Oregon Hikers

Anyone using 70-200mm?

Likely that I will buy one in the next couple months. Just curious who else might be using one and how much mileage you get from the lens.

...

My son has a Canon 70-200 f4L and he uses it a lot. I just bought a Tamron 70-300 with what
Tamron calls vibration control. It is amazing in its sharpness and color separation. For an old guy who is none too steady, the vibration control is special. I keep thinking that I must have gotten an extra good copy. Once the newness wears off, I don't know how much I will use it. I took a little hike last week and only used it once out of about 50 shots. I was happy to have it for that one picture.

I also have a Tamron 70-300. I use it mostly for birds and bugs. For a less than $100 lens I think it does pretty well.

IMG_2031

IMG_2047

IMG_2054

IMG_2058-blossoms

IMG_2059

IMG_2070

IMG_9458

dragon fly smile close

fly on corn

IMG_0959

I, too, use a Tamron 70-300 with a Pentax mount. I picked it up for $90 used at B&H. Great lens!

PS: love that dragonfly smile, Karl!

Tamron has a 28 to 300mm lens that costs about $625 and it is a great lens. It is my number one lens for hiking if I bring my big camera, Canon 5D mark 3. It does a great job.

I have a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. Back when I was shooting film, I used it all the time as my main lens for any kind of telephoto shots. Great lens, fine optics, built like a tank, and weighs as much as several bricks ( I was younger and didn't notice the weight so much). When I switched to a DSLR with an APS sensor the lens became effectively 120 to 300mm, more focal length than I needed for most situations...and it seemed to be getting heavier...some times I carried it and sometimes not. Now I am even more sensitive to weight--still getting older, plus I think I'm doing more hiking and less photography--so I generally use a mirrorless camera and leave the DSLR and all the heavy lenses at home. I'm thinking about selling all my Nikon gear since it doesn't get used much.

jdemott wrote:I have a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. Back when I was shooting film, I used it all the time as my main lens for any kind of telephoto shots. Great lens, fine optics, built like a tank, and weighs as much as several bricks ( I was younger and didn't notice the weight so much). When I switched to a DSLR with an APS sensor the lens became effectively 120 to 300mm, more focal length than I needed for most situations...and it seemed to be getting heavier...some times I carried it and sometimes not. Now I am even more sensitive to weight--still getting older, plus I think I'm doing more hiking and less photography--so I generally use a mirrorless camera and leave the DSLR and all the heavy lenses at home. I'm thinking about selling all my Nikon gear since it doesn't get used much.

John, what are you using for a mirrorless? One of the Sony Alphas?

Nikon or Canon? I have the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII and it gets used a lot but not for hiking/backpacking. Just too heavy and I've gone to a Sony A6000 for hiking. I still use my Nikon DSLR for ski racing and portraits. For ski racing, I use it for slalom events and younger kids. For senior portraits, it's on my camera 90% of the time when I'm not in the studio. Some samples:







The question is what do you want to do with it? For me it would be too short for wildlife and too heavy to carry hiking as a secondary lens. For portraits and sports, it's a killer lens though.

John, what are you using for a mirrorless? One of the Sony Alphas?

Actually, I'm using a non-interchangeable lens camera--Canon G1X Mark II. It has a sensor a bit larger than the Micro 4/3rd cameras (closer to APS-C), and I have added the electronic viewfinder. Zoom range is 24-120, which is fine for almost everything I want when hiking, and I don't worry about changing lenses.

There are a lot of great choices out there now for mirrorless cameras that have sensors which give near-DSLR quality.

Some more examples of the Tamron 70-300 VC on an APS-C Canon.