(FX) What do you use your 70-200 for?

[Tannin]

FOR FULL-FRAME (FX) USERS ONLY*

If you own a 70-200 or similar lens (such as a 70-300) and use it on a full-frame (FX) body, what do you use it for? I don't own one but, as an example, I'll post my rough 100-400 breakdown:

• Landscapes: 50%
• Birds: 20%
• Other wildlife (mostly mammals and reptiles): 10%
• Close-up details of arcitecture, bridges, ruins, machinery, etc. 10%
• All other uses: 10%

In other words, if I use the 100-400, I mostly use it for landscapes, followed by birds (in situations where the 500/4 is not suitable), and a few other things. I quite often think about a 70-200 or 70-300, but I have no idea what I'd actually use it for. (Which is why I have not got one!) But 70-200 is a very popular length to have in the kit and I'm curious: people like that length, so ythey must use it for particular tasks, what do you use yours for?

* For current puropses, let's count APS-H (1.3 crop) as full-frame. I'll post a similar thread for APS-C (DX) users shortly.

[ricktas]

My 70-200 (sigma f2.8) gets used mostly for pet photography and some sports. Good for triathlons etc. But primarily I use it to photograph peoples dogs, cats etc. It is a great lens to use on a dog in a park, on the beach who is running full pelt directly at you.

I too use my for landscapes at times, but my preferred landscape lens is a widey.

[swifty]

I use my 70-200/2.8 mostly for portraiture, some landscapes and the rest - miscellaneous.
The split's probably around 75:20:5 respectively.
I sold my 85/1.4 to buy a 70-200. Very different lenses I know but I've found the 70-200mm to be more versatile and covers my portraiture needs fine whilst giving me extra flexibility.
What I don't like is the bulk and only use it when I'm specifically out on a shoot whereas the 85/1.4 prime sometimes comes with me on casual non-photographic specific outings. I know you didn't ask about the 85 but I thought it was relevant since I effectively replaced my 85 with the 70-200mm.

[waylib]

I have only just got my Sigma 70-200 and it has not left my camera. Great for the equestrian photography I do but have yet to try it for much else.

Cheers
Wayne

[MissionMan]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the best portrait lenses on the market. I suggest you experiment with it and you may get some surprises.

[fess67]

70-200 f2.8. Portraits of pets, flowers, people.

[I @ M]

The Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 is almost exclusively used for outdoor portrait and people photos and indoor event photography.

[Tannin]

Really interesting answers, good people. Thankyou! One thing that stands out for me - something I have learned from this thread (and the other similar one) - is that we could nearly summarise the purpose of a 70-200 as "really, really useful for most of the sorts of popular photographic things Tannin doesn't happen to do much! of!" Indoor sport - never done that; rugby and the like I hardly do but manage OK with the 100-400 or even the 500/4. Pets ... funny that should come up. Not one of my regular subjects but one of the reasons this topic came to mind in the first place is that I was shooting a family puppy the other day and kept swapping betwen 24-105 (a bit too short) and 100-400 (too long). Portraits I do now and again but mostly indoors with the 24-105 and flash or else whatever I have that's fastish - 35/1.4 or 100/2.8.

Swifty - interesting comments about your 85/1.4 to 70-200/2.8 swap. I have often toyed with the idea of buying an 85, but never quite decide if I should get the mid-range and cheap(ish) Canon 1.8 or the superb but heavy and mega-expensive Canon 85/1.2. Meanwhile I bumble along using the 60/2.8 macro on a crop body for thosejobs - which, honestly, is really perfectly good enough for anything I do.

The other reason I was thinking about 70-200s is that I miss my old "38-148/4" - i.e., the 24-105 when I used to use it on crop bodies. Sure, I love the (15mm equivaent) wide end now, but I often miss the long end and dream about something like a 50-150.

Conclusion: I remain unsure as to whether I'd get much value from a 70-200, but unsure in a more enlightened way! Thankyou again all.

[simonrl]

I use my 70 - 200 f2.8 mainly for landscape and portraits. It is great when you want to get close in or some image compression in a landscape. It is my second favourite landscape lens, my most favourite is the 24 - 70 f2.8.

[jev]

My 70-200 doesn't get used much. For portraits, usually find the thing too intimidating to people. For sports: too short and I prefer the shift-zoom from the 100-400. Cars (when I bring the 5D to an MGCC meeting, which is hardly ever). Indoor: nope, I really would prefer something smaller and IS (my 70-200/2.8 is a mark I, without stabilizer).

It used to be my weapon of choice when doing press reports, but those days are gone. So, all in all, the thing is collecting dust on the shelf more than anything else.

[kiwi]

Everything really

[MissionMan]

Everything really

Yeah, tend to agree. I used my 70-200 for almost everything for an event on the weekend and that was a mix of landscapes, portraits, sports etc. The versatility of this lens is amazing.

[Morgo]

I use my 70-200 2.8 IS II mostly for sports and portraits but it really is my go to lens as it does an excellent job at everything I use it for

[wedgtail]

70-200 Nikon 2.8 V11 indoor events low light when I cant get close to the stage . portrait work both indoor and out side with a tele converter for sports out doors main sports I cover are judo and indoor volley ball. in doors its live performers in shows including Burlesque artists . Great all round lens coupled with a 24-70 2.8 tamron on my D600

[Brian500au]

I use my 70-200 f2.8 for outside portrait work. Last year I added the 70-300L as a lighter alternative travel lens.

[virgal_tracy]

Portraiture and sports shooting. Can not fault its versatility.