dan_k6 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 My 70-200 went on eBay last week and sold for $1700. I didn't use it as much assome of you guys would and when I did...it was too large to take it out in thestreets and it was a pain to carry around. I decided to drop down to the 180 2.8 for size and I hear that it is actually abetter performing lens. Do you think you would get sharper images because the 180 2.8 is lighter andeasy to hold? I always wondered if my 70-200 images indoors could have beenbetter if the lens wasn't as large as it was. VR helps but a blurry photo isalways a blurry photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The 180/2.8 produces sharper photos because it's a sharper lens. Ergonomics is an entirely separate issue. Some folks prefer extra weight for steadiness. Some prefer less weight. Distribution of weight and balance are key elements. So is good body alignment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 No quesstion about, the 180 is a superior optic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 BTW, you should take a look at the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arun_seetharam Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Yup, Way to go!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_k6 Posted May 23, 2008 Author Share Posted May 23, 2008 What I meant to say was to you think the size of the 180 2.8 aids in getting sharper pictures. The 70-200 @ 200mm felt wobbly in my hands. @ 200mm I needed to be at at least 1/250th for sharp pictures. Do you think with the 180 2.8, I can get away with 1/60th at 180mm since it is lighter weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 What shutter speeds were you using when you got blur with the 70-200mm VR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry_grim Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 You are worried about extracting maximum sharpness and you want to hand hold at 1/60th of a second. You are kidding right? Nobody hands are that steady, unless maybe the person is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 No, it won't help with this. The VR is what gives the best odds for sharp results handheld at these speeds, but it's not perfect. You need to give the VR system some time to stabilize before squeezing an exposure. With the 180 I would use at least 1/500s if I want critical sharpness on the D3 and 1/800 s with the D200 (with its smaller pixels). Good results can occasionally still be had at 1/250s but only some of the pics will be sharp. For slower speeds, use a tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_poel Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I find it easier to hold a heavier lens steady. It's all about physics and motion. It's very easy to "jitter" a light object - a lot harder with a heavy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilly_w Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 <What I meant to say was do you think the size of the 180 2.8 aids in getting sharper pictures?> A very general question with the short answer being: it depends. There are many variables that determine whether you can obtain a sharp image with a given lens. Physiology - in terms of both strength (stamina in particular) and being blessed with a 'shake-free' body. Setting a lens/camera down for a rest between shots is one thing. Hand-holding and shooting for a prolonged period is another, requiring stamina. Bulging muscles do not equate to stamina. And for those with a mild shake, more heft translates to stability. Yet for prolonged sessions, less weight would be beneficial. Technique - a bit of a catch-all that would include posture (e.g. 'planting elbows' among other things), proper breathing and the progressive press of the release button (vs. punch or stab of the button). I would wager that refining your technique will pay big dividends. Among the most skilled and knowledgeable shooters re: technique are marksmen and biathletes. Imagine skiing uphill, heart pounding away and then having to turn to stone to hit a target. Do a google search for technique. All things being equal, I'll take the mass of an 80-200/2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_francis Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I bought my 180 2.8 ED when still in high school (1982 or 1983) and it's paid for itself many many times over. Shooting film in FF I found I could get sharp images at 1/125, although every third frame would be soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I can sometimes hold my 180mm still enough at a low shutter speed for a sharp image but not often. It goes with me more often because its small and light. On a tripod its very sharp but its a bit slow to focus, I guess a far amount slower than the 70-200mm. I think Lilly W really nailed it as far as holding is concerned. I use the 180mm f2.8 while panning large flying model aircraft and am very pleased with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Daniel as Lex said thee 180mm got better optics. Better in the sense that a prime need fewer optical elements than the zoom and VR adds even more elements so since the 180mm does not need those it is more resistant to stray light and design is easier for just the one focal length. But net us not talk about theory it is just a very good lens^^. Now you loose a lot of the image quality if your camera and lens shake. I do not know where you got the idea from that such a long exposure time would give you un-blurred images but shooting free hand this will not work. Yes you could get accidentally one or few good shots out of 100. But nothing really up to the potential of the lens. VR can counteract some of the blur and so you should get your lens back - perhaps you can offer 100$ of compensation? Or you get a nice tripod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Carl not sailplanes by any chance? Where? http://whschroeder.com/html/planes.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Sharpness is relative to many factors. The 80-400 VR is not as "sharp" optically as the 180/2.8. But the VR will enhance the ability to take blur-free handheld photos by minimizing the effects of camera shake. All the optical sharpness in the world won't help without a stable platform. Ditto Lilly's advice to study the techniques of target shooters. I was a rifle and handgun target shooter for many years, starting with good training in the military when steady, offhand long range shooting was emphasized. While I was never a particularly good silhouette shooter, the technique has helped my photography, especially now that my back and neck aren't as strong as they used to be. It's all about ergonomics and breath control, not brute strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_nelson1 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I have both and they are both fantastic lenses. In pure test-chart sharpness I think the 180 wins, especially wide-open. It also has better contrast and fewer internal reflections, for obvious reasons. As a low-light walking around lens the issue is way more complicated. VR buys you at least a couple of stops. I've got pretty steady hands but even I would not want to rely on the 180 for sharp work at less than 1/200th of second, unless I could brace it on something. Last night I was testing my 70-200 at /100th and 1/50th - it was great at 1/100th and about half the shots at 1/50th were also real sharp (at 200 mm) . On the other hand that lens is one heavy monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_line Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Here's the old 180/2.8 AIS, on a tripod, with a TC-200 doubler. Hard to imagine an improvement. Comments welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 For max sharpness you use a tripod. Everyone knows that. If it has to be handheld, I'll pick a VR lens every time. Kent in SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene11664880918 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 I sold my 80-200 to my friend after getting the 180. I used to use the 80-200 to shoot my son's basketball games in Jr. H/S but now in H/S he quited. Since then I didn't use it. In January I bought the 180 coz I found a used one in mint condition at a ridiculous price. I felt bad not to buy it! I love it! It's very sharp and has great bokeh. Very light and small. At first I thought it was a bit too slow when focusing but now with a D300 I thinks is faster than my ex 80-200. Rene' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Lex; whats a few serial numbers off your 180mm F2.8? I wanted to see where it is on Roland Vinks serail number site. It think you own a non Ed version; and maybe an ED one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now