Minimum length before becomes annoying?

On a FF body, would owning only a 70-200mm lens become annoying if you planned on using for everyday life - family days out, holidays, portraits, some sports stuff.

I'm trying to decide if i can own the one 70-200 f2.8 lens (plus a TC likely) and get a better one of those or need a 24-70 or 17-85 in addition.

thoughts from those that have done it and regreted it or made it work?

One comment, tempered a bit by a 70th birthday/retirement party yesterday that had a professional with a 6D paired with the 70-200 f/2.8. I have often thought about acquiring one and just never made it to a store to look one, but let me tell you that sucker is huge! So before you plunk down the cash, make sure you see it in the flesh.

You can do alot with 24-70, 70-200 and a 1.4x... Consider also going with a 24-105 instead of 24-70 to provide enough overlap to reduce the number of times you want to change lenses.

For everyday stuff I would say yes it is too bulky to haul around. The f/4 version is significantly smaller.

200 is pretty long. I have an old canon 70-210 3.5-4.5 that is a good size, but 135 or so is about as long as I regularly go when at group events.

2.8 is also usually too thin for more than one person in the shot, unless they are lined up perfectly.

agree on the shallow dof for group shots however i need the 2.8 for indoor gymnastics and dance of my girls, i will stop down when outside with plenty of light. i have not seen a 2.8 in the flesh , are they really that much bigger and heavier? i have owned an f4 with a 40d some years ago and that was fine. i only have it out of the bag for 10-15 mins here ans there. i am not a serial photographer, just a quick point and shoot here and there 5-10 times a day so weight and size may not be an issue. Let me go and find some stats, hadnt considered that as being enough of an issue to worry about. been focused on performance not practicality in my research so far.

i wonder if tamron/sigma 2.8s are just as big. something else to check i guess.

booboos wrote in post #18886318
agree on the shallow dof for group shots however i need the 2.8 for indoor gymnastics and dance of my girls, i will stop down when outside with plenty of light. i have not seen a 2.8 in the flesh , are they really that much bigger and heavier? i have owned an f4 with a 40d some years ago and that was fine. i only have it out of the bag for 10-15 mins here ans there. i am not a serial photographer, just a quick point and shoot here and there 5-10 times a day so weight and size may not be an issue. Let me go and find some stats, hadnt considered that as being enough of an issue to worry about. been focused on performance not practicality in my research so far.

i wonder if tamron/sigma 2.8s are just as big. something else to check i guess.

BTW, 'shallow DOF' is absolutely NOT attributable to FL! 'shallower DOF' is only due to the apparent size of the subject in the frame...identical subject size, identical DOF.

Prove it with a DOF calculator program on the web. If you shot with 50mm FL at f/4 at 10' shooting distance, or if you shot with 200mm FL at f/4 at 40' shooting distance, the DOF is THE SAME in the two shots, because the subjects are the same size in the two shots!

OTOH, the degree of blurriness of what is the 'far background' is indeed stronger with longer FL. So 'background blur' changes with FL, even while 'depth of field' does not (assuming the subject occupies the same amount of the frame).

I tried a 70-200/2.8 when I shot Nikon back in the film days and again the Canon version last year. I guess I’m a prime guy because I love a 50L and 85L for candid people shots. If you need a little wider the 35L may be the answer.

booboos wrote in post #18886276
On a FF body, would owning only a 70-200mm lens become annoying if you planned on using for everyday life - family days out, holidays, portraits, some sports stuff.

I'm trying to decide if i can own the one 70-200 f2.8 lens (plus a TC likely) and get a better one of those or need a 24-70 or 17-85 in addition.

thoughts from those that have done it and regreted it or made it work?

Am I reading this correctly as you are thinking about owning a single lens, that being the 70-200? I'm going to suggest that you will find having nothing wider than 70mm to be unworkable for the types of things you describe, family and events etc. You just will not be able to shoot group activities, people doing things together, portraits where the subject is in an environment.

Typically I'd suggest a 24-XX zoom first. Some people could even live with just that, and of course a 24-XX + 70-200 two lens set works really well.

Heya,

I've done the whole 1D + big F1.4, F2 primes, zoom, etc, full frame with primes/zoom, etc. Unless you're just completely enamored with holding and looking at the gear more so than being in the moment with your family, it's all too bulky and gets in the way. And yes, 70mm is not wide enough all the time. Unless your goal is to only capture headshots with blurry backgrounds, candid portrait basically, you really don't need that big of a lens, nor the focal length, day to day with the family. Maybe more likely if you were doing sports with the family. But for the every day, at the house, out with the family, on a trip, etc, wider is going to do more. If your stuck on needing full frame, then I'd go for the 24-70 or even a 16-35. I stopped using my three full frames and my go-to for being with the family is a mirrorless APS-C with a pancake F2 lens that has a 35mm equivalent FOV and good TTL onboard flash, in a rangefinder style body (Fuji X100 series). I much more enjoy this. Just my preference. And that's from using 5D's and 1Ds full frames with 70-200, 35, 85 and 135L type stuff. I don't want all that bulk. Walking 20+ feet away to get a basic shot is just no fun and you're no longer with your family in the moment, you're on the sidelines just documenting everyone else's day. I like being able to hand my little camera around and someone else can take a photo too and I don't worry about it so I can have some photos of me too. And 9/10 in almost all situations with the family, I've never needed 200mm while actually being with them unless it was a sporting event or some outdoor thing. Heck, I spent a lot more time with a 17-40 with the family on full frame when we went out and on trips. I prefer wider with the family so I can get context of where we are and what we're doing. I don't want few blurry background headshots at some destination that no one can tell you're at unless you tell them, from looking at the photo.

So again, I'd favor a 16-35 or 24-70 / 24-105 on full frame for the "every day family" stuff. Even that is overkill. Get the 70-200 for outdoor & sports.

Making the equipment work for you instead of the other way around will kill the joy of it. And after the moment and time is gone, you cannot get it back. So my default response to anyone needing a "family" lens situation is to error on the wide side.

Very best,

booboos wrote in post #18886318
agree i have not seen a 2.8 in the flesh , are they really that much bigger and heavier?

Figure almost 8 inches long and just short of 3# for the f/2.8, 3.3# for the “III.” This might be the nature of the beast, the f/2.8, as the Sigma “sport” is also 8 inches long and is just short of 4#.

Some good comments above. I was using 70-200mm f4.0 IS 90% of the time when I had my 6D. It is a great lens for day-to-day use. The lens is pretty much the same weight and dimensions as some of the non L equivalents such as the 70-300 II.

IMO the 70-200 f2.8 is too big and heavy for day-to-day usage for what you are utilising it for.

You would need something wider though. I sold my 24-105 and kept the 16-35 to be used with my next FF body. I found the 24-105 was not getting much use. But that was probably because I have a 80D with the 18-135 that covers this range. But if I were only to use FF, I would stick to 16-35 & 70-200mm F4 and use my 50mm 1.4 to plug the gap (if ever so needed).

booboos wrote in post #18886276
On a FF body, would owning only a 70-200mm lens become annoying if you planned on using for everyday life - family days out, holidays, portraits, some sports stuff.

For the first three points, I very often find that you don't have the physical space to use it properly or then you have to run away from the people to take pictures. A 24-70 (or similar) gives you more flexibility, you can stay with the people and get proper group shots also in tighter space.

Let me also illustrate that 'too wide' FL being used 'for landscape' has dangers of its own!...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18782250

The 2.8 70-200 lens weighs twice what the f4 lens does. The 24-70 or 24-105 would be a much more versatile lens for everyday use (unless you are primarily into sports). Also you can recoup the lost focal length by cropping whereas you can't "uncrop" with the 70-200.