morganlashley Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I had an enlightened experience today...I took my children to the zoo and brought along my D200 and 18-200VR. In an hour I took about 100 shots of animals which 40 or so were keepers. I noticed another guy with a Canon and a massive 400mm telephoto struggling to catch the action...mind you we're at a zoo! This leads me to think that given the quick handling of zooms why would anyone shooting anything other than absolutely still subjects consider these beasts. I know optics etc are better, but only if you GET the shot. It would seem in backcountry photography quick handling with a somewhat inferior zoom is more important than a crystal clear shot thats too late or not at all. I bring this up because I was considering buying the 200-400VR but after trying it for a day, I think I'll get the 80-400VR for the above reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_petty1 Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Wow, it's nice you've got the checkbook to consider the 200-400. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I use my el cheapo 24-85/3.5-4.5 a ton just because it's light, versatile, and actually performs quite nicely when stopped down a bit. Re: that 400/2.8 monster, no pro is going to go out with less than 2 bodies loaded up, minimum. Next time you're at sports event watch the pros and their "zooms"...300/2.8 or 400/2.8 on one body and and something like an 85/1.4 on the other. These guys switch bodies so quickly, it makes your head swim. Basketball is the most interesting to sport to watch this happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john schroeder Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 The thing to remember is the fixed 400mm Canon lens lets in a lot more light than the 80-400 zoom. The larger available aperture also lets the photographer be more selective with d.o.f. There are advantages to both! I personally wouldn't shoot a super zoom like your 18-200mm. I prefer the better quality which primes and shorter zoom lenses deliver. Super zooms like your 18-200mm are very versatile lenses and are the best choice for many photographers. The person with the 400mm lens probably wanted a specific shot so they brought out the big artillery. They were probably kicking themselves for forgetting to drop a short zoom in their pocket for afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_w Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Working with a prime and a zoom are very different. For starters, primes are just simpler, not being able to zoom is one less thing to worry about. (If you're half as spacey as me, that in itself is a wonderful thing.) With the prime, you compose differently as the distance to the subject changes. It's not that you can't get the shot, but that the shots you can get change. Zooms require less creativity in that sense. They're convenient, but tend to make photographers and their results a bit lazy. Why walk when you can just twist a dial? The reason is that once you climb the learning curve, your understanding of the limits and benefits of a given focal length allow you to use it better. Watch an experienced photog using a zoom and you'll see that they don't rack the zoom ring in and out, hoping to find something they like. They usually only have a few FL's that they like and leave the zoom ring in those positions. Using a zoom allows them to have access to those FL's without changing lenses. Also the big fast tele's (300 and 400/2.8's) are really well-designed, well-made and are just nice to work with, extremely 'well-sorted' from an end-user point of view. The extra 2-3 stops make for a bright viewinder, which really helps focus and composition. My guess is that the guy you saw at the zoo was probably at the zoo so he could learn to use his new gear. Using a prime ain't rocket science once you get the logistics figured out. All that said, if I was taking my kids to the zoo, I'd bring a zoom too. If I was going to the zoo and making photo was my top priority, I'd bring the big prime. -B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 400mm f2.8 is an over kill on a Sunny afternoon in the zoo. It won't be when on the Sun is going down and things run instead of staying put. 400mm f2.8 is also not an over kill when a 1.4X or 2X teleconverter is needed. Try take the 18-200 f5.6 to a non-NHL ice rink. You won't be doing much shooting with it in those place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_mcmillin Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Though I have to say I don't do much shooting at long focal lengths, I do prefer zooms over primes when you're getting much over 100mm. Long lenses usually mean long working distances, which means that "zooming with your feet" can involve many steps, and considerable time. If a lens is too short for the photo you want, you can crop, but there's no corresponding option to de-crop a photo to recapture what you missed when you couldn'ty shed some focal length. Telephoto primes might have a place on the second camera you carry to a shoot, but one long lens (like the beloved Minolta 70-210/4.0 "beercan") is plenty for me to carry, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 They both have their place. He might have gotten a few GREAT shots. You had a great time with you got probably a lot of good shots and maybe a few stunners if you were lucky and your kids let you really concentrate for a moment. You probably had a good time and they probably had the kind of day with Dad that not every kid gets these days. That's worth more than all the great photos in the world, isn't it. But... We'd have to compare your shots and his side by side to know for sure if he had a good reason for bringing a lens the size of a buick with him, wouldn't we. I've seen a guy REALLY struggle with the 80-400 in a similar situation, btw. I think they got better shots than me that day, though... except for the wide ones of course... for that he was busy changing lenses... ;-) I suspect the 18-200 is the PERFECT lens to put on your camera when you're going to the zoo with your kids. Priorities... right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_mcdonald Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 I started off with a 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 105mm f2.8 Micro and a slow 250mm. I quickly got tired of changing lenses. I bought a 35-70 f2.8 and a 80-200 f2.8, both Nikon of course, and do 95% of my (non-pro) shooting with them using 2 film bodies. When I'm walking around in a village or snapping away at a "Miss New Year" beauty contest in Northern Thailand (3 weeks from now, again) I don't have time to fool around changing lenses. Primes are ok if the action is static (can I say that?) If I need my 17mm, 24mm or anything real long I don't need them in a hurry. And the fast 2.8 aperture on my zooms lets my flash reach way out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Hmmmm. http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/recentfavorites/large/AWB_6604_v3.jpg I always prefer my 300/2.8 when I go to the zoo because it's usually the right focal length, and I often want more reach and never less than 200mm. If it were me and I could afford it, I would definitely get the 200-400/4 with a Wimberley Sidekick; but that's me, because I want best IQ -- YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Well, the pictures tell the story. In long lens photography, prime lenses generally produce images which are clearer. Yes, it is more work to get the images, but the thing is that someone somewhere will put in the time to get the images with a prime. And get better images. You may not have the time or patience for that, but someone somewhere will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 400mm is a bit long, but still I'd probably rather have prime telephoto (shorter one) than a 18-200mm anyway. He's a Canon shooter. Nikon-wise, given the option, I'd rather have something like Nikon 200mm VR and be "forced" to be not so flexible compared to having the flexibility of 18-200mm, because I know if I got the shot, it would be great. Quality over quantity IMO. The thing is, it's probably too big and heavy for zoo stuff. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Ilkka says "You may not have the time or patience for that, but someone somewhere will." Or, you might have the patience, but not the time for a lens change to wide when you have your 300 attatched. There are some shooting situations you can simply respond to better with a zoom. And... except for wide open, in the hands of a good photographer, I doubt any of us can tell the difference between two images, one taken with a 200mm fixed and one with an 18-200mm. I don't have the two to compare so I can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 I suggest you keep your Nikon gear, Morgan. It will save you from having to buy it again. And, when the time comes, (you know it will), don't sell your Canon gear either; for the same reason, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now