Why do I have a zoom?!

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<h1>Why do I have a zoom?!</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people, if pushed, will admit to having a zoom at one point or another..hey, we all have to start somewhere! ;)</p>

[lester_wareham]

I found this effect from my FD film system so went straight to prime when getting the EF digital system. I had used a

85/1.8 and 135/2.8 on FD in preference to the zoom for sometime. I was never able to get a 200 prime at the time

because of cost.

 

With the EF system I almost always want the 100mm macro with me and so the 200/2.8 compliments this well.

 

Something else I found using the FD trombone 70-200 was I would loose shots trying to get the framing exact and the

moment would pass, less of an issue these days with no film cost to consider however.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the overall plan is Trade the 70-200 F4 for a 200 2.8, and pick up a 85 1.8 or 100 F2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As you have seemingly decided that the 200/2.8 is the answer for you: please now consider the 135/2L + x1.4MkII (instead of the 200/2.8) and buy the 85/1.8 also.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[gooseberry]

<blockquote>

<p>Jay DeSimone wrote:<br /><em>I'm wondering, how do you survey images in the way you describe? I'd imagine that you didn't spend hours actually looking at the stats on each image, right? Does Lightroom or some other program have a feature to generate a report based on lens and focal length?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Adobe Bridge allows you to filter by just about everything, including the focal length (see attached screenshot), but only at the folder level; don't know whether it's possible to make it look at your entire photo collection unless you dump everything into a single folder. <br>

Taking this opportunity I noticed I used the extreme settings of my two zooms 70% of shots on that location.</p>

<div></div>

[ejchem101]

<blockquote>

<p>As you have seemingly decided that the 200/2.8 is the answer for you: please now consider the 135/2L + x1.4MkII (instead of the 200/2.8) and buy the 85/1.8 also.<br /> WW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for your comments William. I would Love a 135 + x1.4 MkII. However a couple of issues prevent me from that at the moment. With the Trade of the 70-200 F4 __> 200 2.8 I was able to make the deal without any additional cost involved (important for the wife).</p>

<p>From the prices I have seen the 135 is about another $300, + a 1.4 is around $200-300, and then an 85 1.8 tack on another 350. So as great as the 135 is, an extra $1k isn't in the budget at the moment. Maybe some day.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

[jack_nordine]

<p>Erik, I have to agree with your thinking. I have the combo of the 200mm 2.8 and 100mm f/2 and it is a great combination, and for me, its far preferable to the zoom. Some of my best work has been done with the 200mm 2.8. You say you use the 200mm focal length a lot. If this is true, then it makes no sense to get the (also excellent) 135mm f/2 and use an extender. If you need 200mm, then buy a 200mm lens. Don't buy a lesser focal length and then use an extender to get to where you need to be.</p>

[tate_jackson]

<p>Very Interesting Thread. I shoot mostly sports photography (Baseball). My most used lenses are a Nikon 70 to 200 and a Tamron 200 to 400. <br>

With the nikon, most of my pictures are in the 120 to 180mm range with enough at 70 or 200 for me to want to keep this lens.<br>

With the 200 to 400, most of my pictures seemed to be lumped together at 230 to 240, 300 to 330 and 400mm. <br>

For me, zooms seem to work best .<br>

I agree witht he poster that recommended renting a 200mm for a weekend to see how it works for you.</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>Zoom provides versatility. For outright IQ, few can touch a good L prime lens. But if space is limited, the 200 2.8 would might as well be a door stopper.<br>

Also switching lenses mid-shoot can be a pain.<br>

Henceforth, I always plan my shoots. If I am mostly doing portraiture, I use primes. For event stuff that has an element of unpredictability, I use zoom with one or two fast primes in the bag.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5657447">Zack Zoll</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 07, 2011; 08:19 p.m.

 

<p>Not entirely on topic, but ... Jamie, awesome photo!</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you Zack, that's very kind of you. The 200mm is a killer lens for candids.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>I own several prime lenses (300mm f/4L IS, 400mm f/5.6L, 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus and 90mm Tamron f/2.8 Macro) however, must of my general purpose and travel shooting is done with a pair of zoom lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS) on a Canon 7D and a 40D.</p>

<p>My reason for shooting with zooms is quite simple. I crop in the camera and generally have to do minimal cropping in post processing. </p>

<p>Additionally, these two zoom lenses provide exceptional image quality and IS capability. IS capability, especially in a longer lens, is something that is important to me. I can shoot using my f/4L IS lens as slow as 1/60 or even 1/30 second and get very good results. There is no way that I could shoot at equivalent 1/120 or 1/60 second speeds using a non IS equipped 200mm f/2.8 lens and get the same percentage of sharp imagery.</p>