200/f2 vs. 70-200/f2.8

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:34:59 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
Depends on what you're isolating. Let me finish cropping my photos a bit
and then send a link, but for hockey you get ice, boards, other players.

Good enough.

http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/4369206_4gmDg

Unfortunately I don't have any of my own hockey photos handy, but this
is the kind of single subject fast action capture I'm talking about:
http://img227.imageshack.us/my.php?image=c1020078cf2.jpg
(shot by me at 2007 U.S. Kiteboarding National Championship)

Depends on how funny the insult is.

Insults are never funny.

Sometimes they're freakin' hilarious!

Not to the person being insulted.
There's a big difference between a humorous roast and insults.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"Paul Furman" wrote in message et...
Cynicor wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 19, 4:15 am, Cynicor wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

They both have VR, but (particularly at 6.4 lbs) I just
can't imagine shooting a entire hockey game handheld!
Hence the VR doesn't strike me as having value for that
particular job.
Plus, you really want to shoot at 1/250 to freeze action, and the VR
isn't going to have much effect at that speed. If you're shooting slow
enough to use the VR, you're going to get subject motion blur.

In a nutshell, if I were making significant money from
shooting hockey or anything similar, I would replace the
80-200mm with the 70-200mm just to get the faster AF
(and the occasional handheld using VR would be an added
frill).
The camera's auto-focus may work better too, but I don't know if a pro
would be using auto-focus for such shots.
I can't imagine anyone not using AF for hockey.
The AF is pretty valuable, but since you know that the best action is
going to be near the goal, you can sometimes focus right on the goal
post as a play is coming down, and wait for the action to come into focus.

That's a great way to get the wrong subject (player, goalie, puck,
goal post) out of focus when shooting like these guys tend to shoot,
especially in the lower light conditions of an indoor hockey area --
wide open.

Which, again, this situation wasn't. It was sufficiently lit to easily go down to 1/250 f/8, like I did.

The f/2 lens might also be desirable for it's ability to blur out the background & isolate the subject at f/2.

At 50ft, the difference in DoF for a 200mm at f2 vs f2.8 is only 9in (ie 21in vs 30in) - not enough to rescue the image from a
pre-focussed lens that was focussed in the wrong place. Not much difference in subject isolation capabilities at that distance
either.

Faster AF and reduced exposure times (for freezing motion) are the only likely significant advantages of the f2 lens over the f2.8
job, given that both have VR.

Cheers
--
cmyk

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:44:28 +1100, "cmyk" wrote in
:

"Paul Furman" wrote in message et...

The f/2 lens might also be desirable for it's ability to blur out
the background & isolate the subject at f/2.

At 50ft, the difference in DoF for a 200mm at f2 vs f2.8 is only 9in
(ie 21in vs 30in) - not enough to rescue the image from a
pre-focussed lens that was focussed in the wrong place. Not much
difference in subject isolation capabilities at that distance
either.

True.

Faster AF and reduced exposure times (for freezing motion) are the
only likely significant advantages of the f2 lens over the f2.8
job, given that both have VR.

The actual big difference is that the fixed focal length lens has far
better performance than the zoom wide open -- check the MTF curves.
The zoom only compares well to the fixed focal length lens when stopped
down 2-3 stops. So the zoom is a good choice as compared to the fixed
focal length lens for shooting at (say) f/8, but not wide open.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"John Navas" wrote in message ...

The actual big difference is that the fixed focal length lens has far
better performance than the zoom wide open -- check the MTF curves.

Maybe you should take your own advice. There are significant portions of the MTF curve where Nikon shows the zoom outperforming the
prime. See:
http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...g_if/index.htm
and
http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...g_if/index.htm
And there's much more to image quality than MTF performance, but you don't seem to know that.

Like so much of what you post, this is just another example of your authoritative ignorance.


--
cmyk

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:52:01 +1100, "cmyk" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message ...

The actual big difference is that the fixed focal length lens has far
better performance than the zoom wide open -- check the MTF curves.

Maybe you should take your own advice. There are significant portions of the MTF curve where Nikon shows the zoom outperforming the
prime. See:
http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...g_if/index.htm
and
http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...g_if/index.htm

You're misinterpreting those charts.

And there's much more to image quality than MTF performance, but you don't seem to know that.

Although MTF is arguably the best single measure of lens performance,
there are of course other measures (aberrations, distortion,
astigmatism, vignetting, field curvature, flare, coma, bokeh), but these
are also areas in which the fixed focal length lens outperforms the zoom
lens.

Like so much of what you post, this is just another example of your authoritative ignorance.

To avoid further embarrassment, you should learn how to interpret MTF
charts before making another silly post like this.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Rita Berkowitz wrote:

The 200mm will always be a mandatory part of any pro's kit simply for
its high performance and control over DoF.

I'll wager that the number of working pros using Nikon gear who don't
have the 200 f2 is outnumbered by those who do have it by 10:1 or more.

Rita Berkowitz wrote:

The 200mm will always be a mandatory part of any pro's kit simply for
its high performance and control over DoF.

I'll wager that the number of working pros using Nikon gear who don't
have the 200 f2 outnumber those who do have it by 10:1 or more.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:23:07 +1300, frederick wrote in
1203488174.600937@ftpsrv1:

Rita Berkowitz wrote:

The 200mm will always be a mandatory part of any pro's kit simply for
its high performance and control over DoF.

I'll wager that the number of working pros using Nikon gear who don't
have the 200 f2 outnumber those who do have it by 10:1 or more.

I think you're probably right. Most working pros seem to have been
seduced by the zoom Dark Side, especially by great zoom lenses like the
Nikkor AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:57:06 -0500, "Rita Berkowitz"
wrote in :

frederick wrote:

The 200mm will always be a mandatory part of any pro's kit simply for
its high performance and control over DoF.

I'll wager that the number of working pros using Nikon gear who don't
have the 200 f2 is outnumbered by those who do have it by 10:1 or
more.

Don't fault the tool because the craftsman didn't bring the right one to get
the job done.

The right one for the job may well be the zoom more often than not.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)