Canon EF 70-200mm lens?
Hello!
I own the Canon EOS M50 Mark II. I bought it a few years ago. I know it's not the best camera.
I've been taking photos every day for a few months now. I recently bought the lens adapter and the 50mm lens. I really like it.
I mainly want to do dogs, nature and portraits.
And I've seen so many times that people have the 70-200mm lens.
I don't want to buy a new camera right away because I'm just starting out in photography, but would rather invest in this lens.
My question: What's your opinion on this? They say the lens is more important than the camera. And buying a new camera and lens is too much for me.
Especially since the 70-200mm lens isn't cheap. I'd buy it used.
Would you say that's fine or do you have a different opinion? Thanks in advance!
Lg
(1 votes)
Loading...
If you hear often, it’s quite wrong.
If so, why should people spend 1.2…5000 euros for a camera? Even those who always say that.
The camera is responsible for image noise, dynamics etc. and draws on what the lens delivers, which has a direct effect on the photo. Also for series image rate, e.g. is important for moving images in order not only to have the moving object, but also e.g. a desired position of the person, animal etc. In terms of the AF, which comes not only through the lens, but also through the camera. Or helpers like eyes – AF, design recognition, bracketing etc.
Of course, there are areas where the camera is actually something more “unimportant” than the lens, but also things where it plays an equivalent role.
If you’re talking about wildlife, you’re not going far with 200mm. Hold that “city parking level.” But otherwise, that’s the focal length.
That’s because it’s abolutious (!)!
The picture is taken by the Objetiv created. The camera only records what it comes from the lens. If you have a scrap of glass in front of your camera, you can also have the best camera in the world, then it won’t work with the good photos. But if you have a good lens on an older, worse camera, you still get a nice picture, even if that is technically not as perfect as on a newer camera. But an image is defined not only by technical perfection! Many of the best images that have ever been made are already very old and have been taken up with analog cameras and, in part, more sensitive films and, according to today’s standards, would be technically anything but “good”, yet the recordings are absolute masterpieces.
If you think the camera would be more important than an objective because a good camera for smoking etc. is acceptable, then you put the priorities wrong!
And in return, the lens is responsible for image errors such as distortions, blurring, chromatic aberrations etc.
Because they’re closing the circle.
But they only buy the expensive cameras if they also have good glass before. No one in clear mind is giving a lot of money for a camera but saves on the lens.
If someone spends 5,000€ for a camera, then you can assume that there is usually double money or more than glass!
I didn’t say the camera was more important… just as wrong. Of course, the lens is important. Nevertheless, it can be seen as interplay.
Hello
all EF 70-200 optics were the superlative of the image quality, the bokeh and the autofocus tempo in your time. Specifically, the 70-200/4L USM are reasonably priced (used from 275€) with decomposable volume weight (700 grams). The used prices of the 70-200/2.8L USM have now reached under 500€ and with portraits is 2.8 simply worth extra price but it is almost twice as heavy and bulky
For pets and portraits of APS-C, however, I would rather recommend an EF 24-105/4L IS USM (used from 300€) as a basis/”normal zoom”. The 70-200 are often “too much” tele. As long as you can take distance (run) it is OK. The lowest distance at 70mm portraits (Close UP) is at 1.2 meters high and 1.8 meters cross
If the financial situation is a topic you buy the combination EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM (used from 75€) with EF 70-210/3.5-4.5 USM (used from 50€). The gold ring optics are almost as fast as L optics and also have sawy bokehs.
And for portraits you can get a 6D, 5DII, 5DIII or an EOS RP. Bzw for action and portraits a 5DIII or R6 instead of an EF 70-200/2.8
most have a 70-200mm to a Full format Camera.
for your APS-C camera I find the focal length for most “normal” applications too much. This would correspond to a equivalent picture detail as if someone had a 112-320mm on a full format…
And you also need to remember that there are not only “the” 70-200, but several variants, with different light intensity and with or without image stabilizer… and then also different series editions, if you would also buy used.
Most of the people who want to invest in a good lens have the 70-200 2.8 L IS USM III, which is the most expensive option because the one, especially because of the light intensity, makes the most sense. If you want to save and want to buy only a 70-200 4.0 L (without image stabilizer) as the most favorable option, you’d rather waste your money in my eyes…
I’d be there in your place, depending on what exactly you want to photograph, rather invest in one or two good fixed focal lengths!!
Since you already have a 50mm, and this is due to the small sensor, an 80mm, you’re missing something more wide-angled… especially when you write about landscapes, there’s a 70-200 nothing to you, rather on the contrary…
As I said, I would buy at your place a 24mm and 100mm, for example, as a focal length, or if it should be a zoom rather than a shorter zoom.
But no 70-200
But if you also follow your photos and which focal lengths you need
The M50 may not be the best, but certainly a good middle class camera, from which great photos can be taken.
A 70-200mm f/2.8, designed for professionals, is perhaps a bit exaggerated on the camera. If your application area is not exactly paying customers and it is mainly about the zoom factor, then I would rather go to the slightly cheaper 70-300mm IS II USM or the 70-200mm f/4. You get both under 600€. As a portrait lens, you already have the 50mm.
if you mean the L-series, you have made an optimal choice. with f4 is approx. 50% cheaper to get used than the f2.8. if possible, give you the serial number and google after the product date.
but 200 mm focal length (with crop factor 320 mm kb equivalent) but for wildlife it is somewhat too short, dogs ok