A Proper Fit!

[mdaddyrabbit]

As I set and type this question, I wonder if I will ever take an image that satisfys me. I get really disappointed with my skills. Beyond that my question to who has the time to answer is this, I recently purchased a 70-200mm f/4 L and I have been shooting alot. From examing my efforts I have developed a question that maybe I have answered and need a second opinion. What is this lens typically used for? What do you guys and Gals used it for. Landscape, portrait, wildlife etc. I find it to be a nice lens but for Landscape its not wide enough, forportrait cant seem to get it to be clear enough, wildlife not long enough. Maybe I am missing something or maybe I am a little down on my self. Please give me some kind of direction with my question. I like to shoot wildlife and landscape so in my conclusion I am holding the wrong lens which was my decision in aquiring it. I dont think I have ever took a photo that really stood out to me or anyone else. I might have found a hobby that I will never be any better at. Maybe schooling? Anything subject wise, web or school to improve my hobby would greatly be appreciated and respected, if need be flame me.

[Citizensmith]

I own one as well.

It'll take some great portraits. Of course with f/4 its no 85 f/1.8 but you can counter that some by moving father from your subject and using a longer focal length. And it really is wonderfully sharp, I've got some great portrait from mine. What it lacks in narrow DOF vs something like the 85 it makes up for in having a zoom.

For landscapes you don't look to this lens for wide, you look to it for isolating a subject from its surroundings. Its not so much a vista lens as a feature lens, but by isolating things you can still get photos that are very descriptive of thier environment.

The lens is never going to get any longer. If it really isn't cutting it for you as a wildlife lens there isn't much any 200 will do. Personally I find it great as a wildlife lens, but I guess the wildlife I go for are either larger, or more approachable.

As for stand out photos. Just give it time, and take plenty of photos so you gradually learn what works best. Situations for great photos will come along and if you've been practising plenty you'll get some results to be proud of.

[aam1234]

I know what you mean mdaddyrabbit. Since I bought other lenses, this one is hardly used. It's as you said, not long enough for wildlife nor short enough for portraits and landscape. Wanted to say that on other threads but was afraid it would be some kind of blasphemy :)

Don't get me wrong, this lens is simply superb, and best value for an "L" lens in Canon lineup. My sharpest photos were taken either with the 70-200 or the 100 macro.

[condyk]

What is this lens typically used for? What do you guys and Gals used it for. Landscape, portrait, wildlife etc. I find it to be a nice lens but for Landscape its not wide enough, forportrait cant seem to get it to be clear enough, wildlife not long enough.

That's a good question ... having owned a nice copy of this lens my view is that it is designed to induce 'L'ust and NOT to ever take photo's of anything. I think your question is spot on ...

As to Citizensmith's comment:

'Of course with f/4 its no 85 f/1.8 but you can counter that some by moving father from your subject and using a longer focal length.'

I'm not sure moving father is always going to help with family portraits ... sometimes it could cause family disagreements. You may want to move mother, brother, sister now and again instead. :lol: :lol: :p

[PacAce]

I mostly use my 70-200 lens for shooting large wildlife, wildlife in close proximity (aka in zoos :lol: ), auto racing, horse racing, and outdoor sports like baseball and softball. In conjunction with my 1.4X TC, I've used the lens for shooting birds that I would normally use my 100-400 lens for.

[ron chappel]

Unfortunately i must agree so far- this lens is abit of a compromise for the reasons given.

It is usefull of course,you just can't use it for everything.
...Of course when you do find a subject that it suits, it will give outstanding images:)

I still want one

[condyk]

I mostly use my 70-200 lens for shooting large wildlife, wildlife in close proximity (aka in zoos :lol: ), auto racing, horse racing, and outdoor sports like baseball and softball. In conjunction with my 1.4X TC, I've used the lens for shooting birds that I would normally use my 100-400 lens for.

Yes ... we need a new category. Maybe zoolife and wildlife. The number of times this lens is recommended as suitable for wildlife is bonkers. Generally, Zoolife YES, wildlife NO ... and that applies to fitting a 1.4x as well :lol:

Then we have wildbirds NO (unless Ostrich, and then it would have to be quite close ... and really you should now be running away!) and garden birds (maybe ... Pigeon possibly YES, wren probably NO!) or, Hummingbird at feeder places 5m from open window in bright light possibly YES :lol:

[HJMinard]

Since I purchased the Tamron 28-75 and then the 400/5.6L my 70-200 has remained in the bag for long stretches. My usage is mostly the same as Leo's: large wildlife, youth sports ... occasionally candid portraits. I find myself longing for something faster and/or with IS (a common longing, I'm sure) ... but do I replace it with a 70-200/2.8 or a fast prime or two (135/2.0L; 200/2.8L)?

[cfcRebel]

....Since I bought other lenses, this one is hardly used. It's as you said, not long enough for wildlife nor short enough for portraits and landscape.

That's exactly my main concern. I mentioned this a week or two in another thread. It's not wide enough for typical pool party or backyard BBQ for me. It's not long enough for birds in nearby parks. I believe it is a great lens for outdoor candid portrait which I hardly practice. So i change my decision (100-400L) based on my photography interests.