70-200 VR

Hi all! A couple of weeks ogo I shot a wedding but made a realy bad error. When I set my auto ISO, I set the min

shutter for 1/60. Not giving this much thought, I then proceeded to attach an 80 - 200 2.8 on that particular body.

Gues what happened? Yup, that's right, my pics came out soft. At first I thought maybe the lens had AF issues, but

after I looked at the exif data...I knew. Next weekend I am doing two weddings. i have decided to rent the 70 - 200

VR. What is the slowest shutter I can comfortably use..."within reason"... for that particular lens?

On the 200mm end, I would try to use at least 1/60 sec and perhaps 1/30 if you must. That is with VR on. Again, for shooting weddings, you need to watch out for people movements. You can lock your lens onto a really sturdy tripod, but people do move around and if you use 1/15 sec at 200mm, you can get a lot of blury people with more blury hands.

You don't give a lot of detail on what capacity you are shooting these weddings in. Or which camera you are using. That information would be helpful.

 

First off, VR will not help you with subjects that are in motion. Depending on which camera you have, bump your ISO up to the highest level you are comfortable shooting at. Shoot in RAW and use advanced post processing/noise reduction software.

 

Try to bump up your ISO so you can get your shutter speeds at 1/125 sec. If you have to shoot with lower shutter speeds, you might be better off using a good quality monopod to steady your camera instead of a VR lens.

 

If you cannot use flash for the ceremony (which I assume is the case), your best bet may be a faster lens, like a 50mm or 85mm. I assume you can use flash during the reception.

As an example, the following image was capture during the rehearsal with the 70-200mm at 200mm, f2.8 and 1/60

sec with VR on:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7028154

 

This one was at 175mm and 1/80 sec:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7028284

Wow peaple! Don't assume anything, just stay focused and answer the question. Frank..no offense taken, but you are judging me on pre -concieved notions. My pics were off becouse of hand shake at the long end. I''m asking this question simply becouse I am not familiar with VR and what it is capable of. Stephen, are you telling me you you don't use this range? I would love to see your work....I guess no candids in your portfolio huh? Just incase anyone else is worried about me doing the weddings...

Small sample.

Roman, it looks like you are an established wedding photographer. Therefore, I am a bit surprised that you don't already have a VR lens in the mid-telephoto range. I would imagine that you'll find VR very helpful for a mid-range tele. You should be able to gain a couple of stops for hand holding, but VR cannot produce miracles. Subject movement will still be a limitation.

Hey, that's very nice work, Roman.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anyone with your obvious care (especially now that you're thinking hard about it) would be able to get away with 1/30th at 200mm on well-behaved subjects and get quite a few keepers.

 

I use that 70-200 at 200mm and a handheld 125th and 60th all the time. 1/30th is certainly possible, monopod or no, and it's all about what you subjects are doing.

No not established but working on it. I don't own a mid range tele becouse i have been partial to renting. Also in the past i have manged to stumble through with just my primes. 28 Ais, 50 Ai, 85 1.8D, 135 f2.8 Ai and lens baby. Although they have served me well, I find them very cumbersome. I now use them as back up or specialty. Oh and yes, I do have alot to learn........................So what!

Roman you have beautiful photos that speak for themselves !!!, raf

I have the 70-200mm VR and it is possible to get decently sharp shots at 200mm & 1/60, especially if indoors where there is no wind. You are no doubt aware that DOF is very shallow at f2.8 and great care must be taken with the focus point. While the 80-200mm and 70-200mm VR are about the same on a tripod, there is a decided advantage off a tripod for the VR. Do be aware the 70-200mm VR is significantly longer and heavier than the 80-200mm.

 

 

Kent in SD

Roman, my hands aren't terribly steady anymore and I've found VR helpful in low light down to 1/15th second with the 80-400 and 70-200 VR. (Don't own either, tested 'em at a local shop which let me play with both for around an hour each.)

 

Based on that I got the 24-120 VR which I used at a wedding and other events. While the VR was helpful the slow variable aperture wasn't suitable for most indoor events. Good focal range, but needs to be an f/2.8, or even f/2.8-f/4 variable.

 

If you prefer a slowish shutter speed of 1/15-1/60 sec. for flash or even rear sync flash (which I find tricky to master due to my own motion blur), you'll definitely find VR worthwhile.

Thanx Lex, I will keep that in mind.

Roman - great work. Yes rent the 70-200 VR. This community can give a mix of thoughtful responses to the more reactionary. Obviously take the bits that make sense but do not waste your time with the trolls. You are not going to convince those photographers that cannot see outside their own frame. Of course you shoot with a 70-200 VR if you own a Nikon. The combo of the 17-55 and 70-200 VR are the two major lenses to use on two bodies when covering weddings. I love the prime lenses but speed, portability, and the quality of these two lenses is amazing. Ideally throw in the 50 1.4 and a fish eye and a lens baby and you have everything covered with the fewest switches and the least amount of weight. My walk around is the 17-55 and I will use it for portraits but it is not a portrait lens. Nothing like the 70-200 flexibility and the way that 2.8 isolates images with annoying backgrounds from the type of distance you are going to have at a wedding. Unless you end up being those wedding photographers that want to be in the wedding.<div></div>

Thanks. I can't wait to get my hands on this lens...oh ya!

"Unless you end up being those wedding photographers that want to be in the wedding."

 

Excellent observation. When I photographed my niece's wedding a couple of years ago I neglected to bring a long telephoto or zoom, the first time I'd shot a wedding without a long lens. The chapel was very large and the only way I could get some shots was to lurk closer to the altar than I wanted to.

Few weeks ago I came across this article in Shutterbug

 

http://www.shutterbug.net/techniques/pro_techniques/0808howslow/index.html

 

- sergey

Switching to a D700 might give you a greater improvement than the 70-200 VR. A fast telezoom is great for close-up shots of

people but I think all serious wedding photographers will eventually go FX and this particular lens isn't ideal to have with that

in mind. By contrast, your existing primes will be brilliant on an FX body. I would at least rent a D700/D3 to see what it can do. In my

experience, the improvement is much greater than the high ISO noise difference alone would suggest, as you can shoot

wide open with f/1.4-f/2 primes and get better results than with a DX body (pixel size difference). On the other hand if you really need

200mm reach with the D300 (which is a bit surprising to me) and do not intend to get an FX body any time soon, the 70-200 certainly is a

nice lens.

Roman is RENTING the 70-200 to shoot two weddings.

"I am a bit surprised that you don't already have a VR lens in the mid-telephoto range."

 

Send money and we'll all get one.

I think it likely that the 70-200 will be an excellent lens on FX bodies - I often use mine on an F100. Unless, of course, you're shooting landscapes at 200mm as the far edges get soft. Not really a consideration for portraits and wedding shots.

"I am a bit surprised that you don't already have a VR lens in the mid-telephoto range."

 

Which of the Nikon midrange VR's do you recommend??? I didn't think they made any that are good for indoor and shallow DOF (kinda important for weddings).

You guys are quoting me somewhat out of context. Go back and read again what I wrote on August 20 at 10:06pm: <I>Roman, it looks like you are an established wedding photographer. Therefore, I am a bit surprised that you don't already have a VR lens in the mid-telephoto range.</I>

<P>

The 70-200mm/f2.8 with VR is pretty much a "must have" lens for wedding photographers. But it sounds like Roman is not as far along in his career as I thought.

This image was shot hand held at 1/10sec at f/20 with the 200mm f/2 vr on, I could have done the same with my 70-200mm. As many have said in the thread the lowest shutter speed you can use first depends on your subject matters movement secondly how steady is your hand, or vice versa both are factors. I was able to get one crisp shot out out of 3. At this exposure the other 2 were faintly soft and unacceptable by my standards. Furthermore if I was shooting a wedding and only had one chance to get the shot I would utilize an equivalent exposure with a minimum shutter speed of 1/60th second especially at 200mm.<div></div>