why so?

Hi, just a question

I see photographers at sporting events, news confrences etc.

their telephoto choice seems to be 70-200

why is it so?

Speed?

being to capture more light?

so dose this prove my point that at 200mm it is very similar to 300mm?

cause I have a 70-300 lens, I only notice little difference between those ranges

many thanks

Bulb

the 70-200 gives the photographer the right focal lengths, combined with the 17-55 on a second body. Both are f/2.8 and can be used wide open. If there is jostling or only one chance to get what they need, they have to make it count, or light is poor (in other words they don't want to spook their subject).
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Smile when you answer the phone, they can hear it in your voice.

It is a versatile lens with excellent image quality and it has the fastest aperture all the zooms. It focuses fast and accurate, also the build quality is excellent, this lens can take the beating. VR helps a lot in low light, which many PJs often encounter. Coupled with a 17-55 f2.8, you are set for almost anything. You can get better lenses for certain situations, but for PJ work you need to have the ability to shot in wide variety of situations without carrying a complete photo store with you.

--
Zalan Szabo
http://www.szabozalan.hu

nice, sounds very nice!

thanks btw

so if i give you a choice, just imagine this, 70-300 or 70-200, both basically the same, but you get 300mm more, would you go that path?

or 100mm dosn't really make a difference at 200-300...?

You are missing the point. The 70-200 is f/2.8 and adequately sharp at f/2.8.

I also own a sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and that is getting too large to handhold for a photo journalist. Goodness only knows how big a 70-300 f/2.8 would be.
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Smile when you answer the phone, they can hear it in your voice.

Bulb said:

Hi, just a question

I see photographers at sporting events, news conferences etc.

their telephoto choice seems to be 70-200

why is it so?

Speed?

Click to expand...

yes

Bulb said:

being to capture more light?

Click to expand...

and yes

Bulb said:

so dose this prove my point that at 200mm it is very similar to 300mm?

Click to expand...

No

Bulb said:

cause I have a 70-300 lens, I only notice little difference between
those ranges

Click to expand...

Going an extra 100 mm is not the same as 200 to 300 equals 50% more magnification. the mm in a lens name refer to its focal length. If everything was very simple, the 300mm would mean 300 mm from the big end of the lens to the sensor, same goes for the 200mm lens (but manufacturers have some interesting lens formulae that tends to change all this around and twist it up, particularly with zooms). It really comes down to the field of view or angle that the lens allows you to see. The longer the focal length of the lens, the tighter the angle or field of view.

Another thing to consider is that most 70-300 lenses do not become sharp until stopped down a fair way, like f/8. This again makes the speed of the professional lenses very desirable, being 4 stops faster in real terms. 4 stops of aperture equates to 4 times the speed of shutter release. So, a 70-300 shooting at say 100th second would possibly give a blurred image where the 70-200 would fire at 1/400th of a second and give the same exposure. (This is making use of a little rule about how ever many mm you are shooting at, your shutter speed should be the same or faster).

I am not an expert in this area, just throwing some of my info at you to see if it helps. I am sure others will be shaking their heads and mumbling under their breath, "Dave, Dave, Dave", lol, let them....as no one else seems to care too much about helping you out with this question.
I hope this helps.
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Smile when you answer the phone, they can hear it in your voice.

Four stops is a 16-fold increase in speed, not 4-fold (which would be 2 stops)!

Basil

Of course it is, but it is getting towards bedtime and I am tired, so 4 stops equals double for shutter per stop, 1 stop =2x's, 2 stops = 4x's, 3 stops= 8x's, and 4 stops = 16x's, hoorah, just like Basil said, not multiplied by 4, whoops, sorry.
Hey, we woke em up anyway!
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Smile when you answer the phone, they can hear it in your voice.

Daves602 said:

Of course it is, but it is getting towards bedtime and I am tired,
so 4 stops equals double for shutter per stop, 1 stop =2x's, 2
stops = 4x's, 3 stops= 8x's, and 4 stops = 16x's, hoorah, just like
Basil said, not multiplied by 4, whoops, sorry.
Hey, we woke em up anyway!

Click to expand...

Ok then, happy sleeping. Or whatever...

Basil

Longer lens with the same quality and speed will have bigger size considerably which I would not prefer. The 300mm is nice, but then you can ask why not 400mm or 500mm? The 70-200 originally was developed for film (full-frame) format, it gives a very useful focal length. It is wide enough for indoor use as well, but gives enough range for many things. Digital made it 105-300mm equivalent and many people wish the old focal length back as the they value the wide end more than the gain in the telephoto end. It is getting too tight in many situations, especially indoor.

It is matter of preference, everyone is different. If you feel the 300mm (450mm equivalent) is what you prefer, there is nothing wrong with it. Every lens choice it's a compromise and you will have to sacrifice something.

--
Zalan Szabo
http://www.szabozalan.hu

thank you all for the help!~

many thanks

ah I've still got more to learn

so stopping down, as in opening up the apertures? so these pro 70-200 lens have such ability, whereas my 70-300 would prob need low shutter speed to get more light in?...

and about apertures, I heard that it dose something to the depth of field?

fascinating!

got heaps to learn, but I'm loving it