70-200 VR-how practical for travel etc?

<p>I'm considering buying the 70-200 f2.8 VR. The two aspects that concern me are its weight and size.<br>

I shoot almost anything except sport and studio, but have a particular interest in shooting modern dance...for which I borrow this lens. My current lenses are 18-200VR, 12-24 Tokina and the kit 18-70. I've just bought the D90. I'm an enthusiastic mid-level amateur who shoots almost anything he sees. My quandary is when-other than dance- I would use the 70-200. How convenient is this heavy guy when travelling ? It's obviously a great low light lens, but in what low light situations are owners actually hauling it around? The 18-200, though optically inferior, has been a convenient travel lens. I can afford this lens (just), but would like to know in which specific situations owners use it...other than for sports.<br>

Thanks<br>

Freddie</p>

<p>I've used it for portraits, weddings, meetings, plays in addition to wildlife. If you're travelling by plane it's inconvenient. If travelling by car you can surely find a place for it. If travelling by foot it depends on just how far you're going and what you'll see along the way.</p>

<p>I put it in a camera bag and keep the camera outside ready to use. The camera bag holds other lenses, filters, flash (if appropriate), batteries, and memory. And maybe even lunch.</p>

<p>For long vacation trips the 18-200 is really compact and convenient as long as you're not taking pictures you expect to sell. For family memories it's great, and the IQ is good if you're shooting in good light. It was my only lens for about a year.</p>

<p>Seems that you are "enthusiastic" so the size and weight perhaps will not stop you.</p>

<p>For me the lens is too heavy and big to take it along on more than a half day walking trip. If I do so, it stays at home or a hotel the next day. On travel I take it in carry-on luggage with me, in fear of loosing it in the check-in lagguage, so it is a pain. Traveling by car I do not leave it locked in the car in fear of frying the CPU in the lens, so I usually drag it along, also a pain.</p>

<p>I carry it for occasions when expecting fast framing action shots, but not necessarily for the low light situation. Since much greater quality pictures I can get from 1.4 or 2.0 lenses I do not consider the 70-200 lens a low light lens - but perhaps is low light comparing to lenses you have. VR only helps shooting static objects.</p>

<p>Before purchasing this lens, I would recommend also renting the 85/1.4, 135/2.0, 180/2.8 lenses as see how quality of your pictures could possibly improve, subject of your technique and shooting scenarios.</p>

<p>I carried one with me to Italy, Freddie, knowing it would be a burden but also knowing that I'd kick myself without it. Many outings involved nothing more than the 18-200, and a fast prime in the pocket. But when I was setting out with photography on the brain, rather than simply being Tourist Guy, the 70-200 was great - and would have been missed.<br /><br />But size and weight aren't the only thing. It's visually conspicuous, especially with the hood mounted. That's not the end of the world, but you have to understand the impact that it will have on your subjects or the people around you. The Paparazzi Look can work for and against you.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I used a Crumpler Karachi Outpost camera backback to carry everything. It looks not at all like a camera bag, and can really distribute the weight nicely to your shoulders or hips, as you like it. There were days when I had the body, the 70-200, a 50/1.8, a Sigma 10-20, the 18-200, a speedlight, and all of the related stuff in that pack... and didn't feel or look much different than any other person out and about. That pack also has room for a 17" laptop and related goodies, and that's also how it all goes on the plane.<br /><br />I think that the whole issue really comes down to what sort of stuff you like to shoot (when traveling) and how light on your feet you like to be. I've got a big frame, so carrying a loaded-down camera pack doesn't slow me down. But some people would think I'm insane for trying to enjoy a day strolling with that payload. On the other hand, some of the images I most like from that particular outing came courtesy of the 70-200. A sore back goes away, but the images won't.</p>

<p>I bought it recently for its optical quality and constant f 2.8 across its zoom range. That was more important to me than VR in that I use it on a tripod most of the time. Its large size and weight would deter me from taking it on a air travel trip unless I needed quality images in its zoom range. If my trip is by car, I would take it for sure. If a prime lens or lenses can accomplish your needs, look at these as an alternative as already mentioned as the 70-200mm is an expensive lens. Review your image EXIF data and see what focal lengths were used to take the images in your portfolio. Joe Smith</p>

<p>It's very practical if you use it. If you are healthy, carrying this lens shouldn't be any big deal.</p>

<p>I carry a Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR practically everywhere, including air travel, along with a 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8. With the usual accessories, it adds up to about 22 pounds. That's OK in a shoulder bag for a couple of hours or less, but a small backpack makes a lot more sense. A shoulder bag makes climbing uncomfortable because it swings around too much. The image quality of these lenses is comparable to most of the "prime" lenses they replace, and are a lot more convenient to use. Consumer zoom lenses are pretty sharp these days, with low chromatic aberation. Their main fault is being slow, having excessive distortion and poor weather resistance.</p>

<p>If the bag fits the template (and, in Europe, the weight), you can carry it on board.</p>

<p>Where do you travel? Museums, cities, monuments, outdoors, sports, rodeos, nightclubs clubs? <br>

Museums: useful, but the museums I'd want to use it in (Italy) don't allow photography.<br>

City streets: I don't find it useful here. wideangle and normal lenses preferable.<br>

Monuments: Useful.<br>

Outdoors/light-duty wildlife: Useful here.<br>

and so on.</p>

<p>Depend on how you shoot. The lens would be my last choice because 95%of what I shoot when traveling would be covered with an 18 to maybe 105mm lens with emphasis on the wide angle end. Your style may be different.</p>

 

<p>It's not a good choice for traveling if you have to carry it all day.</p>

<p><em>For long vacation trips the 18-200 is really compact and convenient as long as you're not taking pictures you expect to sell.</em><br>

<em></em> Nonsense. The sale of pictures rarely depends on what lens you use.</p>

<p><em>...18-200 is really compact and convenient as long as you're not taking pictures you expect to sell.<br /></em><br />Damn! I guess I'd better start calling my customers and giving that money back. <em>What</em> was I thinking, selling those images? Of course the 18-200 is going to be beat by lenses more carefully (and expensively) built for certain tasks. But if you actually know when and how to use it, the 18-200 can be part of generating enough money to <em>buy </em>those specialty lenses. Dare I say that's exactly how it's worked out for me? </p>

<p>When traveling, in cities I shoot mainly in the street (buildngs, moving people) and in the more remote areas I shoot landscapes with a tripod. My main subjects are informals of people, and landscapes; I shoot dance infrequently but it's my favorite genre.<br>

I would prefer to dispense with a tripod whenever possible (sacrilegious, I know), but would happily substitute a monopod with more practice with the latter.<br>

Your replies would seem to indicate it's not great for long trips by air: I travel to cities or other locations several times a year, and-naturally- that's when I get the more interesting shots. Have any of you had logistic problems storing the big beast safely in hotels abroad or in the USA?<br>

I guess my big questions are still its weight (which I could live with), leaving the tripod back home (a plus), and someone taking a liking and taking my $1,700 animal.<br>

My 85 mm f1.8 is actually useful for dance,: maybe another prime e.g. the 180mm would provide enough flexibility ( the ubiquitous 18-200 VR is no good for dance, of course).<br>

As you can see, I'm still confused !! Given the above facts, what would you do in my situation?<br>

Thanks<br>

Freddie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That lens will fit in most in-room safes, Freddie, so that always helps.<br /><br />If I'm leaving it in my room, it's usually inside the pant leg of some workout clothes, balled up in a pile of laundry-looking stuff in one of my bags.<br /><br />But with the right pack (which I usually just sling over one shoulder unless I'm really making tracks), that lens really doesn't cause me any trouble to take along. If I'm going out to dinner and trying to really be minimal, I put my whole bag in a <strong><a href="http://www.pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&_action=detail&id=48">Pacsafe rig</a></strong>, and lock it to the plumbing under the hotel room's bathroom sink. Someone who REALLY wants it can still get it, but the quick dash-in-and grab types would be slowed down.</p>

<p>If you're shooting in the streets a 70-200 is of little practical use. Sure you could isolate some detail on a building, or get a candid of some unsuspecting subject...and those aren't bad things if that's what you like.</p>

<p>You're most useful range for shooting in a city is between 24 & 85mm, but that's just my experience. If it was me I'd just take the 18-200, or better yet, the 16-85.</p>

<p>I guess what I'm trying to get across is that the 70-200/2.8 lens is monster to carry around. If you're doing a lot of walking you'll quickly regret your decision to bring it along. If you enjoy using a longer lens, the 70-300vr is a fraction of the weight & size and gets great reviews.</p>

<p>Matt, thanks for your practical advice on safe storage.<br>

Jim, I'm not sure the 70-300 VR would be fast enough for modern dance...what do you think?<br>

How often do you get away without a tripod, or use a monopod, with a 70-200 VR zoom?<br>

Freddie</p>

<p>If you're traveling just to shoot modern dance, or if that is your main objective, than no, the 70-300 is not ideal. However, high iso is reportedly pretty decent on the D90. So if shallow dof is not necessary the 70-300 may be a decent substitute.</p>

<p>For travel shooting I almost never use a full sized tripod. I do carry a Leitz Table top model. I don't use a 70-200, but used to use an 80-200. I don't use it often because it's not practical for me to carry that weight & bulk. For years I did well with a 20-35/2.8 and an 85/1.8.</p>

<p>I don't know how you travel, but I tend to be on my feet for 12-14 hours a day, usually climbing a lot of stairs, getting on & off public transportation, etc...For me, a small versatile kit is essential. So much so that I'm seriously considering moving to the micro 4/3 system.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So long as you have a comfortable bag to carry your gear, the 70-200mm VR is fine as a travelling lens. I find it more convinient and certainly less bulky than carry along a tripod.</p>

<p>If weight is a big issue, then maybe you will want to stick to carrying the 18-200mm VR for travels; I guess that is one of the aspects that it really shines and remain attractive.</p>

<p>I will keep the 18-200 for long travels; it's so convenient. I shoot modern dance where I live, and don't think the 70-200 will be fast enough.<br>

I've just read some threads on the 180mm f2.8. How do you think this would work out fror dance, and street photography? I have landscapes covered with the Tokina 12-24, and mid-range with the Nikon 18-70. Dance, and low light, are my holes right now.<br>

I'd save $1,000 with the 180mm, and already have the 85mm f1.8.</p>

<p>Hi Freddie,<br>

I would like to give a plug for the 180 2.8.</p>

<p>I recently bought the 180 2.8 slightly older non-D version (nearly identical to the D) from KEH. It is a small fraction of the cost of the 70-200 VR and I must say the condition rating from KEH was very conservative. I am very pleased with my purchase.</p>

<p>You seem to be most concerned with the weight, size, and cost of the 70-200. The 180 is much better in all those regards (compare the specs). And, you seem to be most interested in using the lens for dance and in general if there are any shots you may want a smaller field of view for. VR may not be that useful for moving dancers in low light ( I have never used the 70-200) and with the 180 you still get 2.8 max aperture. The only thing you give up is the ability to zoom-in closer and some AF speed. Think about what you really want to shoot and decide if most of the things will be shot using the long range around 200mm without needing to quickly switch to a shorter focal length. If that is the case then I think you will be more than pleased with the 180 and the money you saved.</p>

<p>Correction to above post: When I said "zoom-in closer" I meant zoom to 70mm from 200. oops</p>

<p>Well you know yourself its a good sized beast. You would know yourself. I love the lens. I don't use it all that often, but there's certain things that it is just great for. Like your dance. I use for portraits, and I think it's a great portrait lens. I have walked around with it before and it can be a nice walk around lens, but a little strange. I wish I could get a press pass to be able to take it to Hockey matches, on a Dx body it would be pretty handy. If maybe just a little short.</p>

<p>Obviously the 70-200 is a very nice lens for all sorts of performance photography. I used this lens for about three years and it was very effective. I used it <em>a lot</em> for portraits, candids, dance & musical performances, architectural details, and landscapes on my D200. It's still the lens I've taken the most pictures with in 15 years of active photography. However, carrying it all day, ready to shoot, on my neck with my left arm supporting it so that it would not hang from the body, created some problems in my left knee and back. Carrying it in a backpack and shooting occasionally would be ok, of course, but I would use it most of the time. The second problem with it was that it was unsatisfactory on FX/35mm and I decided to sell it.<br>

<br /> Other lenses that you might consider for that type of shooting are the 85/1.4, 135/2, the 180/2.8 which would all work well for both travel and dance photography, though the 70-200 is more convenient to shoot with (but maybe less nice on your body if carry it on you all the time). Optically the zoom is great on DX but the primes are better on FX. Since you're a DX user, I am sure you'd be very happy with the 70-200. Taking it onboard in a backpack is no problem and I never felt transporting it was a burden - the effectiveness of the lens made me happy to carry it (in the backpack). It is somewhat attention-grabbing though but this isn't a real issue it's just a comfort thing. I wouldn't worry too much about theft - just take care of it and don't leave it unattended. </p>

<p>Hi Freddie<br>

I have spent a year thunking through the same questions on the 70-200. I had an 80-200f2.8 and found I always put off carrying it. I have the 70-300vr and find it excellent but too slow for some things. My experience with the 80-200 told me that the bulk and weight of the 70-200 would probably result in me leaving it at home a lot of the time.<br>

In the end I made a decision to get an Olympus E510 and the 50-200F2.8/3.5 lens. It is much smaller and is superb, as good or better than the nikon. I haven't regretted the decision. The whole thing cost me $500 less and I have a piece of kit that I now carry everywhere with me.<br>

Slung on my shoulder at weddings along with my D700 and 24-70 lens gives me a very convienient range of 24 - 400 with just two cameras and no lens changing required. Pro results are no problem</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<p>I just checked my dance shots; they are either 80-90 mm for groups, or 180-200 mm for close-ups of one or two dancers.<br>

Read a thread suggesting an alternative approach; 105mm f2.8 VR with TC<br>

It will be sharp, light, and cheap-though obviously less flexible. I think it's the size/weight of the 70-200 VR that bothers me: it may stay in the cupboard too much.<br>

What do you all think of this combo? Why isn't it more popular?</p>

<p>I carry 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, usually my 105mm f2.8 Macro, and occasionally my 12-24, one camera body, batteries/charger, cards, compressed air, and other accessories in one bag (fits into the little plane overheads if I take the camera out when I sit and put it under the seat) and a wheel bag for computer, lots of drives, etc. Put the camera bag on top of wheeled computer bag and off I go. Heavy, but I don't have to do much lifting along the way.<br>

If I am going to travel and make that investment, I really, really, really don't to want to regret not bringing a lens with me, if I can help it.<br>

Steven</p>