|
|
Regular
Posts: 65
| There was a post not to long ago about lenses people are using. I'm looking to invest in a 70-200. Does anyone use that lense and are you having success with taking quality pictures, action and still shots. Thanks in advance |
|
| |
|
 Born not Made
Posts: 2937
  
Location: North Dakota | I'm definately an amateur because I can't even remember what my "long" lens is, LOL. I do know it goes up to 200 but I can't remember what the lower number goes to.
I have a Canon 70 D so both of my lenses are also from Canon too. I like using the longer lenses for barrel races because I can zoom right in.
I don't sell my photos -- just take them for fun and share with the riders, since I'm at the barrel race anyway! Here's a few of my faves, taken with the long lens.
|
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1286
Location: Mississippi | I LOVE LOVE LOVE my 70-200mm. Did I mention love? Lol. Seriously, it rarely leaves my camera. If you have the budget I would suggest going with the 70-200 2.8 - you won't regret it. It will also make a difference whether you are using a full frame camera. I am a Nikon girl but I am sure Canon makes a comparible lense. I grabbed these off of Facebook so quality isn't as good as it is straight out of camera but these were all taken with thatlense :)
edited to add: sorry they came out so big! And yes, I am weird - I did a "mareternity" session with my mare lol 
Edited by turtleaut 2017-08-10 4:53 PM
 (copper.jpg)
 (mickjagger.jpg)
 (truman.jpg)
 (shelby.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 copper.jpg (38KB - 213 downloads)
mickjagger.jpg (66KB - 225 downloads)
truman.jpg (89KB - 214 downloads)
shelby.jpg (84KB - 237 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
 Take a Picture
Posts: 12842
| Most of the nicer lens come with different focal lengths. The shorter focal lengths are usually $300 to $400 cheaper. The longer focal length will take superior pictures and is worth the investment. My Canon 70-200 was about $1600 about 8 years ago. I have a Canon 28-135 that I use more often. Lighter and much easier to shot with. WAy cheaper too. It came with a camera body so have no idea as to cost. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1430
Location: Montana | I had to look mine up on Amazon . . . shoot I've had it for 12 years! And loved it every minute.
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH5/ref=oh_aui_search_det...
I couldn't afford the 2.8 plus I was worried about having it get too heavy for long sessions of trying to photo foals. The newer 2.8's don't look as heavy? I'm sure they are worth the cash if you have it.
I also tried a cheaper one at the time. Ordered them both at the same time from Amazon and used them both, very carefully, for 25 days and returned the cheaper one. I really couldn't get the shots I could get with the better one. It couldn't autofocus fast enough on those squirrely baby colts!
There are newer versions, so I'm not recommending mine now, although that is a decent price. It's about what I paid 12 years ago. I would think whatever is the newest version of this lens would be great!
I don't do a lot of action shots . . . but for taking photos of horses to sell I think it is the best option. Photos of horses from phones make me nuts! You can't see the horse's conformation. Heads and hips are distorted, etc. You just need a long lens to get the proper proportions.
You can have my shotgun if you really want it. But you'll have to pry this lens out of my cold dead hands. ;-)
|
|
| |
|
Take a Picture
Posts: 12842
| ausranch - 2017-08-11 6:07 PM
I had to look mine up on Amazon . . . shoot I've had it for 12 years! And loved it every minute.
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH5/ref=oh_aui_search_det...
I couldn't afford the 2.8 plus I was worried about having it get too heavy for long sessions of trying to photo foals. The newer 2.8's don't look as heavy? I'm sure they are worth the cash if you have it.
I also tried a cheaper one at the time. Ordered them both at the same time from Amazon and used them both, very carefully, for 25 days and returned the cheaper one. I really couldn't get the shots I could get with the better one. It couldn't autofocus fast enough on those squirrely baby colts!
There are newer versions, so I'm not recommending mine now, although that is a decent price. It's about what I paid 12 years ago. I would think whatever is the newest version of this lens would be great!
I don't do a lot of action shots . . . but for taking photos of horses to sell I think it is the best option. Photos of horses from phones make me nuts! You can't see the horse's conformation. Heads and hips are distorted, etc. You just need a long lens to get the proper proportions.
You can have my shotgun if you really want it. But you'll have to pry this lens out of my cold dead hands. ;- )
You got a buy on that lens. I will make two recommendations. First of all, get a polarizing filter that fits the end of that lens to protect he actual lens and never take your lens off outside or put it on the camera when you get to the place you are going to take pictures. It is too easy to get "stuff" on the digital sensor. It really needs to go back to Canon to be cleaned and is about $200 up.
I wondered why there was such a huge difference in price so I checked out your lens and mine. Going by the link you posted, your lens does not have IS and mine does. This means that if you drop the lens or bump it heard there will be no damage. I take very good care of my camera so it may not be necessary but you never know when it will accidentally get dropped. I bought mine in a camera shop.
Edited by streakysox 2017-08-12 9:53 AM
|
|
| |
|
 Worst.Housekeeper.EVER.
Location: Missouri | I started taking photos profesionally this year. The 70-200 is a great lens, but I don't own it...yet! I would highly recommend renting the lens through borrowlenses.com or lensrental.com (or any other rental company) to see which one will work best for your needs. Tamron and Sigma both make nice, less expensive versions for Canon and Nikon cameras. Personally, I use an 85mm for every shoot except events, when I rent the 70-200 2.8 (and I do prefer the Canon version).
If you are shooting in low-light (indoor arenas) you will need the 2.8 and you will also need IS (VC on Tamron, OS on Sigma), which allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds without motion blurring (there is some misinformation on this thread about its purpose, but you can learn more by Googling.)
If you are new to photography, I would not spend the money on this lens until you are shooting in manual mode and have outgrown your "kit" lenses. It's a HEAVY duty workhorse... I love it, but I don't love lugging it around.
Hope this helps a little!
Edited by just4fun 2017-08-13 1:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1384
Location: Kansas | just4fun - 2017-08-13 12:14 AM I started taking photos profesionally this year. The 70-200 is a great lens, but I don't own it...yet! I would highly recommend renting the lens through borrowlenses.com or lensrental.com (or any other rental company) to see which one will work best for your needs. Tamron and Sigma both make nice, less expensive versions for Canon and Nikon cameras. Personally, I use an 85mm for every shoot except events, when I rent the 70-200 2.8 (and I do prefer the Canon version).
If you are shooting in low-light (indoor arenas) you will need the 2.8 and you will also need IS (VC on Tamron, OS on Sigma), which allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds without motion blurring (there is some misinformation on this thread about its purpose, but you can learn more by Googling.)
If you are new to photography, I would not spend the money on this lens until you are shooting in manual mode and have outgrown your "kit" lenses. It's a HEAVY duty workhorse... I love it, but I don't love lugging it around.
Hope this helps a little!
Great advice |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1384
Location: Kansas | streakysox - 2017-08-11 8:40 PM ausranch - 2017-08-11 6:07 PM I had to look mine up on Amazon . . . shoot I've had it for 12 years! And loved it every minute. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH5/ref=oh_aui_search_det... I couldn't afford the 2.8 plus I was worried about having it get too heavy for long sessions of trying to photo foals. The newer 2.8's don't look as heavy? I'm sure they are worth the cash if you have it. I also tried a cheaper one at the time. Ordered them both at the same time from Amazon and used them both, very carefully, for 25 days and returned the cheaper one. I really couldn't get the shots I could get with the better one. It couldn't autofocus fast enough on those squirrely baby colts! There are newer versions, so I'm not recommending mine now, although that is a decent price. It's about what I paid 12 years ago. I would think whatever is the newest version of this lens would be great! I don't do a lot of action shots . . . but for taking photos of horses to sell I think it is the best option. Photos of horses from phones make me nuts! You can't see the horse's conformation. Heads and hips are distorted, etc. You just need a long lens to get the proper proportions. You can have my shotgun if you really want it. But you'll have to pry this lens out of my cold dead hands. ;- ) You got a buy on that lens. I will make two recommendations. First of all, get a polarizing filter that fits the end of that lens to protect he actual lens and never take your lens off outside or put it on the camera when you get to the place you are going to take pictures. It is too easy to get "stuff" on the digital sensor. It really needs to go back to Canon to be cleaned and is about $200 up. I wondered why there was such a huge difference in price so I checked out your lens and mine. Going by the link you posted, your lens does not have IS and mine does. This means that if you drop the lens or bump it heard there will be no damage. I take very good care of my camera so it may not be necessary but you never know when it will accidentally get dropped. I bought mine in a camera shop.
Polarizing filters are mainly used with water or snow to reduce glare. UV and clear filters are used to protect the lens. Always using your lens hood will also help protect your lens
Dropping a lens can damage auto focus, I know from experience 
Your Canon 28-135 is cheaper because it is a variable aperature lens, not a fixed aperature. I have a 200-500 variable aperature that is a lot less than the 70-200 F.8
|
|
| |
|
Take a Picture
Posts: 12842
| All of my cameras and lens have come from a high end camera store. The first one was a Minolta 35mm. The man that still owns it told me to put polarizing cites on my lens to protect them since the quality of your lens determines the quality of your pictures. I shoot a lot of outdoor pictures so I love those filters. You can get glare indoors also. Better to have the polarizing filter than wish you had. Of course the 28-135 is cheaper it was on my 40D when I bought it at the camera store. They are not going to put a $1000+ lens on that camera. Most people buy a camera to just pick up and use now to take pictures of their kids or family. The 28-135 is perfect for taking pictures at a family reunion or wedding with the capabilities to zoom in on something relatively far away. The 70-200 really isn't good for indoor family shots.
I bought that Minolta in 1982. Got a Canon 20D about 2007 then a 40D about two years later. I bought an 80D last fall because I started having problems getting a CF card and having to have a card reader. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1286
Location: Mississippi | Sangria - 2017-08-13 9:37 PM streakysox - 2017-08-11 8:40 PM ausranch - 2017-08-11 6:07 PM I had to look mine up on Amazon . . . shoot I've had it for 12 years! And loved it every minute. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH5/ref=oh_aui_search_det... I couldn't afford the 2.8 plus I was worried about having it get too heavy for long sessions of trying to photo foals. The newer 2.8's don't look as heavy? I'm sure they are worth the cash if you have it. I also tried a cheaper one at the time. Ordered them both at the same time from Amazon and used them both, very carefully, for 25 days and returned the cheaper one. I really couldn't get the shots I could get with the better one. It couldn't autofocus fast enough on those squirrely baby colts! There are newer versions, so I'm not recommending mine now, although that is a decent price. It's about what I paid 12 years ago. I would think whatever is the newest version of this lens would be great! I don't do a lot of action shots . . . but for taking photos of horses to sell I think it is the best option. Photos of horses from phones make me nuts! You can't see the horse's conformation. Heads and hips are distorted, etc. You just need a long lens to get the proper proportions. You can have my shotgun if you really want it. But you'll have to pry this lens out of my cold dead hands. ;- ) You got a buy on that lens. I will make two recommendations. First of all, get a polarizing filter that fits the end of that lens to protect he actual lens and never take your lens off outside or put it on the camera when you get to the place you are going to take pictures. It is too easy to get "stuff" on the digital sensor. It really needs to go back to Canon to be cleaned and is about $200 up. I wondered why there was such a huge difference in price so I checked out your lens and mine. Going by the link you posted, your lens does not have IS and mine does. This means that if you drop the lens or bump it heard there will be no damage. I take very good care of my camera so it may not be necessary but you never know when it will accidentally get dropped. I bought mine in a camera shop.
Dropping a lens can damage auto focus, I know from experience
Your Canon 28-135 is cheaper because it is a variable aperature lens, not a fixed aperature. I have a 200-500 variable aperature that is a lot less than the 70-200 F.8
Yes, a UV/clear filter is best if you aren't wanting to "alter" your photos - a polarizing filter will cut down on glare and darken your sky. Nothing wrong with them at all I just prefer my images as shot and then make any adjustments post production.
IS (or VR on Nikon) is image stabilization/vibration reduction and I would recommend this on a bigger lens (I don't even think nikon makes a version without VR). The 70-200 is fairly heavy but it's really not that bad once you get used to it. I don't even think anything of the weight anymore. Just make sure you have a comfortable camera strap! |
|
| |
Folks on-line