Okay I'm trying to follow along as best I can with all the numbers but I'm not at that level yet , I want to be and I'm going to look into what you all are talking about . Are you all saying you won't take a few photos for me to compare ? I was not wanting to compare to a 200mm lens just up to the 135mm and now the 85mm from the 16-85mm . I think I'm getting why cropping is not so good now . I didn't realize I was losing mp's . I thought the part I keep was not changing and the reason it was less mp once cropped was because I was getting rid of a lot of the photo and the mp's were in that part I cut out . I really didn't know what I was thinking I just always cut it and made it big enough to see what I wanted to see. For smaller things like birds at a distance I would use my 70-200 2.8 but for things bigger and farther away like buildings or landscape or barns I would just use my 18-35 and crop how I wanted because every time I tried to use the 70-200 I would never get all I wanted in the photo and found myself backing up way farther away than I wanted to . My nephew's run cross country so I use the 18-35 for that and I would just crop to include what I wanted I tried the 70-200 for that also and when they came by they were just to close and I would only get half their body in the frame . I guess I just like the 18-35 because I get more than I need and just cut out what I don't want . I didn't know I was hurting the photo by cropping it . I cropped this one a lot but to me it still looks okay to me . I got his whole body (he is the smaller one ) With the 70-200 I would have just got his upper half . I probably used the wrong f stop This was my first time using the 18-35 . so I really didn't know what to set it at . I think I just picked f3.5 and 2000 and let the camera pick the iso . I like the TAv mode for action shots so far . I have sense been told to go to f 6 to help with getting things in focus for moving objects .
_IMG3075 | myridevlx600 | Flickr
---------- Post added 11-01-19 at 11:19 AM ----------
Thanks bdery what you said helped I think I see what you all are telling me .
---------- Post added 11-01-19 at 11:41 AM ----------
How does the 50-135 2.8 compare in weight and size to the sigma 70-200 2.8 . The sigma to me is just to heavy to take for traveling by air . If the 50-135 is lighter and smaller I'll just get it and take both .