Nikon AF-S 70-200mm/F2.8

[ANILE8]

All taken with Nikon D2HS + Nikon AF-S 70-200mm/F2.8

[scollins]

Nice pics! She's a beautiful woman too.

After recently trying to take pictures of my daughter playing basketball, I really need that 70-200 f/2.8!

[Sniz]

great pics, beautiful subject and killer lens

thsi thread is full of WIn

[TWiTCHY]

Originally Posted by scollins

Nice pics! She's a beautiful woman too.

After recently trying to take pictures of my daughter playing basketball, I really need that 70-200 f/2.8!

Wait, was that you on Flickr that uploaded those pics? I remember seeing pictures from inside a gym...

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by scollins

Nice pics! She's a beautiful woman too.

After recently trying to take pictures of my daughter playing basketball, I really need that 70-200 f/2.8!

Yes the 70-200mm/F2.8 is an essential lens in any basic kit.

Add in a 12-24mm for wide angle work and a midrange zoom in the 24-70mm range.

With these three lenses they should keep you covered for most stuff.

[techforge]

The 70-200 is probably my second favorite next to my 17-55. I've gotten some great wedding shots, and it's great for low light sports.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

Wait, was that you on Flickr that uploaded those pics? I remember seeing pictures from inside a gym...

Yes, I uploaded just under 300 pics on Flickr. They are untouched JPEGs (oh the shame......)

[TurboFan]

Great lens. The last pic was my fav

Lose the lens hood. It just takes up space and risks damage to the lens.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Lose the lens hood. It just takes up space and risks damage to the lens.

How about flare? My Canon EF 70-200 f4L IS has an element right at the front filter holder. I think of the hood protecting the lens. On the Canon it reverses onto the lens for storage, so it takes up no more room.

Dave

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Great lens. The last pic was my fav

Lose the lens hood. It just takes up space and risks damage to the lens.

Nikon lenses use specially engineered hoods for very good reasons.

[TurboFan]

Nikon and canon still include lens hoods because people still think you need them. Most accomplished photographers I know leave them in the box.

The modern coatings on higher end lenses these days completely eliminate the need for a hood. The hood in days gone by was to shade the front of the camera lens from light that was out of the field of view. This would produce ghosted images all day long. The only time I've seen an issue in my modern Nikkor lenses is when I'm shooting nearly straight into the sun, in which case the hood is of no use anyway.

On the other hand, if you have a lens where the hood attaches to a moving front element, like the 80-400 VR, you are increasing the risk of damage in a bump or fall.

On a lens with a fixed front mount, you just look like a tool that wants everyone to think your lens is even longer than it really is.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Nikon and canon still include lens hoods because people still think you need them. Most accomplished photographers I know leave them in the box.

The modern coatings on higher end lenses these days completely eliminate the need for a hood. The hood in days gone by was to shade the front of the camera lens from light that was out of the field of view. This would produce ghosted images all day long. The only time I've seen an issue in my modern Nikkor lenses is when I'm shooting nearly straight into the sun, in which case the hood is of no use anyway.

On the other hand, if you have a lens where the hood attaches to a moving front element, like the 80-400 VR, you are increasing the risk of damage in a bump or fall.

On a lens with a fixed front mount, you just look like a tool that wants everyone to think your lens is even longer than it really is.

Well, that's absolutely silly. When I shoot without the hoods I'll often see flare that the hood will take away. My Canon L-series lens are the best that Canon makes and they were made in the last year. Good as the coatings are that can't keep light from bouncing into the lens or actually hitting it from outside the image area. I think you making this up or have little or no actual experience with high end lenses.

I think your last paragraph says the real reason that you feel this way, you're afraid you'll look like a "tool." My lenses have "fixed" front mounts (they don't turn) but the lens hoods attach outside of the filter threads, on the outside of the lenses.

Dave

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Nikon and canon still include lens hoods because people still think you need them.

Yes

That's Voodoo Logic.... Sure thing.... They are included with lenses by Nikon and Canon at a token gift and are not intended to be of any use.

As if...

Most accomplished photographers I know leave them in the box.

I strongly disagree with this statement. In my experience quite the opposite is in fact true.

The modern coatings on higher end lenses these days completely eliminate the need for a hood.

I strongly disagree with this statement. This is just not the case, and I have some of Nikon best professional series lenses.

Take a look at the pro photographers at any major sporting event. Most if not all are using lens hoods.

The hood in days gone by was to shade the front of the camera lens from light that was out of the field of view. This would produce ghosted images all day long. The only time I've seen an issue in my modern Nikkor lenses is when I'm shooting nearly straight into the sun, in which case the hood is of no use anyway.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

On the other hand, if you have a lens where the hood attaches to a moving front element, like the 80-400 VR, you are increasing the risk of damage in a bump or fall.

Only cheap amateur lenses use moving front elements.

On a lens with a fixed front mount, you just look like a tool that wants everyone to think your lens is even longer than it really is.

What can I say to that.... This has to be the quote of the year

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Well, that's absolutely silly. When I shoot without the hoods I'll often see flare that the hood will take away. My Canon L-series lens are the best that Canon makes and they were made in the last year. Good as the coatings are that can't keep light from bouncing into the lens or actually hitting it from outside the image area. I think you making this up or have little or no actual experience with high end lenses.

I think your last paragraph says the real reason that you feel this way, you're afraid you'll look like a "tool." My lenses have "fixed" front mounts (they don't turn) but the lens hoods attach outside of the filter threads, on the outside of the lenses.

Dave

Well Dave, not sure why you feel the need for the hood. Look around at a baseball game. Damn few if any hoods on those guys monster lenses. I've been shooting without them for years, and haven't had a problem. I shoot Nikkor lenses, so I can't speak directly for Canon, but I had assumed that a Canon lens was using just as good of glass technology as Nikon.

My customers and gallery owners don't see the flare, and neither do I, so I see absolutely no need to toy with the stupid hoods. They just get in the way of chaning and adjusting my filters.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Yes

That's Voodoo Logic.... Sure thing.... They are included with lenses by Nikon and Canon at a token gift and are not intended to be of any use.

As if...



I strongly disagree with this statement. In my experience quite the opposite is in fact true.



I strongly disagree with this statement. This is just not the case, and I have some of Nikon best professional series lenses.

Take a look at the pro photographers at any major sporting event. Most if not all are using lens hoods.



I strongly disagree with this statement.



Only cheap amateur lenses use moving front elements.



What can I say to that.... This has to be the quote of the year

An professional is not defined by the gear he uses, but by the results he or she obtains with that gear. I've shot with a D70x, a D80, D100, D200 and a D3, obtaining images with all of them that have been published and/or sold. Some of them were even taken with *gasp* a variable aperture lens.

[rodi]

actually, a professional is just someone who makes most of his/her income in a particular field, regardless of their work or tool.

;]

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by rodi

actually, a professional is just someone who makes most of his/her income in a particular field, regardless of their work or tool.

;]

This is correct.

Contrary to TurboFan's many posts who is incorrect again. The 'results' one obtains has nothing to do with if they are a professional or not.

The term "professional" is commonly used incorrectly when referring to photographers, as the distinction simply refers to how the photographer is funded, and not necessarily the standard of their portfolio.

A professional photographer is someone who shoots for money. The opposite is amateur, meaning a person who does not shoot for money.

There are a hell of a lot of bad professionals out there.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

....Only cheap amateur lenses use moving front elements....

So if the opposite of amateur is professional, aren't you making the judgment based upon a photographers gear, not whether or not they make a living from the activity?

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by rodi

actually, a professional is just someone who makes most of his/her income in a particular field, regardless of their work or tool.

;]

I would completely disagree with this statement. Being a professional implies a far higher level of competency than simply making a living from an activity. It implies a certain level of skill, a level of quality in the work output. Someone is hardly a professional just because they are paid to do something. In fact, someone can do professional work and never receive a dime for it.

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

So if the opposite of amateur is professional, aren't you making the judgment based upon a photographers gear, not whether or not they make a living from the activity?

Yes, I probably should have more accurately said, start using better quality glass.... But if you like slow variable aperture lenses then you will not care about better performance anyway.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Yes, I probably should have more accurately said, start using better quality glass.... But if you like slow variable aperture lenses then you will not care about better performance anyway.

There is plenty of quality glass from Nikkor with a variable aperture. They are perfectly capable of making a high quality image and delivering professional results, albeit in a more narrow range of situations.

I have bags full of fixed and variable aperture lenses from Nikkor. If I don't need the speed of an f/2.8 lens, and the super shallow depth of field, I'll leave the fixed aperture lenses at home many times in favor of the smaller, lighter and very good variable app lenses, like the 18-200 and the 80-400. But if I need the speed, I can pull out the 80-200 f/2.8 AFS or the 400 f/2.8. When you have to carry your own gear in, weight matters.

Making aloof sarcastic comments doesn't help people trying to learn the trade or hobby.

[rodi]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

I would completely disagree with this statement. Being a professional implies a far higher level of competency than simply making a living from an activity. It implies a certain level of skill, a level of quality in the work output. Someone is hardly a professional just because they are paid to do something. In fact, someone can do professional work and never receive a dime for it.

so then, what is a man who makes a good living doing shit-quality work? is he not a professional?
you're trying to strip the word of its status as a noun first and foremost; only secondly does it hold any use as an adjective. a subjective one, at that.
are you sure that you want to "completely" disagree?