anyone have exp with this lens
- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Feb 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Looking for a new lens – I’m not happy with my mid range right now, it’s not a bad lens, but just doesn’t have the glass to support available light need.
I’ve used the lens… I have the sigma version (no VR).. but father-in-law has the Nikon VR… great lens… don’t know if the VR will work with your TC…
Aaron, I have the 70-200VR and have been using it for a good while. It is an awesome lens! I, personally am not a fan of the expansion tubes/teleconverters and would recommend going the route of the 80-400VR, if you want that range. It too is an awesome lens, once the photographer learns to over come its handicaps. However, the 70-200VR is much easier to use, has the the better second generation of VR and does deliver very crisp images routinely.
I don’t use the VR that often but even when I do, I haven’t really noticed a huge difference in the decline of battery longevity, with my cameras. I don’t know how much you shoot but I would still recommend extra batteries, nonetheless.
Can’t help with the lens although Ive only ever heard great things about it.
Do want to chime in and say that while the lens will probably still function with a TC, in my experience a TC takes a heavy toll on IQ when mounted on a zoom. Zoom lenses are quite a bit different than primes and your asking alot of the lens to cope with the extra glass.
Thats not to say you can’t use one. If theres a distant subject that you simply can’t get closer to and want an image of it better to add the TC and get the shot than not. However if critical sharpness is of concern I wouldnt use a TC.
Canons 100-400 L is one of the best long zooms out there and while I would on occassion add the TC just to get a record, the dropoff in IQ was very noticeable. Where as with my 400mm the only time I hesitate to use a TC is when focus speed and the reduction thereof might be an issue (birds in flight).
If its reach you want and dont want to blow the bank on one of Nikons 400+ the 300 f4 is a sweet lens and takes TCs reasonably well. While that won’t address your mid range dilema when added to what you have you’d end up with full coverage out to 300 and then you could replace what you have later.
I use one and its a great lens. The only downside is its pretty big. It would be nice if it were a little more compact.
Aaron,
Hope you don’t mind my butting in, but I’m interested in that lens too. I currently am shooting the Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8D . I love the lens for most of the situations I use it, but I am wondering how much difference the VR and AF-s capabilities would make in the context of shooting tarpon in the air from a skiff.A buddy and I have been playing around with photography on our Keys trips over the years and it has grown to a point where it has become as much of a hobby as the fishing has. Next trip is scheduled for May for 8 days and I’m really considering putting that lens in the boat bag.
I’ve never owned a VR or IS capable lens. I suspect there would be some real benefits to be had from a faster focusing lens and a the VR capability in the context I am planning to use it, but how much I don’t know. What do all the pros think? Thanks.
PS Aaron,
The cheapest I’ve seen the lens is on B&H for about $1629.00 for the US version. Have you found it cheaper anywhere else?Aaron I can’t sing the praises of fast focusing lenses enough. For alot of types of shooting, focus speed really isnt an issue but when it counts, it really counts. Its the difference between getting the shot and simply not. With some lenses and bodies ( different bodies focus faster than others to) the difference in focus speed might only be a wee fraction of a second but that wee fraction can be the difference.
As for VR/IS whatever label is maker uses, its useful, certainly not the be all and end all, and has its limits. What it boils down to is insurance vs camera shake the rest is marketing hype. In a word camera shake can occur in images when your shutter speed is too low for the length of lens your using.
Rule of thumb.
The average person can handhold a lens at 1/focal length and avoid shake. Meaning the average person can handhold a 200mm lens and avoid shake at 1/200th. Do you know how dim it would need to be for a fast lens like a f2.8 not to manage 1/200th at ISO 800? So with a 400mm the threshold typically is 1/400th. If your at 50mm you should be ok at 1/50th and so on. In bright conditions depending on your f/stop and ISO acheiving 1/1000th isnt that hard. At 1/2000th you could put my 400 on top of a washing machine during spin cylce and it should still be sharp.That said the RoT is for the average person. Someone whos just starting out or not used to long lenses may need 1/800th but as with anything hand holding technique improves with practise. I dont mind shooting under 1/400th with my 400. Sure some shots are soft ( a bit of shake) but others are fine.
Ive got tack sharp shots that are as low as 1/50th and 1/25th with the 400 and a Bushhawk. Would I try that on a money shot? No, Id be on a tripod.
So is IS/VR nice to have. Absolutey if your commonly in low light and under your focal length and dont have access to support like a tripod, monpod, Bushhawk, fense post, etc. Do you have to have it? No.
Consider Canons 70-200 f4 and 70-200 f4 IS.
Same lens both are wicked sharp. The IS version is doube the price coming in around 1500.00my 2c 🙂
Thanks guys for your feedback. I just sold a Print today to a guy in MT, apparetnly he saw one of my shots of Elk on a fishing website and knew a guy who knew me. Strage world, anyways – I thinkg I’m going to the local photo shop here that rents all the lenses and use my proceeds form the sale. I’m going to try and take a bit of everyones advice here and rent a bunch of lenses take them all up to Lee’s Ferry for a day or two( 4 hours from my house) and shoot the crap out of them. I wish I could afford to buy them all, but in all honesty I’m just not selling enough of my writing or my photos to justify dropping 10k in lenses at the moment. Hopefully if I keep woking at it I’ll get there someday, it’s just I’m not there yet. I bought my first SLR ten months ago, before it was purely point and shoot non compact digitals and I’m sure you can tell from my photos I have a long ways to go. I’ve gotten some great advice here and I’m going to try and take it all in and incorporate it into what I do. Thank you all for your time and your thoughts,
Aaron
Aaron: Outstanding decision on your part and truly the route that everyone should go, when deciding on new equipment. Feed back is great but nothing comes close to hands on.
Malcolm, The 70-200 VR is faster and more silent. Speaking just from my own experiences and expressing my own opinion: I would not replace the 80-200 with the 70-200VR. The lens that you currently have is still one of the best lenses that Nikon has ever made. I don’t use my VR that often and do hand held down to 1/40. I prefer to shoot as slow as possible, no matter what the shoot is for or what assignment requirements dictate, I will still go for the slowest possible speed and still be able to turn in the images, as per the requirements dictated. If I am in the middle of a low light and more technical shoot, that demands controlled natural motion blur, or if I am on a location shoot, then I go VR.
I also used the 80-400 VR during a fashion shoot assignment. Again, I stayed off of the VR and many of the shots, with that lens, were selected from the contact sheets and made final publication.
What I am getting at. The VR is like any other tool; great to have when you need it and rarely missed when you don’t.
The second generation VR is FAR better than the first generation as well. The first generation kind of feels like someone kicked the lens, when it is activated
Aaron,
I have the 70-200, once had the 80-400 and also have the 18-200. The AFS focusing is great. If you’ve used that, and then switch to a non-AFS lens, it’ll drive you nuts. Ditto on a lens that’s f/2.8 or faster vs a variable aperture lens that might be as slow as f/5.6. Two stops might not seem like much, until you’re shooting at a (barely) manageable 1/60 sec at 2.8, which on the f/5.6 lens would be 1/15 second – – – not something you’d want to hand hold, even with VR, at 200mm or longer.
But the trade off is weight. That big, fast expensive piece of glass is heavy. If you’re trying to carry a body, wide angle, flash, tripod, and that long lens, along with fishing gear, you’ll definitely end up with a sore back.
Unless the fast lens is a necessity, and sometimes it is, I’ve been very happy with the 18-200 for a lot of uses. It’s relatively slow (f/3.5-5.6), but very light, and actually it’s very sharp. And it is AFS. With that lens, a wide zoom (12-24 or similar) and a flash, you can cover a lot with a relatively light package (as long as the body is a D200/300 vs D2/3).
Tele-extenders: I have one, and use it if I have to, but that’s what I consider their place. Another tool, for when you don’t have something better. But they are generally better than those of a couple of decades ago. As are zooms. It wasn’t that long ago that the best zooms were just marginal, and used by press shooters where print resolution was fairly low. Now the good ones are great, and are pretty much indispensible.
Buzz
Thanks Buzz for the insight – I’m okay with the weight not trying to be a tough guy or anything, but had to pay for my college via Green and gold scholarship, wasn’t smart enough to get into something other than grunt work.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.