70-200 -- how useful in nature photography?

I am about to buy a Canon EF 70-200 f/4L. Thanks to photo.net and a

few other websites I KNOW this is a great lens. However, I�m

wondering how useful is it in nature photography?

 

Right now, for me "nature" means mostly landscapes (mostly forests

and plains, sometimes mountains), plus some close-ups of plants -�

all I have right now is a 28-105 on a EOS 5. Back to the 70-200: on

the short side 70mm is not very good for "traditional" landscapes

(the perspective lacks depth, "doesn�t look 3D", so to say). On the

long end, 200mm is not nearly enough for wildlife photography -- for

that purpose, may EVENTUALLY add TC 1.4 and, if all goes well, the

300 f/4 L (an expansion path based primarily on articles and comments

by Bob Atkins).

 

Obvious questions: if 70-200 is not pariculary good for landscape or

wildlife photography, what is it then good for? What are

the "generally-accepted" uses of a 70-200 (without TC) in nature

photography? How about original uses?

 

I would greatly appreciate if you could give links to nature photos

taken with lenses within this interval of focal distances.

I have 2 lenses I use for landscape photography: 24-85mm & 70-200mm. By a long shot, I use the 70-200mm more. I currently have the 2.8L series and will eventually change to the F/4L, due to the weight difference.

I suggest you review the images you have taken so far and determine which focal lengths would improve your photography and (literally) broaden your horizons. Do you need a lens that is longer than 105mm, your current upper limit, or do you need a wider lens such as 24 or even 20mm? Or perhaps you would like to do more macro work, for example. Once you decide on which focal length you need, then determine which lens would meet your needs.

 

There is little doubt that the 70-200mm/f4 is an excellent lens, but IMO, deciding on a particular lens first and then determine how you can use it is doing things backwards. Most of my landscapes is shot with wide angles. Occasionally I use a telephoto isloate a small section of the forest or mountain. But your style may be different.

Alex,

I think you'll find it pretty useful. May not become your primary nature lens, but there's no doubt it is an important lens to have in your "arsenal". You've no doubt seen tons of nature shots of mountains looking like they're layered together. It is a nice range to compress depth and intentionally avoid the 3D effect. I use it a lot for sunset/moonset shots to make the sun/moon look large enought to be recognizable. Lots of shots which include wildlife in a scenic require this focal length. Quit sweating the decision, you will eventually need a lens in this focal length range, you've made your decision. Buy the thing and start using it to see exactly where it fits for your shooting.

 

BTW, this photo was taken with an 80-200 and I don't think it would have worked with anything outside that range.<div></div>

I have a 28-105 and a 100-300 (I hate the image quality at the long end of the 100-300, but I digress). I constantly find myself using the 100-300 (against my own advice) to shoot compressed hill & river shots from higher elevations, looking down.

 

Anywhere you want to compress some space, I find a big focal length useful. Now...for some reason I just bought a 24mm...(maybe to "broaden" my horizons...)

Alex,

 

The 70-200 is quite useful as a wildlife lens, as a macro lens, and for landscapes.

 

For wildlife, add the 1.4X and an extension tube to get close-up images of backyard birds. The 70-200, with its minimum focus distance of just under 5 feet, will allow you to frame fill small birds. The 2x would be a better option for you but will require a higher end EOS to maintain auto focus at f/8.

 

Adding extension tubes also will allow for exceptional macro images of flowers and butterflys. The zoom capabilities give you multiple framing options without having to move the camera as much.

 

It would also serve as a great portrait lens.

 

good luck

Shun, I perfectly agree with your reasoning (decide what you want to photograph and then decide on the lens).

 

I simply haven't mentioned in the original post that there are other uses that determine my decision to buy the 70-200/4 (portraits, "compressed" city scapes, event photography -- in that order). So no, I'm not choosing the lens first, I'm just considering how useful it will be for uses other than those for which I'm buying it.

 

Thanks to everyone for answers and suggestions. Eager to read some more!

Alex, it sounds like you realize it depends on the type of pictures you take. Pick the lens for your style, not the lens that everyone says is great.

<P>

FWIW, I think 70-200 is a good focal range for compressed landscapes, for many travel shots, and for portraits. As you mentioned, it's not useful for wildlife, except maybe for zoo animals or squirrels or the like.

<P>

I also agree you should look through photo books -- especially 35mm landscapes, because it sounds like that's what you shoot -- and see what focal lengths were used on shots you like. You might be surprised to see how many were shot with telephoto lenses. On the other hand, you might find you prefer the look of your current focal lengths or wider, and something like a 20-35 may better suit your vision.

<P>

I don't shoot with a 70-200 regularly, but here are some examples of using a 100-400 for landscapes (not the best examples in the world, but you get the idea): <A HREF="http://www.briankennedy.net/40_land.html">http://www.briankennedy.net/40_land.html</A>, <A HREF="http://www.briankennedy.net/58_land.html">http://www.briankennedy.net/58_land.html</A>, <A HREF="http://www.briankennedy.net/27_land.html">http://www.briankennedy.net/27_land.html</A>.

Alex, if you have already decided to get the 70-200mm because you need it for other applications, when you have the lens, why don't you just explore with it and discover for yourself how useful it is for <B>your</B> landscape photography?

<P>

The problem is that a lot of this depends on your personal style. Some 20 years ago when I was a student, I thought the 80-200mm would be a great lens for landscape photography. I couldn't afford one until 1989; by then, zoom lenses had gotten much better also. However, in these days, my style has changed and I mainly use wide angles for landscape work. In my medium-format set up, my main lens is a 45mm (the equivalent of 28mm in 35mm format) and I don't even have any telephoto yet.

You really must have that lens. Skip all that analyzation crap and buy it. Good lens and very useful focal lengths. Only problem is, you will like the pictures it makes so much, you will not want to use your old lens.

I can't tell you what to buy, but here are a few points to consider.

 

An f4 lens will not AF with the EOS 5 and a 2x converter.

 

I shot with 70-200 zooms for a long time, but I now seem to find 200 mm limiting and spend more time with the 100-400. The advantage of the 100-400 being IS and extra focal length, the disadvantage being weight and cost.

 

I think the 70-200/4 is a great value for a lens and if I had the extra money I would buy one even though I have a 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 IS as they all serve a different purpose.

 

In a perfect world, my nature kit would probably be a 16-35/2.8 or 24/2.8 and a fish eye, 85/1.8 or 70-200/4, 300/4 with 1.4x and possibly a 2x as well.

I have a 28-105, a 70-210 (f4) , a 28-200 and a 75-300 (I'm not too keen on the 250-300mm range - but what the heck). I usually find myself using the 70-210 to shoot compressed views of a stream and close small animals (Deer, Chipmunks, squirrels) from above, looking down.

 

I find a wide-range focal length useful. Now...I also use a 90mm and 105mm Macro lens for 1:2 and 1:1 closeups.

 

When I am traveling - I usually rely on the 28-200 for 1 lens simplicity, or the 28-105 and 75-300 for 2 lens walkabouts

I shoot more landscape and general nature photos with my Canon 70-200/2.8L lens than any other lens I own. I often carry ONLY this lens with the 1.4x and 2x extenders and a 20-35mm zoom.

 

A medium telephoto lens is an outstanding tool for landscape photography and the 70-200 range covers it all. Distant mountain ranges and other subjects often get lost in the background when you only shoot with a wide angle lens. A medium telephoto keeps them in a more realistic perspective. Mountains look like mountains instead of bumps on the horizon. You have pretty good depth of field in the 70-200 range as well when you stop down to small apertures.

 

The 70-200 is a great close up lens. You can use a 500D close up lens or do as I do and use the 2x extender and you've got the equivalent of a 400mm lens that focuses closer than a regular 400mm. It also can be used for wildlife photos in a pinch. The quality is not bad either.

 

Personally, I believe the f/2.8 version of the lens gives you more flexibility in using the 70-200 zoom. Mainly because it works better with the extenders. But if you're asking me what is a 70-200 lens good for, my answer is that it is good for most subjects in landscape and nature photography.

Brian.

 

I was curious to see the effect of a contrast mask on your first image ...

 

Leif.<div></div>

IMO, a 70-200mm plus a 2x TC should only be an emergency set up. Image quality is going to suffer somewhat every time you use a 2x TC, worse on a zoom. If you start at 500 or 600mm and want 1000 or 1200mm, of course you pretty much have to use a 2x TC. However, if you need 400mm, I would get a 400mm, a 100-400 type zoom or the combo of a 300mm/f4 plus a 1.4x TC rather than putting a 2x TC on a 70-200mm. Therefore, I don't really buy the argument that one should get a 70-200mm/f2.8 instead of an f4 because it is easier to use a 2x TC with.

 

I would get the f2.8 vesion only if you really need to use it at f2.8. Otherwise, f4 should give you a bright enough image in the viewfinder and is considerly lighter to carry around, not to mention that it is also easier on your wallet as well.

Another thing to remember is that for much nature photography (especially landscape, but also animal photography), you will want to stop down to f/8-f/16, so the added weight & cost of the f/2.8 may not be warranted. And be sure to use a tripod!

Alex,

 

I like Brian's suggestion of looking through some books. As a photography book "junkie" who has quite a collection, I would like to suggest "Fine Art Nature Photography" by Tony Sweet. Its a softcover of about 100 pages that can be had for less than $20. This book contains numerous images taken with a 80-200 f/2.8 with/without and/or extension tubes and extenders.

 

Like Lee the 80-200 f/2.8 is my favorite and most used landscape lens.

Leif - interesting result! Thanks for giving me some ideas.

 

To keep this from being a strictly personal reply, I wanted to mention, Alex, that your idea of a future 300/4 for wildlife is a very good one. The 70-200s and the 300/4 are all outstanding lenses (but they are priced accordingly!).

Some reasons scores of serious nature photographers use the 70-200/80-200 zoom lenses are because they extremely versatile, especially well built, and have outstanding optics.

I thot some of the shots taken by <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=552657">Fred</a> made the 70-200 lens look pretty useful for wildlife work.

Hi Shun Cheung.. Brian suggestions for F/2.8 was also partly due to the fact that not all EOS bodies will AF with F/4 + 2X combo.. off course if u dont mind manual focussing its fine..

Anoop, please take a look at what I suggested earlier. IMO, putting a 2x TC behind a 70-200mm zoom is going to degrade your image quality pretty significantly. If you need to use that combo occasionally, that may be ok, but at least I wouldn't use it on any regular basis. If the end result you want is 400mm, you are much better off getting a 100-400 zoom or a fixed 400mm, although another lens would, of course, cost more money.

 

Therefore, whether your camera can AF with the 70-200mm/f4 + 2x TC is, at least to me, a non issue. As usual, your mileage may vary.

I could not live (photography speaking) without my Tokina 80-200 2.8. I use this lense the most.