[Dan Rentea]

I don't think so. This is a portrait/sports type lens for those who can't afford and f2.8 lens.

Really? I don't know how you ended up with this impression, but it's not necessary accurate. Weight and size are sometimes more important than a fast aperture.

It's plenty short to be used for wildlife, for sure.

Depending on your skills or what you reffer to when you say wildlife. I have enough images taken with 70-200mm to prove you are wrong. The below images were taken with a 70-200mm, on a full frame. Imagine a 70-200mm f4 + a 1.4x TC on a crop camera. It will become a 420mm at f5.6.

Attached Images

   

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 02-28-2018 at 10:12 AM.

[northcoastgreg]

I don't think so. This is a portrait/sports type lens for those who can't afford and f2.8 lens. At a cost of, say 800 to 900 dollars, there are probably a lot of people who will gravitate to it, but I don't see many landscape photographers or wildlife photographers gravitating to it

The Canon 70-200 f4 has long been popular with landscape photographers. When I was at Dallas Divide in the San Juan Mountains back in 2011, nearly all the Canon FF shooters were using one. There are a number of iconic landscape locations where a telephoto lens is absolutely necessary, such as Oxbow Bend in the Grand Tetons, Painted Hills in Oregon, Redwood Creek Overlook and Klamath River Overlook in California. On FF a 70-200 f4 makes a great telephoto landscape lens: sharp and contrasty and significanly smaller and lighter than the f2.8 monsters.

[mecrox]

I don't think so. This is a portrait/sports type lens for those who can't afford and f2.8 lens. At a cost of, say 800 to 900 dollars, there are probably a lot of people who will gravitate to it, but I don't see many landscape photographers or wildlife photographers gravitating to it. It's plenty short to be used for wildlife, for sure.

I seldom shoot landscapes in the 70-200 range at all. I would think you would be a lot better with, say the DFA 28-105 and then an ultra-wide prime like the Irix 15 or Samyang 14mm. For me, the DFA 24-70 is all I would need most of the time, although I always stick the DFA 15-30 in my bag too when I'm shooting landscapes.

I find longer focal lengths often very appealing for landscapes. As a long but still portable landscape lens and all-round short telephoto the f4 sounds ideal. With a 24-70mm f2.8 and a fast fifty you have a three-lens kit that might be all many folks would ever need for anything. Perfect. Forget a 70-200mm f2.8. It’s far too big and too costly for many, perhaps most folks. A trophy item unless you’re a working professional, I would guess. If the price is right, I’d imagine the f4 lens would be a good seller, on APS-C too.

[normhead]

Really? I don't know how you ended up this impression, but it's not necessary accurate. Weight and size are sometimes more important than a fast aperture.

Exactly. I sometimes carry my old purple fringing F 70-210, where I don't want to carry the DA*200 or DA*60-250. People really need to get over the notion that people don't buy 2.8 lenses because they are cheap. I have lots of 2.8 lenses, I don't want all my lenses to be 2.8 lenses. People don't buy 2.8 lenses because they've analyzed their images and realized they hardly ever shoot at ƒ2.8, even with 2.8 lenses. Why would you double your weight for nothing if your preferred shooting range is ƒ5.6 and ƒ8? I usually stop down even my ƒ4 lenses at least one stop.

The big reason, at least from my perspective for 2.8 lenses is so you still have a decent Aperture when you put a TC on the end, and right now Pentax doesn't even have a TC worth buying for the FF.

The success of the new 70-200 in my house will depend on the weight. If it's lighter and shorter than the 60-250 it has a chance. If not, I'll keep looking at the 55-300 PLM, which as far as I can tell is much better corrected for fringing and CA than the F 70-210.

And does anyone else find the term "Single Focus" irritating? They mean Single Focal Length. Is there some reason they can't have even one native English speaker checking these things?

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-28-2018 at 08:21 AM.

[Rondec]

Really? I don't know how you ended up this impression, but it's not necessary accurate. Weight and size are sometimes more important than a fast aperture.




Depending on your skills or what you reffer to when you say wildlife. I have enough images taken with 70-200mm to prove you are wrong. The below images were taken with a 70-200mm, on a full frame. Imagine a 70-200mm f4 + a 1.4x TC on a crop camera. It will become a 420mm at f5.6.

I suppose that's fine. I don't shoot wildlife much at all and I guess I was thinking of this lens more from a full frame perspective. As far as the whole 200mm/TC on crop camera, I suppose a lot depends on the quality of the TC. I've seen good results with them, but some mediocre results too.

[ChatMechant]

I love the A70-210 for hiking. In fact I ditched the 60-250 after using it. A new 70-200 with wr, internal zoom(please!) the size of the 50-135 would be the lens I've been waiting for.

[normhead]

I suppose that's fine. I don't shoot wildlife much at all and I guess I was thinking of this lens more from a full frame perspective. As far as the whole 200mm/TC on crop camera, I suppose a lot depends on the quality of the TC. I've seen good results with them, but some mediocre results too.

But have you ever seen mediocre results when the lens used is a DA* quality lens?

A TC won't make a soft lens sharp, quite the opposite, but if the lens has sharpness to spare, it's about the same as a longer lens without the TC. I think that's the part people don't get. The TC isn't a way to make cheap lens longer, it's a way to make an excellent lens longer.

[Rondec]

But have you ever seen mediocre results when the lens used is a DA* quality lens?

A TC won't make a soft lens sharp, quite the opposite, but if the lens has sharpness to spare, it's about the same as a longer lens without the TC. I think that's the part people don't get. The TC isn't a way to make cheap lens longer, it's a way to make an excellent lens longer.

The question in my mind which has never been answered conclusively is which is going to give better results, a 200mm with TC or a decent consumer 70-300mm lens? I don't own a TC, but my experience with cropping a 200mm shot to the 300mm parameters is that it actually loses a little bit to the 300mm lens, even though its a better lens overall. Not sure though how much a TC would change the equation.

This the DA 55-300 at 300mm on a K5.



I just haven't been able to get hummingbirds that sharp with a 200mm lens (mainly because I can't get close enough).

[normhead]

The question in my mind which has never been answered conclusively is which is going to give better results, a 200mm with TC or a decent consumer 70-300mm lens? I don't own a TC, but my experience with cropping a 200mm shot to the 300mm parameters is that it actually loses a little bit to the 300mm lens, even though its a better lens overall. Not sure though how much a TC would change the equation.

This the DA 55-300 at 300mm on a K5.



I just haven't been able to get hummingbirds that sharp with a 200mm lens (mainly because I can't get close enough).

A decent 70-300 lens you say? Does that even exist? My DA*200 with either the 1.4 or 1.7 knock the socks off my Sigma 70-300.

DA*200 2.8 with HD DA 1.4 TC.


I've never seen a DA*300 better. I'd hate to try and make this some kind of real definitive comparison, but, I'm guessing the results would be close enough, you wouldn't sell your 200 and 1.4 TC and get a 300 for any improvement there might be. Especially since the DA*200 isn't prone to focus breathing, and most modern lenses are.

One of my favourite old Sigma 70-300 images. It's not even in the same ball park.


Not only is the image better, the DA*200 image was hand held, the Sigma 70-300 was tripod mounted.

[SteveinSLC]

Had there been a good, weather-sealed 70-200 f4 option, I probably wouldn't have bought the DFA* 70-200 f2.8. That's a fantastic lens, but it's a beast.
And there are definitely times when I take "landscape" shots at over 100mm. Usually using the DFA* on a tripod. But I still wouldn't take a 70-200(either f2.8 or f4) as a single walk-around/hiking lens. It's not wide enough. The 28-105 is perfect for that.
What I'd really like is a smallish 20 or 24 f1.8 or 2.0 sharp weather sealed prime to go with the 28-105 when I don't want to lug around the 15-30. Hopefully that's what one of those roadmap wide angles is.

[pres589]

Norm, awesome bird in flight picture.

I'm kind of glad I don't have to get into these debates. The captured image, in the end, seems more important than understanding the possible results of every permutation of hardware that's now being discussed in this thread.

[normhead]

Norm, awesome bird in flight picture.

I'm kind of glad I don't have to get into these debates. The captured image, in the end, seems more important than understanding the possible results of every permutation of hardware that's now being discussed in this thread.

Answers have to be carefully considered, to try and match what you think the person is asking, The answer to such questions is often different depending on circumstances. And in cases like this, I don't even know the answer, I'm coming up with a "best guess".

[redrockcoulee]

People really like the Canon 70-200 f4 as much as they like the 70-200 f2.8. Probably some of that is its being smaller and cheaper, but some is that Canon made sure that it was sharp wide open.

The DFA 70-200 f2.8 is sharp wide open too and so there is now way in my mind that a Pentax 70-200 f4 would be sharper than it, but if it had edge to edge sharpness at f4 and was the size of the DA *50-135, a lot of people would tolerate not having f2.8 -- particularly with how good high iso performance is on the K-1.

Art Wolfe now uses the Canon f4 lenses, due to weight. If the quality of a f4 lens is good enough for Art Wolfe it should be good enough for most who post here.

[normhead]

I love the A70-210 for hiking. In fact I ditched the 60-250 after using it. A new 70-200 with wr, internal zoom(please!) the size of the 50-135 would be the lens I've been waiting for.

Below is my one and only shot of a mink in the wild. Well actually I got about 30 images, it was a15 minute shoot. I spotted this guy in a pond just off the road, while driving to the grocery store (50 miles away).

It'a series of really high contrast difficult light images, and as far as I'm concerned the F70-210 completely butchered it. There was purple fringing, loss of detail due to CA, it just didn't handle the situation well.


Heres the same type situation with the Tamron 300 and 1.7 TC. The tamron is not well corrected for fringing and CA, but is still a huge improvement over the
70-210, even with the 1.7 attached. Put a TC on the 70-210 and you're in purple fringe city.



Once this happens to you, it makes you reluctant to take the lens. I will still use it in low to medium contrast situations, we have some very nice images taken with it, but bright sunny day with snow cover, I should have known better.

I have been coming to the park for close 35 years and lived up here for 10 years, and this is my only chance to get an image of a mink. I
've seen them maybe 5 times, but most of the time they see you and run away. This guy was happy to stay close. He may have even been trying to get me to play. You lose a chance like that to a lens not suited to the job, it makes you think twice every time you pick it up. I still take it from time to time, but I'm much more careful about the circumstances.

[Kunzite]

Art Wolfe now uses the Canon f4 lenses, due to weight. If the quality of a f4 lens is good enough for Art Wolfe it should be good enough for most who post here.

Hmm...
Art Wolfe Recommended Gear - Art Wolfe

(Not saying that f/4 lenses aren't good).