the most ubiquitous focal length on the used market

David Lyga · Nov 9, 2013

No, it's not normals any more, so it seems. It is the ever present, and ever annoying due to the prolificity (sorry spell check, but that is, indeed, a legal word), of the constantly available 80 - 200, or thereabouts. Why? - David Lyga

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2013

Because there is some really good glass in that range and it's a real practical range.

An ED AF Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 push-pull is on my F100 right now. That lens is so nice and so practical and works so well in so many situations that I sold off my Nikkor 105mm f2.5.

David Lyga · Nov 9, 2013

Yes, I guess so, but 'when water is everywhere'....One does not appreciate that truth.

These lenses are often fogged due to internal haze. It is not too difficult to clean by removing the front element set (either unscrew ring or, on some, the side set screws). You are correct: they make stellar portrait lenses at the low range or about 80. And, yes, they are truly sharp. But...heavy!!! - David Lyga

wiltw · Nov 9, 2013

Seems to me that the most prolific FL range on zooms 3-4 decades ago was the 70-210.

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2013

The weight helps negate mirror slap blur.

David Lyga · Nov 9, 2013

wiltw: I meant 'thereabouts' . The 70 - 210 fits into this focal length genre.

mark: Does the weight really help with this? I wonder because I have had cameras mounted on very flimsy supports with normal lenses and, with absolutely no interference (neither wind nor vibrations), I get tack sharp results from slow shutter speeds. This seems to be 'against' the commonly perceived assumption, but that is what I got. - David Lyga

j-dogg · Nov 9, 2013

My go-to lens on 35mm is a Canon 70-200 f4L IS

On my Nikon its a 70-210 3.5 Vivitar Series 1, wonderful little lens and designed by Ellis Betensky of NASA optics fame

Ricardo Miranda · Nov 9, 2013

That's funny you posted this David as I've just bought a Nikon Series E 70-200 F4. Why? Because it is lighter than taking a 100mm F2.8, a Vivitar Series 1 105 F2.5 macro lens and a 200mm F4. Besides it is one lens covering the functions of 3 lenses, so less lens change is needed.

wiltw · Nov 9, 2013

David Lyga said:
wiltw: I meant 'thereabouts' . The 70 - 210 fits into this focal length genre.

Therein lies the answer...everybody and his brother in the third-party aftermarket, offered 70-210mm (or thereabouts) at verrrry affordable price range. they were ubiquitous, and very often the first add-on to the camera bag to complement the standard 50mm f/1.8 normal that came with every body!

miha · Nov 9, 2013

Because 70(80)-200(210) or thereabouts gain most from AF and VR systems which are present in every new tele-zoom lens nowadays.

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2013

David Lyga said:
mark: Does the weight really help with this?

I was joking a bit but yes, increasing the total mass of the camera with the mirror mass and speed remaining the same reduces the effect of mirror slap.

Whether or not that makes any difference on a given shot is open.

The reason I was joking is that the extra weight takes more effort to hold and that may add to camera shake.

I do hand carry this regularly but when shots are important I like to use a monopod or tripod.

semi-ambivalent · Nov 9, 2013

markbarendt said:
I sold off my Nikkor 105mm f2.5.

Unfortunately, I've had to report you to the Bureau of Traditions and Legacies Enforcement. I'm truly sorry, I did it for the children.

s-a

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2013

semi-ambivalent said:
Unfortunately, I've had to report you to the Bureau of Traditions and Legacies Enforcement. I'm truly sorry, I did it for the children.

s-a

Giggle

cliveh · Nov 9, 2013

That sort of focal length is probably the limit for getting away with hand held.

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2013

cliveh said:
That sort of focal length is probably the limit for getting away with hand held.

Actually not, I shoot to 300mm regularly, great for picking people out in a crowd. Just need to keep shutter speeds up, 400 speed films are great here.

benjiboy · Nov 9, 2013

I have had a Canon FD 70-210L lens for more than 20 years and don't use it half as much as my Canon FD 28-85 f4 which is to me a much more useful do everything walk around lens.

BradleyK · Nov 9, 2013

benjiboy said:
I have had a Canon FD 70-210L lens for more than 20 years and don't use it half as much as my Canon FD 28-85 f4 which is to me a much more useful do everything walk around lens.

While I am inclined to agree with David re the ubiquity of the (70)80-200(210)mm lenses, I, too, benjiboy, find myself turning to my 28-70 F2.8mm ED at least as much as I do to my 80-200mm F2.8 ED Nikkor. That said, I still prefer (and use) primes for the majority of my shooting.:munch:

markbarendt · Nov 10, 2013

I have a 28-80 2.8 Tokina and one day want to upgrade it to the Nikon. That range is very nice.

ic-racer · Nov 10, 2013

The words "Telephoto" and "Zoom" were marketed heavily in the 1970s and 1980s. A 80-200 combines both words, thus making it very marketable. The ubiquity of these lenses is due to marketing. I can't say I don't own one, because 80-200mm lenses sometimes come free when you buy a body. Personally I don't find the combination (zoom + telephoto) very useful.

blockend · Nov 10, 2013

I have a Sigma 28-200 that hasn't seen the light of day for 20 years, but was quite useful when stopped down and reasonably compact. The general buying trend used to be 50 with the camera body, then 28 and/or 135. The telephoto morphed into 70-210, after which the 1990s kit zoom idea took off, first at 35-70, then 28-85.

Ebay is bursting with unbranded zoom lenses of modest apertures. Some are okay if good light, but they've fallen from fashion.

David Lyga · Nov 10, 2013

Honestly, I think that ic-racer might be the most accurate here. The marketing obsession perhaps was the main reason for so many being sold? True, they are handy, but, really, isn't the 28-80 far more handy? The 80-200 does not have all that much over the 135. That prime is: usually faster, at least as sharp (if not sharper), more manageable, less problems through wear with time.

Still, to get a perfect portrait lens in the 80 to 100 range one would have to search forever to be able to find one as cheap, and, let's face it, as good as this ubiquitous monster. I wanted to hear feelings on this lens as it is everywhere, and then some. - David Lyga

MattKing · Nov 10, 2013

David:

If you had ever worked in a camera store, you would remember having to deal with many people who wanted the XX-200mm zoom because the 200mm setting would bring things closer.

For many, many people, whether or not a lens exhibited higher resolution, better overall contrast, better acutance, more accurate colour rendition or any of the other technical measures of quality was relatively unimportant.

pen s · Nov 10, 2013

Well, if you happen to need or want one, (I don't) even good ones are cheap.

So I guess there is an upside to their being produced in great numbers.

As an aside, I've had several zooms, most came as body caps for cameras I wanted. Of all of them the only one I found useful was a cheap, little 28~48 f4 Zuiko S for my OM. I sold it because I could get $125 for it on e-bay and regret that to this day. It had a constant f4 aperture throughout it's range, focused close enough, took 49mm filter size like the rest of my Zuikos and was tiny and light. I was greedy and stupid to sell it.

Fixcinater · Nov 10, 2013

Grouping the 70/80-200/210 zooms together is a mistake, those Vivitar Series 1 zooms are well regarded as top notch for the day, but they pale in comparison to the truly modern 70-200s by the camera manufacturers. Nearly every facet of image quality has truly been advanced by better coatings and computer optimization for this design segment. I cannot say the same for most primes, apart for ultra-wide-angles.

That being said, unless tasked with event coverage where I simply must get the shot (and am being paid to do so), the 70-200 range solves a lot of problems that would take a lot of other glass to solve similarly well. The most recent Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II is astoundingly good, but yes, it is a brick in your bag.

markbarendt · Nov 10, 2013

David Lyga said:
The 80-200 does not have all that much over the 135.

What any zoom has over any fixed lens for me, is my ability to shoot from where I'm at.

I use my 80-200 to shoot through crowds at evets, at bicycle race starts where I can't be on the course, and other spots like Kayak races where zooming with my feet might mean wading into 4' of 45 degree water in a class 3 rapid or scrambling up a boulder strewn 45 degree incline while trying to frame and focus.

BTW I love the 28-80 range too, I just do more with the longer lens.

the most ubiquitous focal length on the used market

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency