24-200 for professional use? (Part II - Oh yeah!)

madeinlisboa · Jul 26, 2021

Now, I'm definitely sold. I can mimic two lenses with a fraction of the weight and achieve similar results. I don't care for the small aperture, loss of light, higher ISO, etc... In daylight, they are my best lenses, because of their extreme versatility and quality. Period. From 135mm onward I can get a reasonable shallow depth and if need more I just use a1.4 on the D750.

I hope this is way of showing people that they can get great results without breaking their bank account. Technique and practice is much more important than the obsession for the best gear, that, unfortunately, I presence so much in these forums.

goactive · Jul 27, 2021

I think it is a good lens if you are alwas have good light but we shoot on into after sunset all the time outside so this would never work for use in our business.

Even at weddings outside on bad stormey days we might be at iso 1200 at F4 and then going up up to 2000 as it gets darker out. I would not want to go any higher just becouse i am using the wrong lens.

CliveTJ · Jul 27, 2021

goactive said:
I think it is a good lens if you are alwas have good light but we shoot on into after sunset all the time outside so this would never work for use in our business.

Even at weddings outside on bad stormey days we might be at iso 1200 at F4 and then going up up to 2000 as it gets darker out. I would not want to go any higher just becouse i am using the wrong lens.

This is my concern too. The reach of the lens is really great, it removes a constraint of the 24 70 f4. However...photos in poor light will become an issue. I live in the UK where it's often not bright weather so this further increases my worry about available light. My instinct is that I'd often be better off using the 24 70 f4 and if I need reach either use DX on my Z7ii or crop. Or am I just trying to talk myself out of buying the lens? I should give my 24 120 f4 a go in DX to see how that works out.

For sure the pics on this thread are very good with the 24 200.

ovrebekk · Jul 27, 2021

Excellent pictures!!

I also got this lens recently, and I'm very happy with the results.

The only drawback as you mention is when the light gets poor, in which case one should have an alternative at hand (such as a 50mm f1.8 or one of the 24-70mm's).

madeinlisboa · Jul 27, 2021

CliveTJ said:
goactive said:

I think it is a good lens if you are alwas have good light but we shoot on into after sunset all the time outside so this would never work for use in our business.

Even at weddings outside on bad stormey days we might be at iso 1200 at F4 and then going up up to 2000 as it gets darker out. I would not want to go any higher just becouse i am using the wrong lens.

Click to expand...

This is my concern too. The reach of the lens is really great, it removes a constraint of the 24 70 f4. However...photos in poor light will become an issue. I live in the UK where it's often not bright weather so this further increases my worry about available light. My instinct is that I'd often be better off using the 24 70 f4 and if I need reach either use DX on my Z7ii or crop. Or am I just trying to talk myself out of buying the lens? I should give my 24 120 f4 a go in DX to see how that works out.

For sure the pics on this thread are very good with the 24 200.

That's why my backup lens is the heavy 80-200 now

Not the other way

dtc25 · Jul 27, 2021

CliveTJ said:
This is my concern too. The reach of the lens is really great, it removes a constraint of the 24 70 f4. However...photos in poor light will become an issue. I live in the UK where it's often not bright weather so this further increases my worry about available light. My instinct is that I'd often be better off using the 24 70 f4 and if I need reach either use DX on my Z7ii or crop. Or am I just trying to talk myself out of buying the lens? I should give my 24 120 f4 a go in DX to see how that works out.

CliveTJ said:
For sure the pics on this thread are very good with the 24 200.

Actually you don't lose a huge amount in the 24-70 range with the 24-200 over the 24-70 f4. The superzoom is f6 at 70mm, so you're losing a stop and a bit. It might make all the difference sometimes, but usually it's not critical. You could look at the 24-200 as being almost a 24-70 f4, but with a slowish 70-200 added, that you can use when conditions permit. It's usually my go-to lens for most things.

CliveTJ · Jul 27, 2021

dtc25 said:
CliveTJ said:

This is my concern too. The reach of the lens is really great, it removes a constraint of the 24 70 f4. However...photos in poor light will become an issue. I live in the UK where it's often not bright weather so this further increases my worry about available light. My instinct is that I'd often be better off using the 24 70 f4 and if I need reach either use DX on my Z7ii or crop. Or am I just trying to talk myself out of buying the lens? I should give my 24 120 f4 a go in DX to see how that works out.

For sure the pics on this thread are very good with the 24 200.

Click to expand...

Actually you don't lose a huge amount in the 24-70 range with the 24-200 over the 24-70 f4. The superzoom is f6 at 70mm, so you're losing a stop and a bit. It might make all the difference sometimes, but usually it's not critical. You could look at the 24-200 as being almost a 24-70 f4, but with a slowish 70-200 added, that you can use when conditions permit. It's usually my go-to lens for most things.

It’s also f5.6 at 50mm. I suppose I need to get over it, it’s just that f2.8 would be a much better for fully open but I’ve compromised on f4 for size and weight as the 24 70 f4 is such a neat lens.

madeinlisboa · Jul 27, 2021

CliveTJ said:
dtc25 said:

CliveTJ said:

This is my concern too. The reach of the lens is really great, it removes a constraint of the 24 70 f4. However...photos in poor light will become an issue. I live in the UK where it's often not bright weather so this further increases my worry about available light. My instinct is that I'd often be better off using the 24 70 f4 and if I need reach either use DX on my Z7ii or crop. Or am I just trying to talk myself out of buying the lens? I should give my 24 120 f4 a go in DX to see how that works out.

For sure the pics on this thread are very good with the 24 200.

Click to expand...

Actually you don't lose a huge amount in the 24-70 range with the 24-200 over the 24-70 f4. The superzoom is f6 at 70mm, so you're losing a stop and a bit. It might make all the difference sometimes, but usually it's not critical. You could look at the 24-200 as being almost a 24-70 f4, but with a slowish 70-200 added, that you can use when conditions permit. It's usually my go-to lens for most things.

Click to expand...

It’s also f5.6 at 50mm. I suppose I need to get over it, it’s just that f2.8 would be a much better for fully open but I’ve compromised on f4 for size and weight as the 24 70 f4 is such a neat lens.

Yes it is. The 24-70 is still my lens of choice for low light, since I can't afford a 2.8 zoom and I wouldn't waste my money on one, anyway

Les Kamens · Jul 27, 2021

Its defiantly a great lens. and real nice with in it's limitations. Thats why I use it as my travel lens and back up to my 3-2.8 zooms.

karlreed · Jul 27, 2021

madeinlisboa said:
CliveTJ said:

goactive said:

I think it is a good lens if you are alwas have good light but we shoot on into after sunset all the time outside so this would never work for use in our business.

Even at weddings outside on bad stormey days we might be at iso 1200 at F4 and then going up up to 2000 as it gets darker out. I would not want to go any higher just becouse i am using the wrong lens.

Click to expand...

This is my concern too. The reach of the lens is really great, it removes a constraint of the 24 70 f4. However...photos in poor light will become an issue. I live in the UK where it's often not bright weather so this further increases my worry about available light. My instinct is that I'd often be better off using the 24 70 f4 and if I need reach either use DX on my Z7ii or crop. Or am I just trying to talk myself out of buying the lens? I should give my 24 120 f4 a go in DX to see how that works out.

For sure the pics on this thread are very good with the 24 200.

Click to expand...

That's why my backup lens is the heavy 80-200 now Not the other way

How are you finding the 80-200mm?

I had one a long time ago, and still have a D750 to run it on.

Richard B99 · Jul 28, 2021

Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

madeinlisboa said:
Now, I'm definitely sold. I can mimic two lenses with a fraction of the weight and achieve similar results. I don't care for the small aperture, loss of light, higher ISO, etc... In daylight, they are my best lenses, because of their extreme versatility and quality. Period. From 135mm onward I can get a reasonable shallow depth and if need more I just use a1.4 on the D750.

I hope this is way of showing people that they can get great results without breaking their bank account. Technique and practice is much more important than the obsession for the best gear, that, unfortunately, I presence so much in these forums.

I’d have wanted to ‘lose’ the fence more here. Or, perhaps, moved right to get it further out of frame

madeinlisboa said:

madeinlisboa · Jul 28, 2021

Richard B99 said:
Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

karlreed · Jul 28, 2021

madeinlisboa said:
Richard B99 said:

Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

Click to expand...

Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

I think the OP wanted the backgrounds in focus.

If they had wanted to reduce DOF, they could shoot at 200mm

madeinlisboa · Jul 28, 2021

karlreed said:
madeinlisboa said:

Richard B99 said:

Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

Click to expand...

Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

Click to expand...

I think the OP wanted the backgrounds in focus.

If they had wanted to reduce DOF, they could shoot at 200mm

Or I could have just used my 1.4 as I said in the main topic. Many were with shallow depth but it's boring to rely on that all the time

karlreed · Jul 28, 2021

madeinlisboa said:
karlreed said:

madeinlisboa said:

Richard B99 said:

Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

Click to expand...

Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

Click to expand...

I think the OP wanted the backgrounds in focus.

If they had wanted to reduce DOF, they could shoot at 200mm

Click to expand...

Or I could have just used my 1.4 as I said in the main topic. Many were with shallow depth but it's boring to rely on that all the time

Its interesting, I have never really been turned n by shallow DOF.

Bu then I am just an amateur who likes good gear.

But, I don't think the bokeh in these two is shabby. But the subject is rather close..

I am waiting for the next set of sales to get the Z85mm f1.8 I can get a Nikon AF-S 85mm f1.8 G

for A$449, but, the attraction is owning the best., even at twice the price.

The Viltrox z85mm f1.8 is another A$100 ...

--
karl reed "let's change the tone-civility is in!"

thisisbenji · Jul 28, 2021

Don't get me wrong, I love my 24-200, but... I think you could have done all of these shots with the 50mm 1.8S for even less cash and got even better results.

Richard B99 · Jul 28, 2021

madeinlisboa said:
Richard B99 said:

Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

Click to expand...

Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

Those are probably the not very good pros in the same way as those who don’t think about it at all are not very good pros too. And those camps are not reserved just for pros ;-)

Adam-T · Jul 29, 2021

madeinlisboa said:
Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

Most of us actually are more concerned with being ahead in the game so people will book us over the competition and creativity is a massive part of that, DOF can be part of that creativity along with a myriad of other things .. in a shoot like that you`ve got the time to mess about with primes or a couple of fast zooms but at fast paced events where getting the money shot matters most and wide to tele is needed , superzooms can be very useful indeed - this is also where high rez sensors come in as you can use a less compromised faster lens and crop ..

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

madeinlisboa · Jul 29, 2021

thisisbenji said:
Don't get me wrong, I love my 24-200, but... I think you could have done all of these shots with the 50mm 1.8S for even less cash and got even better results.

LOL. Look at the focal lengths of the shots. One of them, I was 20 meters away of her, because, I couldn't, physically, be near.

Thank god for this lens

madeinlisboa · Jul 29, 2021

karlreed said:
madeinlisboa said:

karlreed said:

madeinlisboa said:

Richard B99 said:

Some very nice photos here. However, given the choice, on a number of them, I would have chosen a wider aperture to blur the background a bit more and place a greater emphasis on the subject. Others work just fine as is. The 24-200 maybe a small flexible and sharp lens but, from these pics, I do think it clearly looses quite a bit of aperture / DOF control that I and, I’m sure, many pros would value for this type of work.

Click to expand...

Many pros worry to much with dof instead of being creative

Click to expand...

I think the OP wanted the backgrounds in focus.

If they had wanted to reduce DOF, they could shoot at 200mm

Click to expand...

Or I could have just used my 1.4 as I said in the main topic. Many were with shallow depth but it's boring to rely on that all the time

Click to expand...

Its interesting, I have never really been turned n by shallow DOF.

Bu then I am just an amateur who likes good gear.

But, I don't think the bokeh in these two is shabby. But the subject is rather close..

I am waiting for the next set of sales to get the Z85mm f1.8 I can get a Nikon AF-S 85mm f1.8 G

for A$449, but, the attraction is owning the best., even at twice the price.

The Viltrox z85mm f1.8 is another A$100 ...

The Vitrox looks a very interesting lens

24-200 for professional use? (Part II - Oh yeah!)

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts