Zooms versus Telephotos

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.