a nutshell, if I were making significant money from
    > shooting hockey or anything similar, I would replace the
    > 80-200mm with the 70-200mm just to get the faster AF
    > (and the occasional handheld using VR would be an added
    > frill).
    >
    >> The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
    >> would be using auto-focus for such shots.

    >
    > I can't imagine anyone not using AF for hockey.


    The AF is pretty valuable, but since you know that the best action is
    going to be near the goal, you can sometimes focus right on the goal
    post as a play is coming down, and wait for the action to come into focus.
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #11
  12. Cynicor wrote:

    > I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    > photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    > Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    > at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.


    It would be nice if you had time to talk to the photographer and compare his
    200mm shots to yours. This way you can see what this lens is really about.
    I have the 70-200/2.8 VR as well and I find it a great lens, though not as
    good as a 200/2.

    > The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
    > with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
    > use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
    > it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
    > and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.


    This is one of those lenses that fall into the category of if you have to
    ask you really don't need it. The biggest advantages of this lens are its
    low light performance and superior control it gives the photographer over
    DoF. The low light performance allows AF to be lightning fast. And yes,
    you will be shooting this lens wide open most of the time. I had an older
    AI version of this lens and the optics is beyond amazing.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 19, 2008
    #12
  13. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Cynicor wrote:
    >
    >> I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
    >> photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
    >> Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
    >> at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

    >
    > It would be nice if you had time to talk to the photographer and compare
    > his
    > 200mm shots to yours. This way you can see what this lens is really about.
    > I have the 70-200/2.8 VR as well and I find it a great lens, though not as
    > good as a 200/2.


    I talked to him for a while (and can get the photos from the sports
    photography site), but the comparison wouldn't be exact because he was
    shooting with a D3 and I "only" had a D300. So issues of cropping and
    comparative manhood would factor in.

    > This is one of those lenses that fall into the category of if you have to
    > ask you really don't need it. The biggest advantages of this lens are its
    > low light performance and superior control it gives the photographer over
    > DoF. The low light performance allows AF to be lightning fast. And yes,
    > you will be shooting this lens wide open most of the time. I had an older
    > AI version of this lens and the optics is beyond amazing.


    Low light wouldn't be an issue in this case, because he was Pocket
    Wizarding four lights on the ice. There was enough light to have to stop
    down to avoid overexposure. But again, they shoot a lot of events, so
    maybe it was just one of their stock lenses that they happened to be
    using here.
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #13
  14. Cynicor

    Guest

    On Feb 19, 12:00 am, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    > > The fixed 200mm focal length lens at f/2 has two very
    > > slight advantages.  One is potentially lower light and
    > > the other is potentially shallower depth of field.  The
    > > difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
    > > (compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).

    >
    > .. and, just possibly, if it is heavier it may have the advantage of
    > greater stability (against vibration and jitter).
    >
    > The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
    > would be using auto-focus for such shots.


    Manual Focus (MF) for sports, especially fast moving action is not
    what most pro's would do today. Too many missed shots. Typically, they
    would put the camera in continuous focus mode and track the subject as
    they shoot several frames/sec. I can't imagine any practical situation
    for doing this with MF.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    eNo
    http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80
     
    , Feb 19, 2008
    #14
  15. Cynicor

    Guest

    On Feb 19, 4:15 am, Cynicor <> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    > > They both have VR, but (particularly at 6.4 lbs) I just
    > > can't imagine shooting a entire hockey game handheld!
    > > Hence the VR doesn't strike me as having value for that
    > > particular job.

    >
    > Plus, you really want to shoot at 1/250 to freeze action, and the VR
    > isn't going to have much effect at that speed. If you're shooting slow
    > enough to use the VR, you're going to get subject motion blur.
    >
    > > In a nutshell, if I were making significant money from
    > > shooting hockey or anything similar, I would replace the
    > > 80-200mm with the 70-200mm just to get the faster AF
    > > (and the occasional handheld using VR would be an added
    > > frill).

    >
    > >> The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
    > >> would be using auto-focus for such shots.

    >
    > > I can't imagine anyone not using AF for hockey.

    >
    > The AF is pretty valuable, but since you know that the best action is
    > going to be near the goal, you can sometimes focus right on the goal
    > post as a play is coming down, and wait for the action to come into focus.


    That's a great way to get the wrong subject (player, goalie, puck,
    goal post) out of focus when shooting like these guys tend to shoot,
    especially in the lower light conditions of an indoor hockey area --
    wide open.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    eNo
    http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80
     
    , Feb 19, 2008
    #15
  16. Cynicor <> wrote:
    >
    >Low light wouldn't be an issue in this case, because he was Pocket
    >Wizarding four lights on the ice. There was enough light to have to stop
    >down to avoid overexposure. But again, they shoot a lot of events, so
    >maybe it was just one of their stock lenses that they happened to be
    >using here.


    I'd go with this last idea, all the way. Especially
    because he was using a D3, which probably means that
    three months ago he was using a D2X. (And I'll bet
    evolution will remove the 200mm as a standard part of
    their D3 kit within six months!)

    With a D2X, in many places (where the flash setup is not
    available) that 200mm f/2 is a real lifesaver!

    The D3 changes everything though. 200mm isn't long
    enough and f/2 is unnecessary with a camera that will
    shoot at ISO 3200 (vs. 800 with the D2X).

    With the D3 that 200mm is likely to be replaced with
    something like a 300mm or 400mm, and it won't have to
    be anything like f/2.0 to produce results.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 19, 2008
    #16
  17. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >> Low light wouldn't be an issue in this case, because he was Pocket
    >> Wizarding four lights on the ice. There was enough light to have to
    >> stop down to avoid overexposure. But again, they shoot a lot of
    >> events, so maybe it was just one of their stock lenses that they
    >> happened to be using here.

    >
    > I'd go with this last idea, all the way. Especially
    > because he was using a D3, which probably means that
    > three months ago he was using a D2X. (And I'll bet
    > evolution will remove the 200mm as a standard part of
    > their D3 kit within six months!)


    UTTER NONSENSE AND CLUELESS AT BEST!!

    The 200mm will always be a mandatory part of any pro's kit simply for its
    high performance and control over DoF.

    > With a D2X, in many places (where the flash setup is not
    > available) that 200mm f/2 is a real lifesaver!


    As is with the D3.

    > The D3 changes everything though. 200mm isn't long
    > enough and f/2 is unnecessary with a camera that will
    > shoot at ISO 3200 (vs. 800 with the D2X).


    UTTER BULLSHIT!

    200mm is plenty long, especially if you know how to use it. Floyd, using
    your logic, you might as well take a pinhole lens on your D3 to sporting
    events.

    > With the D3 that 200mm is likely to be replaced with
    > something like a 300mm or 400mm, and it won't have to
    > be anything like f/2.0 to produce results.


    A 300 and 400 is definitely nice. But, using your asinine logic a pro
    photographer would shoot the whole event with a fisheye lens. You gotta
    have variety in your kit.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Feb 19, 2008
    #17
  18. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > You gotta have variety in your kit.


    Wait, is this your way of coming out as a hermaphrodite?
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #18
  19. Cynicor

    Cynicor Guest

    wrote:
    > On Feb 19, 4:15 am, Cynicor <> wrote:
    >> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>> They both have VR, but (particularly at 6.4 lbs) I just
    >>> can't imagine shooting a entire hockey game handheld!
    >>> Hence the VR doesn't strike me as having value for that
    >>> particular job.

    >> Plus, you really want to shoot at 1/250 to freeze action, and the VR
    >> isn't going to have much effect at that speed. If you're shooting slow
    >> enough to use the VR, you're going to get subject motion blur.
    >>
    >>> In a nutshell, if I were making significant money from
    >>> shooting hockey or anything similar, I would replace the
    >>> 80-200mm with the 70-200mm just to get the faster AF
    >>> (and the occasional handheld using VR would be an added
    >>> frill).
    >>>> The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
    >>>> would be using auto-focus for such shots.
    >>> I can't imagine anyone not using AF for hockey.

    >> The AF is pretty valuable, but since you know that the best action is
    >> going to be near the goal, you can sometimes focus right on the goal
    >> post as a play is coming down, and wait for the action to come into focus.

    >
    > That's a great way to get the wrong subject (player, goalie, puck,
    > goal post) out of focus when shooting like these guys tend to shoot,
    > especially in the lower light conditions of an indoor hockey area --
    > wide open.


    Which, again, this situation wasn't. It was sufficiently lit to easily
    go down to 1/250 f/8, like I did.
     
    Cynicor, Feb 19, 2008
    #19
  20. Cynicor

    Guest

    , Feb 19, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nate Goulet
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    726
    FoxWolfie Galen
    Feb 22, 2005
  2. Sales

    Cheap CPU, RAM. PIV2.8E only US$200!!!

    Sales, Mar 7, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
    Sales
    Mar 7, 2004
  3. Magoo

    Anyone there with ISA 200(4) certification ?

    Magoo, May 5, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    490
    =?Utf-8?B?SiBBIFNhdW5kZXJz?=
    May 12, 2005
  4. Albert Voss

    Light tele for D70: Sigma 55-200 or Nikon 28-200?

    Albert Voss, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,722
    Paolo Pizzi
    Apr 11, 2004
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Tamron 18-200 vs Sigma 18-125 & 18-200

    Bill Tuthill, Aug 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,654
    Bill Tuthill
    Sep 1, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page