If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. And
since 50mm is not wide angle, it should be easier than a wide to portrait zoom, like 28-85/2.8. 50-200/2.8 should also be useful on full frame. Is the 4x zoom too difficult? If so, is 50-150/2.8 useful on full frame? http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
"AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. That depends on what you use the lens for. We're talking 80~320 vs. 112~320. In my book that's not a lot, and either would be good for portraits and more. And since 50mm is not wide angle, it should be easier than a wide to portrait zoom, like 28-85/2.8. Easier than what? 28 isn't very wide at 1.6x 50-200/2.8 should also be useful on full frame. Again, depends on what you are shooting. Is the 4x zoom too difficult? Difficult how? If so, is 50-150/2.8 useful on full frame? Again, depends on what you are shooting. None of the lenses you mention are wide angle lenses, expecially at 1.6x, so you may have problems shooting in tight areas, landscapes, interiors and other photos that require a wide angle. Also, while I like a zoom in the 80~200 range (I have one), many sports photographers might want something longer. If you told us what you like to shoot we might be able to give you some suggestions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
Sheldon wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. That depends on what you use the lens for. We're talking 80~320 vs. 112~320. In my book that's not a lot, and either would be good for portraits and more. And since 50mm is not wide angle, it should be easier than a wide to portrait zoom, like 28-85/2.8. Easier than what? 28 isn't very wide at 1.6x 50-200/2.8 should also be useful on full frame. Again, depends on what you are shooting. Is the 4x zoom too difficult? Difficult how? If so, is 50-150/2.8 useful on full frame? Again, depends on what you are shooting. None of the lenses you mention are wide angle lenses, expecially at 1.6x, so you may have problems shooting in tight areas, landscapes, interiors and other photos that require a wide angle. Also, while I like a zoom in the 80~200 range (I have one), many sports photographers might want something longer. It may be convenient to zoom a large range, from the widest to the longest you can lift. But it is difficult to make a good zoom with a large range. For "normal" need, the focal range from medium wide to medium tele is most useful, e.g., 24-85/2.8 on full frame. But on SLR, because of the mirror, the need of retro focus makes it difficult to make a good wide angle. 70-200/2.8 is popular on full frame. But on 1.6x it is limited for indoor portrait, because of the limited working distance. Even on full frame, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. But nobody makes one. Is it because it is too difficult to make a good one? 50mm does not have the difficulty of retro focus. So is it because the 4x zoom range is too large and difficult to make? If so, is 50-150/2.8 not more difficult than 70-200/2.8? I prefer 50-150/2.8 better, even on full frame. Better yet, maybe a 45-135/2.8 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
"AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... Sheldon wrote: "AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. That depends on what you use the lens for. We're talking 80~320 vs. 112~320. In my book that's not a lot, and either would be good for portraits and more. And since 50mm is not wide angle, it should be easier than a wide to portrait zoom, like 28-85/2.8. Easier than what? 28 isn't very wide at 1.6x 50-200/2.8 should also be useful on full frame. Again, depends on what you are shooting. Is the 4x zoom too difficult? Difficult how? If so, is 50-150/2.8 useful on full frame? Again, depends on what you are shooting. None of the lenses you mention are wide angle lenses, expecially at 1.6x, so you may have problems shooting in tight areas, landscapes, interiors and other photos that require a wide angle. Also, while I like a zoom in the 80~200 range (I have one), many sports photographers might want something longer. It may be convenient to zoom a large range, from the widest to the longest you can lift. But it is difficult to make a good zoom with a large range. For "normal" need, the focal range from medium wide to medium tele is most useful, e.g., 24-85/2.8 on full frame. But on SLR, because of the mirror, the need of retro focus makes it difficult to make a good wide angle. 70-200/2.8 is popular on full frame. But on 1.6x it is limited for indoor portrait, because of the limited working distance. Even on full frame, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. But nobody makes one. Is it because it is too difficult to make a good one? 50mm does not have the difficulty of retro focus. So is it because the 4x zoom range is too large and difficult to make? If so, is 50-150/2.8 not more difficult than 70-200/2.8? I prefer 50-150/2.8 better, even on full frame. Better yet, maybe a 45-135/2.8 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr IMHO some of your conclusions make so sense. I don't understand your comment about a 70~200 being popular at full frame, but limited to portrait work at 1.6x. An ideal lens is very subjective based on the kind of work you do and the images you are looking for. Don't expect the camera manufacturers to make a lens to your specifications. Most new DSLR's come with a wide to medium telephoto (around 18mm to 70mm). When combined with the next telephoto (70mm to 200 or 300) you've just covered a lot of territory except for the avid sports photographer or nature photographer. Then there's the person who needs a macro. Nikon makes an 18~200 and a 55~200. That's pretty damn close to what you want and then some. Neither are 2.8, but just kick up the ISO a couple of notches. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
According to Sheldon :
"AaronW" wrote in message [ ... ] 70-200/2.8 is popular on full frame. But on 1.6x it is limited for indoor portrait, because of the limited working distance. [ ... ] IMHO some of your conclusions make so sense. I don't understand your comment about a 70~200 being popular at full frame, but limited to portrait work at 1.6x. If you will look carefully at the text which you quoted, he said "limited *for* *indoor* portrait work" (that is -- not totally suitable), not "limited *to* portrait work" (that is -- suitable only for). And I agree that its minimum effective focal length is a bit long for such use (70mm x 1.6 crop factor gives an effective focal length of 112mm). Outdoors, where there is usually more room, it is a bit more usable. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
Sheldon wrote:
"AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... Sheldon wrote: "AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. That depends on what you use the lens for. We're talking 80~320 vs. 112~320. In my book that's not a lot, and either would be good for portraits and more. And since 50mm is not wide angle, it should be easier than a wide to portrait zoom, like 28-85/2.8. Easier than what? 28 isn't very wide at 1.6x 50-200/2.8 should also be useful on full frame. Again, depends on what you are shooting. Is the 4x zoom too difficult? Difficult how? If so, is 50-150/2.8 useful on full frame? Again, depends on what you are shooting. None of the lenses you mention are wide angle lenses, expecially at 1.6x, so you may have problems shooting in tight areas, landscapes, interiors and other photos that require a wide angle. Also, while I like a zoom in the 80~200 range (I have one), many sports photographers might want something longer. It may be convenient to zoom a large range, from the widest to the longest you can lift. But it is difficult to make a good zoom with a large range. For "normal" need, the focal range from medium wide to medium tele is most useful, e.g., 24-85/2.8 on full frame. But on SLR, because of the mirror, the need of retro focus makes it difficult to make a good wide angle. 70-200/2.8 is popular on full frame. But on 1.6x it is limited for indoor portrait, because of the limited working distance. Even on full frame, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. But nobody makes one. Is it because it is too difficult to make a good one? 50mm does not have the difficulty of retro focus. So is it because the 4x zoom range is too large and difficult to make? If so, is 50-150/2.8 not more difficult than 70-200/2.8? I prefer 50-150/2.8 better, even on full frame. Better yet, maybe a 45-135/2.8 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr IMHO some of your conclusions make so sense. I don't understand your comment about a 70~200 being popular at full frame, but limited to portrait work at 1.6x. I think he's saying that at full frame the short end is about right for indoor portrait but at 1.6x it's too long. A 40-125 would be about the equivalent at 1.6x of a 70-200 on full frame. An ideal lens is very subjective based on the kind of work you do and the images you are looking for. Don't expect the camera manufacturers to make a lens to your specifications. Most new DSLR's come with a wide to medium telephoto (around 18mm to 70mm). When combined with the next telephoto (70mm to 200 or 300) you've just covered a lot of territory except for the avid sports photographer or nature photographer. Then there's the person who needs a macro. Nikon makes an 18~200 and a 55~200. That's pretty damn close to what you want and then some. Neither are 2.8, but just kick up the ISO a couple of notches. Doesn't have the same effect on depth of field. If what you need is 2.8 at 3200 then kicking up the ISO isn't an option. -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Sheldon wrote: "AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... Sheldon wrote: "AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. That depends on what you use the lens for. We're talking 80~320 vs. 112~320. In my book that's not a lot, and either would be good for portraits and more. And since 50mm is not wide angle, it should be easier than a wide to portrait zoom, like 28-85/2.8. Easier than what? 28 isn't very wide at 1.6x 50-200/2.8 should also be useful on full frame. Again, depends on what you are shooting. Is the 4x zoom too difficult? Difficult how? If so, is 50-150/2.8 useful on full frame? Again, depends on what you are shooting. None of the lenses you mention are wide angle lenses, expecially at 1.6x, so you may have problems shooting in tight areas, landscapes, interiors and other photos that require a wide angle. Also, while I like a zoom in the 80~200 range (I have one), many sports photographers might want something longer. It may be convenient to zoom a large range, from the widest to the longest you can lift. But it is difficult to make a good zoom with a large range. For "normal" need, the focal range from medium wide to medium tele is most useful, e.g., 24-85/2.8 on full frame. But on SLR, because of the mirror, the need of retro focus makes it difficult to make a good wide angle. 70-200/2.8 is popular on full frame. But on 1.6x it is limited for indoor portrait, because of the limited working distance. Even on full frame, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. But nobody makes one. Is it because it is too difficult to make a good one? 50mm does not have the difficulty of retro focus. So is it because the 4x zoom range is too large and difficult to make? If so, is 50-150/2.8 not more difficult than 70-200/2.8? I prefer 50-150/2.8 better, even on full frame. Better yet, maybe a 45-135/2.8 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr IMHO some of your conclusions make so sense. I don't understand your comment about a 70~200 being popular at full frame, but limited to portrait work at 1.6x. I think he's saying that at full frame the short end is about right for indoor portrait but at 1.6x it's too long. A 40-125 would be about the equivalent at 1.6x of a 70-200 on full frame. An ideal lens is very subjective based on the kind of work you do and the images you are looking for. Don't expect the camera manufacturers to make a lens to your specifications. Most new DSLR's come with a wide to medium telephoto (around 18mm to 70mm). When combined with the next telephoto (70mm to 200 or 300) you've just covered a lot of territory except for the avid sports photographer or nature photographer. Then there's the person who needs a macro. Nikon makes an 18~200 and a 55~200. That's pretty damn close to what you want and then some. Neither are 2.8, but just kick up the ISO a couple of notches. Doesn't have the same effect on depth of field. If what you need is 2.8 at 3200 then kicking up the ISO isn't an option. -- --John Yeah. I forgot about the DOF problems, especially for portraits. I also like a nice big aperture for portraits. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
"AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... 70-200/2.8 is popular on full frame. But on 1.6x it is limited for indoor portrait, because of the limited working distance. 70-200 is popular on full frame _because_ it is useful as a portrait lens. On a 1.6x crop, it is too long, working out as a 112mm to 320mm, a tad too long to be useful indoors, unless you are shooing portraits the length of the Hall of Mirrors at Versaille Even on full frame, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8. But nobody makes one. Is it because it is too difficult to make a good one? 50mm does not have the difficulty of retro focus. So is it because the 4x zoom range is too large and difficult to make? If so, is 50-150/2.8 not more difficult than 70-200/2.8? I prefer 50-150/2.8 better, even on full frame. Better yet, maybe a 45-135/2.8 IS. 4x zooms tend to have more optical compromises than ones of lesser zoom ratios. A 50-150 would be ok, I'd not have to switch from my 24-70 f2.8 to my 70-200 as often. But camera mfrs would go nuts trying to satisfy specific wants of millions of photographers. A 70-200 isn't very far off of your ideal of 50-150. -- Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
According to SkipM :
"AaronW" wrote in message ups.com... [ ... ] 4x zooms tend to have more optical compromises than ones of lesser zoom ratios. A 50-150 would be ok, I'd not have to switch from my 24-70 f2.8 to my 70-200 as often. But camera mfrs would go nuts trying to satisfy specific wants of millions of photographers. A 70-200 isn't very far off of your ideal of 50-150. We keep talking in terms of a 1.6 crop factor which suggests Canon camera bodies, but I think that Nikon has been mentioned quite a few times in this thread as well. While I would like the extra speed, recently I have been using an AF Nikkor 35-135mm f3.5-4.5, which is a bit under that 4:1 zoom ratio which have been mentioned as having too many compromises. This one is 3.86:1 FWIW. I like the weight of the 18-70mm "kit" lens for the D70, but this one is a better fit to most of my shooting -- and, since it is an old lens, it was more affordable. IIRC, about $100.00. I also have used the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 quite a bit, and it has its strong points as well. Both it and the 35-135mm have nice macro modes which are quite useful for occasional things. A 50-193mm would have about the same zoom ratio, and might be pretty useful, but the 35mm end of the current lens gets me close to the 50mm *effective* focal length (52.5mm actually). Yes -- all of these lenses are missing the ability to really minimize the depth of field, so for that, I have either the AF 50mm f1.4 (effective 75mm focal length), or the converted manual focus 180mm f2.8 (effective 270mm focal length) which is certainly the heaviest of the group. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
50-200/2.8
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|