OVERVIEW:
If you're a low to no-budget filmmaker, I think 70-300 f/4-5.6 lenses are a MUCH better tool for the money than 80-200 f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8 lenses (because of the greater reach and lower cost) especially compared to the f/2.8 versions. Having a 5.6 maximum aperture (at full TELE) works just fine outdoors, and when used with a focal reducer/speedbooster (on micro four thirds or Super 35/APS-C cameras) they can even be used INDOORS (at around ISO 800 or more). I like vintage 70-300 f/4-5.6 lenses so much they're in my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking recommendations list, and that's after testing quite a few for my lens-sensor LUT database.
ABOVE: It's been tricky figuring out how to maintain all of the vintage 70-300 lenses I've picked up, yet the reason I've done so is to make more "REAL" LUTs (and because I consider the 70-300 a great tool for filmmaking).
REASON 1 MORE TELE IS BETTER (300 vs. 200)
I'm using the 70-300 lenses with Micro Four Thirds cameras (such as the GH4, G7, GX85 and G85) which render an image with a crop similar to a 600mm on full frame. My experience with this lens has been I've (almost) never wished for a longer lens, except for maybe the moon, or distant wildlife. I've used them for youth sports (mostly little league) and have been able to cover the entire field. When compared to using a 70 or 80-200, I always find myself needing to move closer, and have even resorted to adding a 1.4x teleconverter.
REASON 2 THEY'RE AFFORDABLE (vs. 2.8 TELES)
Just look at the prices of 70-300 lenses vs. 70-200 2.8 versions (new OR used!) In my recent comparisons, the average price of a used (vintage) 70-300 was around $100 US, while the 70-200 2.8 optics were well over $500!
REASON 3 SMALLER & LIGHTER (vs. 2.8 TELES)
This point is a biggie, and to imagine how big, just take a look at the weight and average filter size of a 70-300 f/4-5.6 vs. 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. This point is really big for me because it's not just a matter of a heavier backpack, but the inability to mount it on top of my 2-camera rigs (see a quick demo here in this VIDEO).
REASON 4 5.6 MAX. APERTURE'S OK (OUTDOORS)
Let's go into a bit more detail about why I don't (usually) try to get f/2.8 telephoto lenses...besides the cost. My logic is that since the most common scenario to use such a telephoto is OUTDOORS, having a mere f/5.6 is almost always sufficient. The exception is when you're in a large indoor space and the light is low. In this case, I'm often using a focal reducer/speedbooster anyway, so my max. aperture ends up around f/4, and that works (even on a small Micro Four Thirds sensor).
REASON 5 THEY OFTEN HAVE A MACRO SETTING
While some VINTAGE 80-200 optics have macro capability, most newer 70-200 lenses don't, and I can only guess as to why; perhaps they figure "true professionals" will have the extra money to buy a dedicated "macro" lens. In practice, I use the macro on my 70-300 lenses almost every time I go outdoors, and I cannot imagine being without one as a filmmaker.
ABOVE: If you'd like to learn more about more BUDGET filmmaking lenses that I recommend, check out this YouTube video (above).
CONCLUSION:
There's one last reason that I'll add to this conclusion, that pretty much sealed the deal for me: Most vintage 70-210/80-200 lenses have fungus (or some other issue). After purchasing several of those (and being let down half of the time) and after striking it rich with so many of the vintage 70-300 lenses from the 90s, I decided to write this article. If you haven't tried finding a good 70-300, I highly recommend checking out shopgoodwill.com (if you're in the US) or another used outlet, as I've found the price to performance ratio is excellent. Thanks for reading, and see you in another blog post (or on YouTube, Facebook or on my podcast).
Comments