50-200/2.8

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

AaronW - 18 Jul 2006 01:55 GMT

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

Reply to this Message

Sheldon - 18 Jul 2006 04:53 GMT

> 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.

Reply to this Message

AaronW - 18 Jul 2006 17:42 GMT

> > On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8.
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> 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

Reply to this Message

Sheldon - 23 Jul 2006 02:27 GMT

>> > On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> 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.

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 23 Jul 2006 04:13 GMT

According to Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net>:

> "AaronW" <bj286@scn.org> 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.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | 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 ---

Reply to this Message

J. Clarke - 23 Jul 2006 12:57 GMT

>>> > On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> 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
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> 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.

Signature

--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Reply to this Message

Sheldon - 23 Jul 2006 18:06 GMT

>>>> > On 1.6x sensor, 50-200/2.8 should be more useful than 70-200/2.8.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
> at
> 3200 then kicking up the ISO isn't an option.

Yeah. I forgot about the DOF problems, especially for portraits. I also
like a nice big aperture for portraits.

Reply to this Message

SkipM - 24 Jul 2006 05:23 GMT

> 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.

Signature

Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 24 Jul 2006 05:59 GMT

According to SkipM <shadowcatcher@cox.net>:

[ ... ]

> 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.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | 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 ---

Reply to this Message

AaronW - 25 Jul 2006 16:57 GMT

> > 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.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> my 70-200 as often. But camera mfrs would go nuts trying to satisfy
> specific wants of millions of photographers.

But you said yourself that you would like a 50-150/2.8 instead of
switching between 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. So it is not just me. The
need is not that specific but rather general.

Portrait is a general need. It centers around 85mm on full frame. So a
45-135/2.8 would work the best for portrait.

Before they realize the advantages, people might not want a 45-135/2.8
because it "overlaps" with the most general use medium zoom, e.g.,
24-70/2.8.

And 200mm is the longest f/2.8 zoom affordable. A 300/2.8 zoom would be
very expensive. So they must make a 70-200/2.8 for competetion.

With the popularity of 1.6x cameras, maybe someone will make a
45-135/2.8. Hopefully it will be full frame compatible, and people will
realize its usefulness. Maybe in time it will become the second most
popular zoom range, just behind 24-70/2.8.

BTW, an EF-S 28/2 or 35/2 without retro focus is also interesting.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr

Reply to this Message

Graeme Cogger - 25 Jul 2006 20:55 GMT

> With the popularity of 1.6x cameras, maybe someone will make a
> 45-135/2.8. Hopefully it will be full frame compatible, and people will
> realize its usefulness. Maybe in time it will become the second most
> popular zoom range, just behind 24-70/2.8.

Tokina have announced a 50-135/2.8, due out late this year. It's
certainly going to be available for Canon fit - not sure about other
brands.

Reply to this Message