(DX) What do you use your 70-200 for?

[Tannin]

FOR APS-C (CROP, DX) USERS ONLY*

If you own a 70-200 or similar lens (such as a 70-300) and use it on an APS-C (crop, DX) body, what do you use it for? I don't own one but, as an example, I'll post my rough 100-400 breakdown:


Landscapes: 50%
Birds: 20%
Other wildlife (mostly mammals and reptiles): 10%
Close-up details of architecture, bridges, ruins, machinery, etc. 10%
All other uses: 10%


In other words, if I use the 100-400, I mostly use it for landscapes, followed by birds (in situations where the 500/4 is not suitable), and a few other things. I quite often think about a 70-200 or 70-300, but I have no idea what I'd actually use it for. (Which is why I have not got one!) But 70-200 is a very popular length to have in the kit and I'm curious: people like that length, so they must use it for particular tasks, what do you use yours for?

* For current purposes, let's count APS-H (1.3 crop) as full-frame. I posted a similar thread for full-frame (FX) users a little earlier. I'm actually more interested in the full-frame answers (since I mostly use APS-H and full-frame cameras these days) but it seemed unfair to leave DX users out of the discussion. Also note that my example 100-400 list above isn't really appropriate here as I mostly use that lens on bodies with larger sensors. No matter, It should give you the idea.

[danny]

I use mine (Tamron 2.8 - the new one with VC) a lot. I enjoy using it to capture candid portraits as it allows me to walk around the edge of the room capturing those special moments in a event without getting in peoples faces. A major reason for the purchase of this lens (or so I told my better half :p ) was to photograph my daughters dance performances. These events are often in low light and I am restricted to a reasonable distance away so the 70-200 2.8 was the lens that I chose to capture these moments.

I have also found that it is good for posed family portraits, especially of children as I can get a good close shot without getting in the child's faces.

Cheers
Danny

[MattNQ]

I have a Nikon 80-200/2.8 I use a lot on my D3000
It is old, but optically can still hold its own amongst newer lenses

Sport - 90%
Birds/animals - 4%
Candids/general action 5%
Landscapes - 1%

In terms of usage, I find it not quite wide enough for netball, not quite long enough for rugby league on a full field, but perfect for touch, athletics & softball.
For general birding of course it is often nowhere near long enough, but that said I have got reasonable shots with it.

[I @ M]

Using a Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 or a Sigma 100-300 F/4 with or without a 1.4x means 80% birds and animals, 10% sport and 10% landscapes.

[fillum]

I don't think you'll see much difference in usage between FX and DX for this lens. My usage would probably be

80% sport (with and without 1.4x, thinking of getting the 2x this footy season)
10% candid (some of which would still be sport-related - coaches, spectators, etc)
10% other (performance, lame birding while on holidays, etc)

I recently used it to shoot some performances at a music festival where it gave good results, however I generally don't like to use it in crowds due to its size. For travel and walking-around type stuff I generally use the 18-200 to cover this range.


Cheers.

[Sdison]

I have a Nikon 80-200


What's the AF speed like on the 80-200? I really would like one to start practicing sports shooting and I understand it's not up to the standard of the 70-200 VR II (although I wouldn't expect it to be). I suppose it's better than the 55-200/300 kit lenses though, considering it used to be the top of the line lens for that range.

[MattNQ]

He he. I have absolutely no idea. ! All my shots with it have to be MF as my poor D3000 is unfortunately not endowed with a focus motor.

Sent from my ZTE T82 using Tapatalk

[agb]

I have the 70-300L, but I cannot give you an exact breakup of the way in which it has been used. However, sport( triathlon), a motor cycle show( I wonder if that will go ahead this year with the crackdown on the bikie gangs here) portrait( Fort Lytton history alive event) a portrait session with some models, wild life at Australia zoo, some birds, just a few, windsurfers, and a few close ups of insects. Surprised me that I have not used it very much for landscape. I was sure that I had, but it seems that I have mainly used my 15-85 for that.

[Sdison]

He he. I have absolutely no idea. ! All my shots with it have to be MF as my poor D3000 is unfortunately not endowed with a focus motor.

Sent from my ZTE T82 using Tapatalk

Oh dear. At least it forces you out if your comfort zone!

[Tannin]

I don't think you'll see much difference in usage between FX and DX for this lens. My usage would probably be

Well thte answers have proved you correct, Phil!

(Reply and thanks at greater length in the other thread.)

[MattNQ]

Oh dear. At least it forces you out if your comfort zone!

Sure does. :rolleyes: You get used to it though. I have the older push-pull version, which lets you zoom & focus in a single movement pretty quickly. I like it.
It was a decision I made at the time - I wanted some good shots of the kids' sports - so when I had the chance at the pro quality build & optics of f2.8 Nikon glass for $500 I figured I'd grab it.
Took the wife about 3 weeks to realize I wasn't using my ancient 75-300 for junior footy:lol:
From what I've read around the traps, the 80-200 is optically close to the 70-200 vr1, but is edged out by the advantages of VR. The VRII of course kicks its butt on both fronts but for a lot more $$.
Most sport you want to be shooting at 1/500 or faster, so VR is not a 'must have' anyway
The focus speed of 80-200 also depends on your body. ...ie, a D3s will drive it faster than a D7000/7100 as the motor is stronger.