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

I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

Cynicor wrote:
I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

Normally people *do* use the lens wide open for sports:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/nikkor_200_2_ed_

Paul Furman wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

Normally people *do* use the lens wide open for sports:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/nikkor_200_2_ed_

Right - maybe the company uses it for other events where they can't set
up lights. But it would seem unwieldy in this situation.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
focal lengths.

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

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
focal lengths.

We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:11:31 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
focal lengths.

We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)

I can look critically at 8x10 prints side by side and tell the
difference. I'll bet you could too.

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

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 23:11:31 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:25:58 -0500, Cynicor
wrote in
:

I was at some youth hockey games this past weekend, and the official
photographers had four lights on each ice surface, tied to Pocket
Wizards. I used my 70-200 f/2.8 and I got tons of really good pictures
at f/8, ISO 400, 1/250. I could easily have gone down to f/5.6.

The official shooter had a 200 f/2 lens, which was humongous compared
with mine. But how much benefit do you get in that situation when you
use a fixed-length lens? You're not going to be shooting wide-open, so
it would seem to me that the extra benefit mostly disappears at f/5.6,
and you're left with a much larger, less-flexible setup.

The fixed focal length lens will have the advantage in image quality --
no zoom measures up. The zoom will have the advantage of different
focal lengths.

We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)

I can look critically at 8x10 prints side by side and tell the
difference. I'll bet you could too.

I doubt that. But it makes no difference anyway.

With a fixed focal length there are going to be more
shots that require cropping than there will if the zoom
is used.

The significance is apparent when two locations are
selected to give the same relative field of view, one
with the fixed 200mm and the other (which will be
closer) with the zoom at 70mm. The comparison to look
at is a shot is made with the zoom set at 200mm compared
to a cropped image of the same area made by that fixed
lense in the more distant location location.

With top of the line lenses (for example Nikon's f/2.8
zooms) the zoom will perform better.

The fixed 200mm focal length lense at f/2 has two very
slight advantages. One is potentially lower light and
the other is potentially shallower depth of field. The
difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
(compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).

What you've said is perhaps valid if comparing typical
consumer grade 70-200mm f/~4 zooms, which is probably
the only kind you've ever worked with.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
The fixed 200mm focal length lens at f/2 has two very
slight advantages. One is potentially lower light and
the other is potentially shallower depth of field. The
difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
(compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).


... and, just possibly, if it is heavier it may have the advantage of
greater stability (against vibration and jitter).

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.

David

In article , John Navas
wrote:

We're not talking about taking photos of molecules, though. You're not
going to look at the 70-200 f/2.8 and say "Damn, what a crappy zoom
photo." You're also not printing 40x30" from it. (Maybe someone is, but
I don't know of anyone who has - they'll go 8x10.)

I can look critically at 8x10 prints side by side and tell the
difference. I'll bet you could too.

there are too many variables between different photos to attribute any
perceived difference to a specific lens. also, to even begin to see a
difference requires pixel peeping, something in which you claim you
have no interest. i am certain that you will not be able to reliably
identify the lens used any better than pure chance.

"David J Taylor" wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
[]
The fixed 200mm focal length lens at f/2 has two very
slight advantages. One is potentially lower light and
the other is potentially shallower depth of field. The
difference in either is so slight as to be insignificant
(compared to the advantages of a quality f/2.8 zoom).

.. and, just possibly, if it is heavier it may have the advantage of
greater stability (against vibration and jitter).

The Nikon 200mm f/2.0G weights 6.4 lbs, while the
70-200mm f/2.8 is exactly half that, at 3.2 lbs. The
fixed lense is actually 1/2" longer, but it has a 4.9"
diameter as opposed to the 3.4" diameter of the zoom.

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.

I haven't used either. I have the older 80-200mm f/2.8
AF ED zoom, which probably provides a very good basis
for guessing that the two newer lenses are excellent
tools, as it is roughly the same as the 70-200mm zoom,
absent VR and with slower AF.

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.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)