Telephoto Question

<p>I rarely use a focal length longer than 105mm, but every once in awhile I need something over that, mostly for compressing and pulling details out of landscapes (stopped down on a tripod). </p>

<p>I really don't want to shell out for a professional 70-200mm - they're big and they're expensive for the few times I'll use them (and size and use are often inversely related with me), so I've been looking at some older manual focus lenses - the AI 80-200mm f4.5 "new" version, AIS 80-200 f4, and series E 70-210mm f4. How do any of these compare to the AI 200mm f4 lens? Anything else worthwhile out there? It will rarely be open further than f8.</p>

<p>In the end, would I be better off with a new 70-300mm image stabilized lens from Tamron or Nikon? Modern coatings, exotic glass, almost 40 years of further design experience, etc. likely goes a long way, I suppose. </p>

<p>My only concern with all of the zooms is how well they balance while on a tripod - how front heavy do they get at their longest focal lengths? None of them looks to have a tripod collar, and none of them zooms internally. Also, how much of a problem will loose zoom mechanisms give me?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

 

<p>Greg - I have the 80-200 4.5 AI as well as the 200 f4 NAI -both of which are quite front heavy and neither of which have a tripod socket, although you could put a collar around them. Performance wise they both do a good job, at least on older bodies like my D300 and film bodies. They also work well on my M4/3 body, but sort of overpower the body of the camera itself. If you're planning to use the lenses on a tripod exclusively, IS doesn't seem to be a practical consideration. For occasional non-professional use lenses like this make economic sense, but of course more modern designs will be lighter and probably have a greater degree of various corrections.</p>

<p>Not exactly a final word on this, but you could get a Nikon 70-200/4....and since you didn't mention how much is the cost threshold....you can look up KEH and you could get 180/2.8 manual for less than $400. </p>

<p>Les</p>

 

<p>I second the advice to look into the 70-200mm f/4--it's a great lens. You could also get a used Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AF-D. A store I will no longer mention has one used for $649.</p>

<p>I have the 80-200 F4 AIS, and it's nice and sharp, but it has no tripod socket and no convenient way to add one. I don't find that a big problem because it's not terribly heavy, but it is an issue. Some are loose and some are not, so on something like this you take a chance. Mine is tight, but not all are. I have a 35-105 AIS zoom that's loose, and it's not bad for hand held walking around, but a nuisance when you want precision, and a bust if the camera is not level.</p>

<p>Another possibility if you're feeling cheap might be the old 70-300 AFD lens. Not terribly highly regarded by some, but it's actually not bad, and though it gets a little soft at 300, it's not bad shorter. And, of course, it will meter with any digital Nikon and AF with any that has a camera body motor. It's a rotating, rather than a push-pull zoom, so it tends to stay where you put it. </p>

<p>You don't say what camera you're using Greg, so I'm going to assume it's something hi-res like a D800 or D7100. For those cameras the old 80-200mm f/4 ~ f/4.5 Ai/Ai-S zooms just aren't really good enough I'm afraid. They're OK-ish in the centre, but CA and coma ruin their edge definition. Likewise the 200mm f/4 prime to a lesser degree.</p>

<p>The only older prime lens I'd recommend is the IF-ED 180mm f/2.8 AF-D. It's superb and you're unlikely to "outgrow" it with a camera upgrade. It's also a lot lighter than any f/2.8 tele-zoom and will sit nicely on the front of a DSLR without need of a tripod collar. I got mine at a very reasonable price, but not as cheaply as you can pick up the old MF 80-200 or 70-210 zooms - and with good reason.</p>

<p>I also have Tamron's 70-300mm SP VC zoom. That's an excellent lens as well, but I think the 180mm prime has the edge over it when it comes to IQ. But hey! It's a zoom and therefore a lot more versatile, and again it doesn't make the camera front-heavy. Pricewise it can be got brand new for around the same as a used 180mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Edit: If I was really cash-strapped I'd look at Sigma's 70-300mm APO zoom - <strong>not</strong> the non-Apo version though, definitely. It has amazing performance for the price. It's lightweight, but build quality is downright poor and wouldn't stand up to heavy use.</p>

<p>+1 on 180/2.8 AF/D</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-300mm is good. Also consider the Tamron 180mm f/3.5 macro lens as an alternative to Nikon 200mm f/4. It is lighter, much less expensive and just as good IMO. I bought a like-new one last week at almost 1/2 the MSRP price on eBay - it's the latest edition if there are variations (not familiar with Tamron) - the markings on this lens are identical to what B&H shows on their website. Took it to a butterfly conservatory yesterday to use side by side with Olympus M4/3 60mm macro. I ended up using this lens more than the Olympus (which is also excellent). This lens caught my attention after seeing a presentation by a photographer with some exquisite macro images shot with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"+1 on 180/2.8 AF/D"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Yes, the 180 f/2.8. Lovely lens. Cheap alternative: Series E 70-150 f/3.5.<br>

If you need something more versatile and up to date, I'd get the Tamron 70-300VC or Nikon 70-300VR. Both really good lenses at decent prices. </p>

<p><em>Yes, the 180 f/2.8. Lovely lens. Cheap alternative: Series E 70-150 f/3.5</em>. +1<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>For the purpose you describe I would recommend the Nikkor MF AiS 180/2.8. That is the only lens I have longer than 105mm. For such use I find that MF is perfectly adequate. It meets the weight requrements and the optics are excellent. Price is certainly right.</p>

<p>No sooner had I posted the previous another idea came into my head - I'm suspecting that the real answer to this landscape issue isn't necessarily a longer telephoto but the ability to alter the foreground, middle ground and distant quantities/proportions. Telephotos as we all know condense distance and sort of tilt the horizon closer to the viewer, and the bigger/longer you go the more extreme this gets which may not be desirable.</p>

<p>Changing the height from which a picture is taken may solve the problem quite effectively - but ladders can be a real pain to carry around! after that you go into tilt/shift territory or maybe focus stacking.</p>

<p>Perhaps post an image that you are trying to achieve. On the telephoto end I also recommend any of the 180/2.8 ED versions but also any of the used Nikon AF 80-200mm f2.8 lenses. The AF-S is the best but the even the first one touch AF-D is no slouch.</p>

<p>My primary landscape lens is a 17mm TS-E but I also have great results with the Nikon 35mm f2.8 PC non-AI. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Telephotos as we all know condense distance."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lenses don't change perspective, distance does. You can crop a wideangle shot and get exactly the same perspective as a telephoto lens, just as long as the distance to the subject remains the same. However the cropped widangle shot wil give more depth-of-field for the same aperture.</p>

<p>Well explained and ilustrated here: <a href="http://www.patricktaylor.com/1988">http://www.patricktaylor.com/1988</a></p>

<p>Interesting article Joe, for a split second I thought you may have a point, I know a great deal about perspective and am very careful about how I use the word - distance was the word I used and you change it to perspective, with that in mind if you re-read the article you will see that the author agrees with me. </p>

<p>For low $ you could try a photomultiplier. My Tamron 2x works pretty well, and I haven't seen a meaningful loss of sharpness. For $300 used you can't go wrong with a Nikkor 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 G VR ED. A very reliable, flexible, and useful lens, hard to beat at comparable pricing. The VR-I version can be had cheaper than the VR-II, but no difference if used on a tripod (turn off VR for tripod use.) Good luck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>try a photomultiplier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think he means a tele-converter or tele-extender; a photomultiplier (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier</a>) is an entirely different thing.</p>

<p>Dieter is correct. I can only blame a brain fart... </p>

<p>Thanks everyone - I appreciate all of your suggestions!</p>

<p>A quick update to this thread: on a lark I ended up buying a $9 Vivitar 200mm f3.5 lens from the mid-1980's - it was an early autofocus lens for manual focus cameras and ran on three AAA batteries in the lens. The electronics in my sample are fried (as stated in the description), but the glass is clean and blades are clean and snappy. Everything I've read says that autofocus was accurate, but painfully slow, so no great loss.</p>

<p>It makes for a great internal focusing manual focus lens - no change in length when focusing, no spinning filter rings, etc. It is really nicely weighted and balances great on my D610. Wide open certainly sees some fringing and aberrations, but stopped-down things look quite nice. A minimum focus of 8 feet certainly isn't ideal, but it is easy to work around.</p>