Glass Question

[Rockwall Tim]

I'm a new owner of a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 lens. I also own the Canon 70-200 f4. I don't want to bring them both to Vermont on my trip...I've got to keep the gear bag as light as possible since I'll be lugging it through airports and on to planes. The former is rather heavy, the latter rather light. So all things being equal, I'd prefer the latter. So my question for the experts is: which should I take and which should I leave at home? I will be taking my Canon 28-135 kit lens as well...just wondering about which telephoto glass to take. Obviously, 99% of the shots will be foliage shots.

[Andy]

Tim: I really think you answered your own question here. The only reason I can think of to even continue to own the f4 version is the "smaller and lighter" part. Personally, I would always carry the 2.8 version and "suffer" under the added weight . Unless there was a reason that would simply prohibit the 2.8, why not go with the best glass you have?

I appreciate that you will be shooting primarily foliage, and that often means shooting at the f8-f11 aperture ranges. But I used to own a prime 300 f2.8. It was Big and Heavy. The ONE thing I miss is the ability to create those wonderful out of focus backgrounds in some cases. The modern 4.5 max zoom I carry simply doesn't give me that ability. I can think of several instances where I might like that effect in my background.

[Rockwall Tim]

Andy: Yeah, I once rented that 300 monster to do some aviation photography...I know whereof you speak. Thanks for the input! I'll pack the 2.8 and count it as much needed exercise.

Tim

[deaner1971]

I just acquired the Tamron f2.8 70-200 myself and can sympathize on the weight issue. I had a conference in Southern California last week and wanted to bring it and just that lens and a laptop made my backpack feel like I was stealing gold bars. Anything short of maximum zoom and the lens does make itself worthwhile.

As someone who has also just acquired some "fast glass" can I inquire as to whether or not ND filters take on added importance for stopping down for greater depth of field when you have a faster lens?

Thanks!

Dean

[Andy]

In my opinion, the answer is: "maybe" . "Fast" glass has the benefit of wider apertures, but at the same time, will generally stop down just as far as slower lenses (i.e., they mostly all have similar minimum apertures). So, for overall shooting, it shouldn't make a difference. However, if you are trying to take advantage of the depth of field (or perhaps more correctly, lack of DOF), while shooting something like moving water, for example, then a ND filter may still come in very handy.

[Andy]

As I read this thread, it occurs to me that I have relied on my "utility" lens (18-200 on the D200 and now 28-300 on the D700) for the vast majority of my shooting. Some of that may just be laziness - don't have to change lenses. What I really find myself missing these days is the ability to use that wide open aperture -- not so much for "speed" but for creativity. My Dream combo would probably be a couple of zooms one in the 15-70 range with a 2.8 aperture and the 70-200 with 2.8 aperture. Unfortunately, that dream would have to be accompanied by a second mortgage on my house .

I do need to think about using my 60mm "micro" f2.8 prime a bit more this year. I should be able to create some of those effects, although where they really stand out is at the longer focal lenghts.

[autzig]

Maybe I'm nuts but take all of my glass when I travel. I use a Think Tank roller bag that will fit in the overhead bin of most planes. I also pack my LowePro backpack. It will hold two camera bodies, my 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, 180 macro and 400. When full, it weighs about 40 pounds and I carry it with me everywhere. If I'm taking a big hike, I'll leave the 180 and 400 in my roller bag unless I absolutely think I will need them. When I climbed up to Delicate Arch in Utah, 1.5 miles and 1000 foot elevation gain, I left the heavy weights in the Think Tank in the car.