Photography only needs

7O20O/F4 is good, but it is better to buy 247O/F2:8. Its picture quality is getting better and better and its weight is moderate. This is a shot with no regrets.

Is it worth choosing 70-200f4 for portability?

This configuration is not suitable: the 70-200 lens is a telephoto zoom lens, and its main advantage lies in portrait shooting, while daily travel shooting is only the shooting of landscapes or environmental portraits, which requires a wider focus, that is, a lens with a wider field of vision. Besides, 70-200 is not light!

70-200 is a long focal length, which is more suitable for taking photos with shallow scenery and small viewing angle, and is mostly used for portrait shooting.

It is also very competent for some distant landscape photos. These are the advantages of telephoto lenses.

However, the 70-200 can't do anything about the scene with a large field of vision, not to mention that in travel shooting, it is more often a big angle scene shooting.

If the space is open, 70-200 can be solved by increasing the shooting distance, but in some limited spaces, 70-200 can hardly shoot.

For travel shooting, a "tiger balm" lens like 24-70, which is neither too long nor too short, may be more suitable, that is, it has both a wide focus and a telephoto. Although "not too long or too short", it is a travel shooting after all, which is very suitable for the arrangement of focal length.

The above personal suggestions are for reference only.

I am the south of the south, welcome to pay attention.

Is it worth choosing 70-200f4 for portability?

To be sure, your choice is ok.

First of all, it is a good decision to choose 70-200/4 if you are mainly traveling and shooting scenery.

This lens is one of the small ternary lenses. Although it's not a big aperture of 2.8, it's no problem to shoot the scenery, and it can also shoot well. The biggest feature is that this lens is relatively light, suitable for going out to take pictures, and it will not be too cumbersome to hold it for a long time.

As for imaging, you can rest assured that the image quality is very good and there is good imaging at full focal length. Compared with the big ternary lens, this lens is several thousand yuan cheaper. Of course, it is also feasible to take portraits with it. Although it is not as good as Jiao Wai with 2.8 aperture, it also has a good soft light effect.

Whether Nikon or Canon, the lens clarity of this focal segment is quite excellent, and the anti-shake is also very powerful. Especially when traveling, it is sometimes inconvenient to bring a tripod, so it is very appropriate to choose a lighter and more anti-shake lens.

Generally speaking, this small ternary lens is very good, and it is a good lens for travel shooting.

The above is my opinion, and friends are welcome to add or comment.

Sword dance images, western photographers, welcome to pay attention.

I think the previous answer is that the focal length of 720 is too long for the scenery, and it is totally dogmatic to shoot the scenery with 2470 or wide angle or ultra-wide width. I have been in Tibet for two months. I brought a 730, a 2470 and a 1024 when I came, but the utilization rate of 730 was the highest in the whole trip, and it almost became a hang-up. Followed by 2470, and then super wide.

In fact, what kind of head is suitable depends on what kind of occasion you are going to. In places like Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia, where there are many people and few land, telephoto is king. If you go to an ancient town or something, you can use 2470, which is super wide. I mainly use it to shoot buildings or interiors. Of course, your trip is mainly photography. Take more pictures. If you are traveling purely for leisure, it is recommended to bring a card machine such as a mobile phone or a black card.

The following photos were taken in Tibet during this period.

70-200F4 lens for travel shooting is not worth it. We should ask if it is enough.

Traveling abroad, wearing a 70-200 F4 small ternary lens is definitely much lighter than the F2.8 big ternary lens. F2.8 is really a bit too big and heavy. Traveling with such a lens, whether you want to climb the mountain or not, the first thing to do when you return to the hotel at night is to wash and sleep. It will be much better with F4, which is much smaller and lighter after all. There is little difference in image quality between 70-200 F4 and F2.8 lenses. With the big ternary, the reason why we have to pay the small ternary is because the small ternary is easy to push the tape, and there is no difference in image quality between the two.

However, when you travel, you will encounter all kinds of scenes and different landscapes. It may be too limited to bring only one 70-200. In the face of some big scenes and customs that need to be shot with a wide-angle lens, only a 70-200 can't cope with them all.

When traveling abroad, the first consideration should be to bring a wide-angle zoom lens, such as: 24-70, 24- 105, 28- 135, etc. I think 24- 105 is the most suitable lens for travel. If there is not much foreground shooting, take 24-655. 24- 105 is a Canon classic wide-angle zoom lens with good imaging quality, small size and light weight, which can cope with most scenes. Travel should be the first choice.

70-200 is an auxiliary lens in photography. When we need to shoot some inaccessible distant scenes, we can use telephoto lenses. However, during the trip, most scenes should be in front of us, and many scenes need to be shot with wide angle and medium focus. After all, the prospect of shooting with telephoto lens is still a minority. Therefore, the telephoto lens can only be used as a backup lens, and the wide-angle zoom lens is the main camera hook, which should be considered first when traveling.

abstract

The 70-200F4 lens for travel is definitely better than the F2.8 lens, because it is easy to carry and has excellent image quality. However, if you only bring this lens, it may not be enough. You should also consider matching a wide-angle zoom lens, so that your travel photography can finally come back smoothly.

Is it worth choosing 70-200f4 for portability? I used to be confused about this problem, but now I am clear. Let's analyze whether you need it or not.

First of all, your main shooting purpose is tourism, that is, human scenery, so F4 aperture is not only small but also cheap, and it is of course the first choice if you don't shoot people (in fact, it is also possible to shoot people with long focal length), because people and scenery basically don't need too large aperture.

The main reason for choosing F2.8 is that money is not bad, physical strength is not bad, and many portraits have high requirements for blurring, so you must choose F2.8 when buying F4 lenses.

If you are not the one mentioned above, F2.8 is really economical, especially in the rare case of shooting scenery, but how many opportunities do you have to shoot in this rare case?

In addition, the analysis of design orientation is also in line with our analysis. F4' s lens design positioning is the head tourist scenery. For long-term photographers, F2.8 is useless, light and cheap, and comfortable for taking pictures of scenery and humanities.

F2.8 design positioning is portrait, large aperture lens. If it is used to shoot scenery, it is a bit overqualified, but it is undeniable that F2.8 is an all-around lens for shooting scenery, and it is also very ok, not to mention taking portraits with such a large constant aperture.

In the final analysis, I suggest buying F4 scenic tours. People with lots of scenery are not afraid of weight and expensive. What else can I say about F2.8? I hope my answer can give you some advice. Thank you.

Is it worth choosing 70-200f4 for portability?

Travel photography, it is very good to buy a telephoto lens with the latest mid-range 70-300mm from the original factory.

Hello, let me talk about my views and suggestions:

First, 70-200mmF4.0 is basically a lens that was eliminated by the times.

2. If you are an amateur photographer, the image quality of the new 70-300mm is not bad, neither bulky nor expensive.

3. If you are a landscape photographer, 100-400mm or 80-400mm is a better choice.

4,70-200 mmf4.0 has no background blurring ability, and the background blurring ability is similar to 70-300 mm

5,70-200 MMF 4.0, the imaging quality is actually similar to the 70-300mm of the latest mid-range price of the original factory. Although there are differences, it is the same thing.

In short, no matter from which level, it is not recommended to buy 70-200mmF4.0 lenses.

Second, in fact, more strictly speaking, for travel photography, telephoto lens is more than just a lens.

Except for some scenery in the west of China, it would be a pity if there is no telephoto.

In fact, most of the scenery can't be photographed without telephoto, and I don't feel sorry.

Third, strictly speaking, if you are not a person who has requirements for image quality, you are not a high-pixel body.

To put it bluntly, you have high requirements for lens quality, so why bother?

If you really have money and time, and the scenery is feverish, you must take action and do the whole set.

If you can't do the whole set, you may wish to use APS fuselage.

For example, Fuji XT30 with a Fuji 18- 135mm travel camera is enough, and the imaging quality is actually enough.

To sum up, it is a very important spirit and concept to do a full set of plays. If you can't do a full set of dramas, you must streamline your thinking and pursuit and conform to your own reality.

I'm using a 70-200f4 Canon lens, commonly known as Xiaobai. I bought it because of its portability. After several years of use, I have the following experience:

First, light. With the increase of trips, it is more and more important to lighten the equipment. Otherwise, why is the micro-order getting more and more popular?

Second, the imaging quality is average, because its maximum constant aperture is only f4, and the background blur effect is not as good as f2.8 when taking portraits, but the price and weight have also come down, which is sure to meet the needs of travel photography.

Third, this lens feels that there are still batch quality differences, so be careful when buying it.

Personally, I think it's not worth it. The reason is not the picture quality. In fact, the f4 of each family is not much worse than f2.8, which is completely within the acceptable range. (Even the very cheap Longteng 70-2 10f4) There are three reasons.

First, volume and weight. There is a big difference in volume and weight between f4 and f2.8, but it is impossible to take out only 70200. You need at least one 1635 or 2470, plus the camera, and the weight of the whole system is there. Unless you all take f4, it's really hard to feel the reduced weight (when you put it in your bag). Therefore, if we only consider portability, it is better to travel around the world with a mirror. Just close the aperture anyway. If you want to shoot someone, just bring a fixed focus of 35 or 50.

Second, the cost performance is not high. Except Longteng's 702 10 f4, other f4 are not cheap. If you must buy f4, you might as well buy Longteng.

Thirdly, in daily use, the most used scene of 70200 is portrait, and f2.8 can barely replace 85 and 135, achieving similar results. A larger aperture leads to a higher shutter, which is also very important for telephoto. Therefore, when I come back from a real trip, I usually take pictures of people, and I may regret not buying f2.8 at this time.

First of all, I think the focal lengths of 24- 105 and 24-240 will be more suitable for traveling. The focal length can cover a wide close range, and the focal length of 70-200 is more suitable for portrait and close-up. The aperture of 4 is really small, you will lose the wide-angle end. If you travel, most of the scenery is beautiful, and the wide angle can better reflect the breadth and wide angle of nature.

Therefore, I think 24-240 is more suitable for travel, pursuing comprehensiveness, and comprehensively considering factors such as light travel, comprehensive image quality and volume. 24- 105 is a balanced choice in terms of volume and image quality.