Jump to content

I'm convinced of the pro glass


Gary Naka

Recommended Posts

I was just editing some of my tennis pictures and realized that I was able to crop much deeper into the shots with the 70-200/4 than the shots with my 18-140, and with more image clarity. This is despite the fact that the D7200 was only using the DX center of the image circle, not the entire FX image circle. This is more difference than DXOmark lead me to believe.

 

DRAT. Now I that I see what the camera can do with GOOD glass, I have to think about what lens to use when I want similar IQ on the shorter end; 17-55/2.8, 16-80/2.8-4 ?

Or go up to FX with a D750 and 24-70/2.8 . . . $,$$$ and weight :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find myself right at the DX/FX tipping point.

If I go with a pro DX glass, I am committing to stay DX.

If I go with FX, it will be more EXPENSIVE than DX, but IQ will be higher than DX (from looking at DXOmark).

Analysis paralysis.

 

By way of sympathy, it was worse for me. In 2008 I was about to go on a multi-week holiday. I was shooting Canon (with a 300D), and my most expensive lens was a 70-300 IS. I'd deliberately bought only full-frame glass (other than the kit 18-55) with an eye to the 5D range, but I was holding out for live view to make tilt-shift use easier. I wanted to upgrade my glass for the trip, but doing so would commit me to the system way more than I already was.

 

As it happens, the D700 was launched and available just before the trip, but the 5D2 would have been available just after. I always preferred Nikon's idea of dial locations to Canon's (personal preference in philosophy). I was convinced by the internet of the merits - a least relative to the glass available for Canon - of the 14-24 (probably justifiably) and the 135 f/2 DC (for me, incorrectly), and decided that I cared more about these than the f/1.2 EF lenses. So I jumped ship to the dark (lens) side. I probably wouldn't have done that if I'd invested in any significant amount of L glass, although I was also quite annoyed that according to the rumour mill Canon had been trialling 5D2 variants for over a year without releasing anything - since the 5D had no competition (the DCS14 doesn't count) until the D700 was launched, I suspect Canon didn't feel the need to spend money on tooling a new production line even though a newer camera would have helped their customers. On top of that, I was a bit sore that my 300D was artificially limited more than it needed to be (having installed a third-party BIOS to enable most of the 10D features), whereas most limitations to Nikon bodies seem to be because the extra features would actually affect the manufacturing cost to implement.

 

That said, it's hard to say whether the 5D2 was rushed to launch in competition against the D700 (which it might have been, given the alleged number of trialled options, the relatively minor AF and metering changes from the 5D, and the surprisingly high sensor spec - I was expecting the 17MP sensor from the 1DsII not the 21MP sensor from the 1DsIII, partly because I suspect the 5D2 torpedoed the 1DsIII) or whether the D700 was rushed out to compete with the 1DsII (it being a hybrid of the D300 and D3, and I strongly suspect stealing D3 sales until the D3s appeared). In any case, I was pretty sure the D700 was going to work, since there's not much new in it that hadn't already been in another body - probably the ultrasonic sensor cleaning on the FX sensor was the main thing. I suppose that would have been true of the 5D2 as well.

 

Generally I suspect the reason FX glass has higher image quality is because it's more expensive, which means there are more options for fixing all kinds of corrections and checking the quality of the result. The same argument that faster lenses tend to be higher resolution (unless you're Leica and charge thousands even for f/2). There are several "FX" lenses which have horrible quality outside the DX circle - the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM (pre-Art) and the 200mm end of the mk1 70-200 VR spring to mind. Vintage also matters - I suspect the latest 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 AF-P VR DX lens will do much better on a DX sensor than the older 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G VR AF-S (but not the newer 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR AF-P).

 

There's nothing wrong with a DX camera (I now finally even own one!) - FX has advantages, but the D500 and D7x00 series, especially, are a lot of camera for the money. Especially with the advent of lenses like the Sigma f/1.8 zooms, there's not much you can do with FX that you can't do with DX. Don't get me wrong - there's a difference (or I wouldn't shoot FX), but I can see many people shooting DX without ever having a justifiable reason to go FX. Of course, Nikon would like you to go FX, because then you'll spend more money on lenses and there's more differentiation from phone cameras and the 1" compact brigade...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm really at a loose end, I'm going to shoot the same target with my 200-500mm, my 300mm f4 AFS and my 300mm 2.8 VR I... all @ 300mm. Maybe on DX D7200 and FX D810 just for fun.

 

I already know the answer, but I'm curious how much better the 300mm f2.8 VR I is......;)

 

I'd quite like to know as well. I doubt the 200-500 will trouble the others (though it has the distinction of being "not terrible", unlike some previous -500mm zooms), but the 300mm f/4 is pretty decent, as I recall - I've not used mine for a little while because the flexibility and reach of the 200-500 is more convenient. I did try out my 200 f/2 with the TC14E(II) on it recently, and I think it hurt performance a bit more than I remember. Unconverted, the old 200 f/2 and the 70-200 FL are significantly better at 200mm than I remember getting from my 70-200 VR II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analysis paralysis.

 

Well, one thing is for sure: the grass is always greener somewhere else.

You sum up the pros and cons pretty well. In the end, whatever way you go, it's a compromise. Not just FX vs DX....every lens is a compromise. Maybe go back to what started the analysis in the first place: sure, the 70-200 f/4VR is better than the 18-140VR. That is no surprise (despite the numbers DxO loves to spit out). The real question: is it better enough to justify spending a serious amount of cash to make the step up? Or was the 18-140VR good enough all along for what you want it to be, even if it's not perfect?

 

I have more lenses than I reasonably need, but increasingly find myself picking up the same lenses - simply because they work for me. None of them is king of the hill and all of them are those that people claim "do not do justice to my D810". But they get me the images I want, and work the way I like to work. Sometimes the best lens isn't the one that comes out on top in a lab-test, after all.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They say you "date" cameras but "marry" lenses.

 

Lenses evolve relatively slowly compared to cameras, and can be used for generations of the latter. That is provided they are built to last. "Pro" lenses are usually built better, even though there are some kit lenses with comparable image quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 18-140 is a very good kit lens, and plenty good enough for walk-around snap shooting, but it's definitely not the best lens available.

 

The 17-55 is noticeably better, but in my view it's not worth the money to buy new. It doesn't sit well on the camera at all, being far too heavy and bulky for its focal range.

 

I have the Nikon 17-55 and hardly use it for the above reasons. I also have the neat little Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8 zoom (non-VC version), and I'd be very hard-pressed to distinguish its results from those of the Nikon lens. My neck and shoulders thank me for choosing the Tamron though, and it delivers clearly better results than the kit 18-140 while offering two stops more usability.

 

It's not entirely a 'free lunch', since the marked 50mm setting shrinks considerably at close focussing distances. The Nikon 17-55 definitely gives more magnification close in; more so than the extra 5mm would imply.

 

So, if your pocket and muscles can take the strain, go with the bloated Nikon pro glass. Otherwise... you could do a lot worse than the little Tamron, it'll give you noticeably better IQ than the 18-140. Provided, of course, that lack of image-stabilisation doesn't come into play.

 

FWIW, I just bought a Mamiya 645-to-Nikon adapter and discovered that my old Mamiya Sekor 300mm f/5.6 lens beats anything I have in native Nikon mount at that focal length and f/5.6. Drat! For the price of a cheap mount adapter I could have been getting better results for years.

 

In fact all the old Mamiya lenses I've tried so far have been superb on a D7200..... grrr!

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that's easy to forget is that the D7200 has the highest pixel density sensor Nikon has put in a DSLR. Even the D850/Z7 have sensors with pixel density roughly equivalent to the D500 and D7500, or ~20mp(for some reason I have 19.6mp in my head for the D850 in DX crop mode). That makes the 24mp D7200 sensor fairly demanding in one respect, although admittedly when using an FX lens you also get the benefit of using the best part of the image circle.

 

I have to admit that DXOMark "resolution numbers" seem somewhat arbitrary to me. In skimming through their ratings on lenses mounted on the D800, I didn't find a single Nikkor lens where they claimed 36mp-only the Zeiss F-mount lenses claim that distinction.

 

This was brought to my attention when I was showing someone comparison photos of the same scene made with my Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D-a lens that I consider one of the sharpest I own, but that DXOMark doesn't rank. The AF-S version of the lens, which I had and sold because I thought that the older D was better(one of the few times I've found that to be the case) is rated at 16mp on the D800.

 

I can definitely see a difference in resolved detail when comparing the same scene taken with that lens to one taken with my 24mp D600, and it DXOMark is to be believed(again, even though they haven't tested that specific lens) both sensors should out-resolve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have the neat little Tamron SP 17-50 f/2.8 zoom (non-VC version), and I'd be very hard-pressed to distinguish its results from those of the Nikon lens. My neck and shoulders thank me for choosing the Tamron though, and it delivers clearly better results than the kit 18-140 while offering two stops more usability.

 

It's not entirely a 'free lunch', since the marked 50mm setting shrinks considerably at close focussing distances. The Nikon 17-55 definitely gives more magnification close in; more so than the extra 5mm would imply.

 

So, if your pocket and muscles can take the strain, go with the bloated Nikon pro glass. Otherwise... you could do a lot worse than the little Tamron, it'll give you noticeably better IQ than the 18-140. Provided, of course, that lack of image-stabilisation doesn't come into play.

 

How smooth and easy to turn is the zoom ring?

I tried the Sigma 17-50/2.8 and the zoom ring (besides turning the wrong way) was STIFF. Trying to follow a volleyball game with a stiff zoom ring was frustrating.

That is the beef that I have with many 90 degree zoom rings. There isn't enough turning for leverage, so the zoom cams have to be steep, and that makes for a stiff zoom ring.

 

I found it on Amazon for $300

 

Yes the lack of VR could be an issue for this old man. But I have to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How smooth and easy to turn is the zoom ring?

 

- Easy to turn? Definitely. Smooth? Not so much. It feels a bit 'plastic-on-plastic', but I've felt worse.

OTOH, my quite well-used 17-55 Nikon is decidedly sloppy in the zoom department. It doesn't slip, but it's much more loose-feeling than I'd like.

 

WRT VR/VC - neither the Tamron nor Nikon have any stabilisation, so the playing field is level between them there.

 

Tamron have a VC version of 17-50 zoom, but it's softer than the non-VC version by all accounts. I wasn't willing to risk the reviews being right, and went for the older non-VC version. I've not been at all disappointed with its performance. YMMV, etc.

 

"Is that because you're using maybe 1/8 of the image circle, and that's the best centre portion?"

 

- Well, yes Mike, but you also have to remember that those Mammy lenses were designed to cover almost twice the full-frame image circle, and only satisfy about half the resolution demands of 120 film. So I find it amazing that they look razor sharp on DX. The evenness from corner-to-corner was entirely expected however. The bonus is that they somehow convey a feeling of MF quality to the image, which is something I can't quite pin down in technical terms.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops - turn my back and actually do some work for five minutes, and a discussion happens...

 

They say you "date" cameras but "marry" lenses.

 

Lenses evolve relatively slowly compared to cameras, and can be used for generations of the latter. That is provided they are built to last. "Pro" lenses are usually built better, even though there are some kit lenses with comparable image quality.

 

Hmm. But marriage is becoming less ubiquitous.

 

Lenses used to be a long-term investment. I think we forget that for many years, the camera made almost no difference to image quality, and film stocks weren't advancing all that fast when it came to capture resolution. We've now had several generations of sensor improvements on digital cameras, and we keep finding that what used to be a "good lens" suddenly isn't. My 28-200 was a default lens cap on my D700, but it took about five minutes on a D800 to decide to part with it. The 70-200 mk1 looked good until it was put on an FX sensor. The 80-200 AF-D looks good on film, but (at least at short range) not so much on digital; the 70-200 VR II was an immediate improvement, and I can see significant improvements again from the FL version. The 18-200mm is somewhere between the only lens you'll ever need and a paperweight, depending on when you're reading reviews. There's a reason that we're seeing revisions to many classic lens designs (including the big supertelephotos), and that's before we have the extra flexibility of the Z mount in the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

80-200D works just fine on D810, I don't care about VR. VR is really last resort when light is really low and no other options left.

 

I think there's a difference between "fine" and "really taking advantage of the sensor."

 

I don't see a lot of difference in detail captured between my D3s and D800 with my push-pull 80-200 f/2.8D. That's handheld at high shutter speeds, and on a tripod with MLU and a remote release(although tripod mounting is a bit awkward since I have the version that doesn't have a tripod ring). From my 3 FX "benchmark" cameras, I'd say it outresolved the D3s but the D600 outresolves it.

 

I'd love a newer version(I'd even take an AF-S 80-200)-I just don't use that particular lens enough to justify it.

 

BTW, I know VR can be somewhat controversial, but I generally leave it on when I'm off the tripod unless I'm in a situation where I KNOW it will cause issues. Of course, that's moot for my 80-200 since it doesn't have it, but I do have my fair share of VR lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"really taking advantage of the sensor."

That advantage of high megapixels sensors, is bit overblown too. When Nikon introduced D800, they recommended tripod, MLU and remote release to take advantage of the sensor, no fun in such shooting, so possibly motion blur has more effect on sharpness of our pictures than the latest and best lenses.

As for VR, I have it too, just keeping it off till I need it. I don't like edgy backgrounds :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have gotten older, I am generally not as steady as I used to be, and VR assists me in simply aiming the camera. With VR off, the image in the screen sometimes bounces way too much, and I have trouble aiming much less keeping the AF point on the subject. This is more of an issue with the longer lenses. I have not noticed it as an issue with the 50 prime on a DX camera.

 

So @rj, the Tamron 17-50 not having VC may not be an issue, for me.

Interestingly, I noticed that DXOmark shows the non VR version of the 24-70/2.8 has having a higher resolution than the VR version. hmmm, similar non-VR vs. VR.

 

I prefer my zoom ring light enough to easily use with my fingers, rather than having to grab with my hand and turn with my arm. This is probably a carry over from the grip position of holding a 1-ring push/pull zoom for decades.

The zoom ring on the 70-200/4, is smooth and light. Like using my old 80-200/4.5 :) But both of these are internal zooming lenses, vs. the extending zooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can report is that when I bought my (new) 80-200 AF-D, I tried a 70-200 VRII at the same time, and it was visibly softer (in a "short range" test of a subject inside a shop) at wide apertures, even on a D700. It's possible it was a bad copy - this lens was generally unavailable in the UK (I suspect Nikon didn't continue it here alongside the 70-200VR, unlike other markets) so I was buying in Australia and didn't shop around much. There is, I believe, a known issue with that lens that the telecentricity changes with distance, throwing off autofocus, but even allowing for this there was softness at f/2.8 that I found barely acceptable on a D700, and I typically stopped down to f/4 or lower. At long distance (say a building on the other side of the street) it was relatively sharp, even wide open. That's not to say it was unusable at f/2.8, but the image was clearly compromised.

 

Sometime after I got a D800, for which I was generally at f/5.6 with the 80-200 and losing patience, I attempted to buy an 80-200 AF-S, found the used sample on offer wasn't working properly, and decided to give up and get the 70-200 VR II. Although I traded in my 80-200 to get it, making comparisons awkward, I found it a world better, but it was still visibly better at f/4 than at f/2.8, and I'd shoot f/4 or smaller unless I had to. On the D850 I again bit the bullet and got the latest 70-200, and no longer have major concerns about shooting wide open with that lens. (The latest Tamron may have been an equal sharpness improvement - I decided to stay on-brand for a few minor variations between lens behaviours.) There aren't many of my lenses that I'll happily shoot wide open: this, the 85mm Sigma (if I can lock focus), maybe the 200mm f/2.

 

I also use VR as much for composition (and for AF positioning) as for stabilising the image - and it's more relevant to longer lenses. I was reassured that the FL's VR is much more modern than the VRII's - as is the 200-500's. The VRII always seemed to be only slightly stabilised. I do shoot indoors in relatively low-light environments quite a bit, so it matters to me more than I can believe it would to some others. (Equally I often have a white/dark edge transitioning the focal plane, so I'm way more sensitive to LoCA than I expect most to be.) I've been known to turn VR off just in case when tracking a fast subject.

 

I take DxO's resolution figures only as a way to compare lenses, not to claim that they live up to the sensor. Discernible resolution depends heavily on the contrast of the subject you're pointing at, and to an extent on post-processing, so I think whether a lens "outresolves the sensor" isn't a very valid discussion, at least by their numbers. You can, however, say that on some sensors some lenses are less appreciably better than others.

 

That advantage of high megapixels sensors, is bit overblown too. When Nikon introduced D800, they recommended tripod, MLU and remote release to take advantage of the sensor, no fun in such shooting, so possibly motion blur has more effect on sharpness of our pictures than the latest and best lenses.

 

Yes, Nikon's hyperbole about technique was largely gibberish, and probably scared off some customers. I suspect Nikon wanted to stave off complaints about how the increased sensor resolution hadn't actually improved image resolution, because too many customers had excessive camera movement. Many of the sample images weren't taken from a tripod, and a tiny fraction of my shots are tripod-based - I don't claim to maximise resolution, but I'm generally not seeing a loss of sharpness in most of my shooting, and I'm certainly not seeing a directional loss of sharpness which blur would explain. Being stable but not being in the right place at the right time for the shot is no trade-off.

 

Motion blur can certainly be an issue (I'm using the D850's dual-gain and letting ISO float to 400 sometimes now, rather than trying so hard to stick to ISO64), but it's perhaps twice as bad as it was on film - shoot at 1/2 x focal length and I'll be surprised if you're not fine. I find heavier lenses help a bit as well - I'm sure part of the reason I'm quite stable with my 200 f/2 is that I couldn't shake it quickly if I wanted to. Of course, by telling people to use the tripod and rule out other causes of blur, Nikon immediately demonstrated the shutter shock issues with the D800 (although I tend just to try to avoid the shutter speed range most affected)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm using the D850's dual-gain and letting ISO float to 400 sometimes now, rather than trying so hard to stick to ISO64

 

- ISO 64... blimey, that takes me back!

 

I haven't shot at ISO 64 since I last used my Minolta Dimage A2. And before that it must have been Kodachrome type A.

 

I vividly remember the feeling of absolute freedom shooting my D700 @ ISO 200 for the first time. Impeccable IQ and decent, hand-holdable, shutter speeds. Bliss!

 

Since then, ISO 200 has been my default setting for walk-about shooting. IMHO a sweet spot between best quality and usability.

 

Any camera that demanded ISO 64 to deliver its optimum results, I would dismiss out of hand. Probably the reason I haven't rushed out to 'upgrade' my D800. In fact I'm pretty happy to use my 'inferior' D7200 or Sony a6000 most of the time.

 

In the other direction, anyone who's regularly shooting at >6400 ISO seriously ought to consider buying a decent speedlight IMO. As for 5 and 6 figure ISOs.... we live in spoiled and crazy times!

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone who's regularly shooting at >6400 ISO seriously ought to consider buying a decent speedlight IMO

....apart from (some) sports shooters...

 

"It scares the horses, don't you know";)

 

... and I suspect a full power SB-910 blast to the face of a down-hill mountain biker might be a bit nasty too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do most of my static subject photography at ISO 64, including landscapes, architectural shots, and shots where the close-up subject is not swaying with the wind. For flower shots I may increase ISO to 200-800, to avoid movement blur, but whenever I can, I tend to shoot at lower ISOs for such subjects. For hand-held photography (of mostly people subjects) I will use whatever ISO that gives me fast enough shutter speed to stop movement, including ultra high ISO of 12800 etc. when necessary, in very low light. Of course I'll prefer to use lower ISO when possible.

 

I haven't felt the ISO 64 to be problematic at all, in fact I love it, as it gives a bit more options regarding long exposures for blurring water movement, when desired, without resorting to the use of ND filters. But I started shooting with slow slide film and never really felt the urge to do landscape photography without a tripod. I find the tripod gives much greater control and consistency for this type of shots, and it results in tangible differences in the outcome. Beautiful tones, consistent near-to-far sharpness, ease of exposure blending and stitching compared to hand-held usage, precise composition etc.

 

Sometimes there is no choice but to use very high ISO. In this case I was shooting at ISO 102400 a lot, to get shots of the dancers who were flashing a torch for a second at times, with no other light at the venue of old castle ruins. Now that was dark.

 

Untitled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any camera that demanded ISO 64 to deliver its optimum results, I would dismiss out of hand. Probably the reason I haven't rushed out to 'upgrade' my D800.

 

...which clearly captures more detail at ISO100 than at ISO200. :-) It's absolutely not the case that the D810 has a problem at higher ISOs (although I believe there might be a tiny drop at some ISOs shared with the D800) - it's that it captures even more detail at ISO64. For the average JPEG from the camera, you can't see a difference; if you want to recover shadows (or avoid blown highlights - I hate entirely white clouds), which is my default situation, then I'll take all the detail I can get. If I'm outdoors in daylight, ISO64 is normally quite achievable - by f/8 I'm starting to see diffraction effects, and Sunny 16 would put that as a 1/256s exposure. Indoors if there's sun streaming through the windows, I usually need the same to capture shadow and anything directly sunlit. If I'm under natural lighting, sure, I let the ISO lift, and (adjusted to scale) any D8x0 body outperforms the D700 at any ISO. I could float the D700 between ISO200 and 1600 with very little effect; the D8x0 bodies do see an effect, but they're always better than the D700 was.

 

In the other direction, anyone who's regularly shooting at >6400 ISO seriously ought to consider buying a decent speedlight IMO. As for 5 and 6 figure ISOs.... we live in spoiled and crazy times!

 

When I'm shooting indoors, it's usually inappropriate or downright rude to use a flash - certainly one on the camera, and moving around with an acceptable lighting rig is tricky (despite my "monopod with a flash at both ends" experiments in candid butterfly lighting). It's certainly distracting, and I get complaints about the mirror slap as it is - I'm planning to try more with the D850's electronic shutter, but live view with a long lens has its own limitations for AF and stability. On-camera flash is arguably more appropriate for fill flash in direct sunlight - but that's where I rely on the sensor dynamic range and shooting at ISO64 the most. If there were more dynamic range to be had, I'd take (native) ISO32 if Nikon offered it. As for shooting outdoors at night, while I know an SB600 can light up a building reasonably well, there are limits to what it can do with an entire cityscape. And with wildlife at night, ignoring whatever harm or distress I may cause it with flashes (Yellowstone bans flashlights I presume for this reason), I've been burnt by discovering the flash duration on my SB-600 is much longer than I'd realised, and inadequate for freezing dragonflies.

 

So I'll always take more high ISO performance if it's available (and not just a marketing number). While it's not perfect, I've been pretty impressed by the images out of the D850 even at stratospheric ISO, and that's usually even viewing 1:1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 70-200/4 AFS VR I have does seem to produce exceptionally nice looking results-at f/4. I also have a 70-200/2.8 VRI that I think needs to be used at 3.2 if possible, so the f/4 version is effectively only 2/3 stop slower in my mind. I had an 80-200/2.8D a good while back and not able to compare directly, but I am pretty sure that the 70-200/4 (and 2.8VRI central area at least) would win a comparison.

 

Also, I have one of the non VR Tamron 17-50/2.8 zooms that seems quite good. Zoom operation of my Tamron is fine, and I like the relatively light weight. Too bad there does not seem to be an inexpensive FX equivalent of that lens, at least that I have found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 70-200/4 AFS VR I have does seem to produce exceptionally nice looking results-at f/4. I also have a 70-200/2.8 VRI that I think needs to be used at 3.2 if possible, so the f/4 version is effectively only 2/3 stop slower in my mind. I had an 80-200/2.8D a good while back and not able to compare directly, but I am pretty sure that the 70-200/4 (and 2.8VRI central area at least) would win a comparison.

 

I should look into this one...

 

I'm not a BIG tele shooter, but 70/80-200/210 is a range that makes sense for me. I'm not planning on getting rid of the 80-200 f/2.8D and I don't think an f/4 lens can COMPLETELY replace it, but there's also no getting around the fact that it's a lot of glass to move around and focus can be a bit "leisurely" with consumer bodies(and yes, I'm including my D800 in that classification). The F5, D1 series, D2 series, and D3s slam it around like crazy, but of course the older cameras don't have as good of AF modules as the D3s(and especially not the D800) and I also feel like the D3 in-body motor is a bit less potent than the earlier single-digit cameras.

 

Of course, VR won't stop action or blur backgrounds, but in many cases it can make more than a 1-stop difference when hand-holding. There's also the fact that a lens I will carry with me is MANY times more useful than a lens that stays at home/in the car.

 

That doesn't stop me from wanting a 135mm f/2 DC also. I know Andrew has issues with this lens, but I still want one. The local shop had the 105mm version a few months back in nearly new condition for around $500, and I figured I'd sleep on it since I didn't see it flying off the shelf-when I called the next day to say to hold it back for me, it was already gone.

 

BTW, I do a lot of landscape and other "environmental" types of photography(for lack of a better term) and I consider a tripod standard equipment. I think it's a bit short sighted to imply that "no one uses a tripod." I actually have a couple, including the spindly little Manfrotto CF legs with a B-1 ballhead on top(I want to upgrade those legs) that weighs a little of nothing and works fine most of the time, a Tiltall that works great cameras like my RB67 and 4x5 cameras, and a massive no-name unit that's about 15lbs and that I rarely take far but would hold an 8x10 steady without breaking a sweat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...