Zooms v. Primes: some questions

F5 on the way. Now I need a long(ish) lens (180mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm

f/2.8 Zoom). Here are some questions:

 

(1) Are there different versions of the VR models, or are all 80-200mm

f/2.8 auto-focus lenses w/VR the same animal?

 

(2) What is the going rate for a used 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom w/VR in good

optical and mechanical condition?

 

(3) Will I notice a difference in image quality between the 180mm

f/2.8 prime hand-held at 1/125 and the 80-200mm zoom w/ VR at the same

focal length and shutter speed. In other words, does the VR feature

on a zoom trump the theoretically better resolving power of the prime

when shooting hand-held? (And yes, I know 1/250 would be the

recommended shutter speed for hand-holding a 180mm lens, but I hope to

be able to use the lens indoors w/o flash, making 1/250 unrealistic

except with very, very high ISO settings.)

 

(4) Finally, I'd like to have a "standard" lens. I've decided to stay

away from both non-Nikkor offerings and from slow zooms, and to put

most of the Nikon budget into the longer lens. The most

cost-effective options appear to be: 35mm f/2.0; 50mm f/1.4; 50mm

f/1.8 and 35-70mm f/2.8 (apparently an older AF push-pull type zoom).

Any thoughts?

I do not know of any 80-200/2.8 Nikkor that has VR. There are about 4 or 5 versions of this lens -- the latest one being AFS (and no VR). The newish 70-200/f2.8 is a VR lens and a tad expensive.

 

The other relatively affordable long VR zoom is the 80-400/4-5.6 AF VR.

Thanks for the quick response. I meant the 70-200 w/VR.

And yes, I assume the VR version of the lens would be (used) in the $1300-$1500 (based on the price of the used Canon (IS) version of the same lens), but I don't really know. I see in the P-Net classifieds that the 180mm f/2.8 is in the $500 range.

Just noticed that the price for the 70-200 VR has gone up a bit at B&H. It is now $1620 with a $150 rebate for a final cost of $1470.

 

There are 4 different versions of the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000nBZ

There is only one version of 70-200/2.8 AFS VR zoom nikkor. That sells for $1600-ish new.

 

 

Are you expecting to find that in the used market? That's a fairly new model and I'd be nuts to sell if off within an year after buying it, but some might.

 

I think the 180/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR cannot really be compared because they serve very different purposes. While the 180/2.8 may theoretically have an edge over the zoom in terms of optical performance, I'd consider that redundant for most practical purposes if I had the 70-200 to begin with. However it is a fairly lighter and smaller lens compared to the zoom which could be an advantage.

At 180mm, the prime is better. Much better open wide, and still better at f/4. At f/5.6 its hard to distinguish, but it's still there. It's a much smaller lens, cheaper too, and as Shun noted, serves a different purpose.

 

VR/IS may mean the world to some, but I'd always rather have a faster lens that is usable wide-open. The 2.8 zooms are still very good performers, but the 180/135/105 are simply stellar in comparison.

>and as Shun noted, serves a different purpose -- Yaron

 

Shun didn't say that. I did.

1. There is only one Nikon f/2.8 telezoom with VR. It's very rare used since it is such a great lens and a relatively new product.

 

2. I think I paid about $1650. Now, to consider that this lens sells for 2600 euros in some places, this is quite a bargain!

 

3. Yes, the zoom will be sharper at 180 mm if you hand-hold at 1/125 s, no doubt about it. Notice that with an ordinary lens, the 1/FL speed is a guideline for "acceptable sharpness" (meaning that you can make a 4x6 print from it) and to get the differences in image quality of these kind of lenses to show, you need much higher shutter speeds!! But with VR, 1/FL works to obtain excellent results.

 

The 180/2.8 used at high shutter speeds, or on a tripod is much sharper at wide apertures than the 70-200. However, to get this to show, shoot from a tripod or at least 1/500-1/800 s. The prime is also less flare prone than the zoom, and gives beautiful contrast.

 

The zoom is also almost twice as heavy, a big lens.

 

I have both and use both. If I want reach but don't want to be topic of conversation at an outdoor party, I'll shoot with the 180. Also, whenever I carry either my 105/2 or 105/2.8, I take the 180 along instead of the zoom.

 

4. I recommend the 35/2D and 50/1.8D AF lenses. Excellent performance for the money. For digital SLRs, the 35/2 has really great image quality in the center of the frame, it's amazing.

(1) Answered above.

(2) I've never seen a used 70-200mm VR for sale and I imagine you wouldn't either.

(3) I don't think so.

(4) 35-70mm f/2.8 or 50mm 1.8

John-

 

There are two AF 70-200 f/2.8 VR zooms on ebay right now. One from a guy with zero feed back, and another from a guy with a long history of good feed back.

 

Why doesn't anyone seem to be excited about the 50mm f/1.4? Is the 50mm 1.8 a better lens or just a better value?

The 50/1.8 has better contrast, better sharpness stopped down, it has a recessed front element which lets you shoot without a hood, it performs much better at close distances, and it focuses more accurately on cheapo AF systems such as the D70 has got. The 1.4 has one advantage over the 1.8: it gives better sharpness between f/1.8 and f/2.8. It is a lens specially designed for use at wide apertures, but the 1.8 beats it in every other way, and costs much less.

"Why doesn't anyone seem to be excited about the 50mm f/1.4? Is the 50mm 1.8 a better lens or just a better value?"

 

 

 

If you go 2 stops smaller from f1.4, then go 2 stops smaller from f1.8. The 'sharper' lens for a darker room is the f1.4 lens. It all depends on how you plan on using it. The AF 50mm f1.4D (made in Japan, at least mine is...) is fine for weddings, with a speedlight, bracket, and SC-17 cord. Haven't tried out the AF 50mm f1.8D (made in China) lens yet.

Is there any reason to buy the newer, "D" version of the 180mm. It appears to be about $150 more for the used version than the model that precedes the "D" version. In his article, Ken Rockwell complains about AF focusing inaccuracy with the 180mm for distances less than 40 feet. Is there anything to that or did he just get a bad example of the lens?

Apologies Arnab :) you should get the credit :)

There must be some used 70-200 zooms on the market. I bought mine used a year ago. Great price, and it was in perfect condition. I think I was lucky, in the right place at the right time. Been using it a lot for bicycle racing -- can't live without it.

I bought an absolutely mint LNIB 70-200VR on the fredmiranda.com forums for $1150 shipped about two months ago. There are used samples of this out there if you look. I've seen a few show up on the PN classifieds in recent weeks, too, but they go fast.

Marc, Ken had a bad F100 with which he tested the 180 mm, and sold the lens and then it turned out to be the camera's fault (he got a new F100 from Nikon). He didn't bother taking back what he said about the 180 (his site is good for laughs, but it's annoyingly inaccurate when you seek facts. I recommend ignoring him.)

 

I have carefully tested this aspect of my 180 mm f/2.8D on film and digital bodies (F5, F100, and D70), and it focuses more accurately than my AF-S VR 70-200. That's good enough for me.

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>*Marc Lieberman, jun 24, 2005; 08:41 p.m.</B>

<br>

F5 on the way. Now I need a long(ish) lens (180mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8 Zoom). Here are some questions:

 

(1) Are there different versions of the VR models, or are all 80-200mm f/2.8 auto-focus lenses w/VR the same animal?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

As others have pointed out, you're a little confused about that zoom lens.  There no such animal as an 80-200mm Nikkor with VR; the only VR lens in that range is the 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR: <A HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139">Nikon Product Number 2139</A>.  There have been *several* AF versions of the 80-200 f2.8 over the years, but none of them offered VR; see <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000nBZ">this PhotoNet thread</A> for the run-down; but note that since that was written, the AF-S version has been discontinued (presumably because it was considered redundant with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

(2) What is the going rate for a used 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom w/VR in good optical and mechanical condition?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Presuming you mean the 70-200...  Good luck finding one used, at least at anything approaching a bargain price .  It's a fairly new product, and most of the folks who've bought them seem to like them; so there are very few floating around on the second-hand market.  Note that there is currently a Nikon USA rebate offered on this model, which makes the effective selling price around $1,450, new.  If that's too rich for your blood, and you're willing to give up the VR, there *are* plenty of the 80-200 f/2.8s available, in at least most of the "flavors" outlined in the above-referenced thread (tho' the AF-S ones seem to be the scarcest).  Check <A HREF="http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=NA&cid=07&sid=newused&crid=11339235">KEH</A> for a representative sampling.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

(3) Will I notice a difference in image quality between the 180mm f/2.8 prime hand-held at 1/125 and the 80-200mm zoom w/ VR at the same focal length and shutter speed. In other words, does the VR feature on a zoom trump the theoretically better resolving power of the prime when shooting hand-held?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Well...  This is far from hard-and-fast, because too much depends on the specific shooting situation (how steady are *your* hands, for example?); but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the 70-200 VR would produce a greater percentage of less crappy shots.  Note that in *neither* case, could you expect the results to be as good as using the 180mm f/2.8 *properly* (i.e., on a tripod, or at least with an appropriate shutter speed).  OTOH, I've seen some pretty spectacular shots taken from an in-flight helicopter (talk about vibration!) with the 70-200 VR; so I don't mean to imply you *can't* get good shots that way.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

(And yes, I know 1/250 would be the recommended shutter speed for hand-holding a 180mm lens, but I hope to be able to use the lens indoors w/o flash, making 1/250 unrealistic except with very, very high ISO settings.)

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I think this also depends on the specific situation to a large degree -- "indoors" can mean almost anything, from an intimate candelit restaurant, to exhibition halls with enough artificial light to make sunblock seem like a good idea.  If you're talking about your typical living room, then you're somewhere in the middle, light-wise; but in that case, even 180mm seems awfully long.  In that scenario, I'd probably opt for something like a 105mm f/2 or thereabouts, which helps solve the problem in two ways:  You've got a full stop more light available through the bigger maximum aperture, and 1/125th becomes a "reasonable" hand-held shutter speed due to the shorter focal length.  For that matter, if low-light shooting in at least semi-tight confines is a priority, then the 85mm f/1.4 gets you *two* stops, and you could squeeze the shutter speed down to 1/90th if you had to -- just be prepared for Sticker Shock.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

(4) Finally, I'd like to have a "standard" lens. I've decided to stay away from both non-Nikkor offerings and from slow zooms, and to put most of the Nikon budget into the longer lens. The most cost-effective options appear to be: 35mm f/2.0; 50mm f/1.4; 50mm f/1.8 and 35-70mm f/2.8 (apparently an older AF push-pull type zoom). Any thoughts?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Unless you have some special requirements you've not mentioned, I'd go for the 50mm f/1.8D, without question.  Yes, it's 2/3 stop slower than the 50mm f/1.4; but beyond that, it's the better lens overall -- and it's dirt cheap (as Nikkors go), too.  The 35-70mm f/2.8D zoom just leaves me cold.  It may be a very good lens, objectively; I don't know.  But it's just too limiting in terms of both zoom range and max. aperture, when you've got so many nice primes in the same focal length range. Note, you could pick up *both* the 35mm f/2.0D and the 50mm f/1.8D for what it would cost, and have enough left over for a good flash unit (or a very nice dinner for six -- with appetizers & drinks <~>).

<br>

<br>

I stand corrected on the used 70-200 VR. When I bought mine new, I looked around, but didn't look on Ebay. Ebay is great, but I prefer to buy something at that price point from a reputable dealer.

 

Honestly, I have my doubts about buying that lens used anyway, you would be trading a small savings for no warranty.

Good point about Nikon's lousy non-transferable warranty. I bought my used 70-200 at a local retail store and saved a lot. I've never had to send a Nikon/Nikkor lens in for warranty repair in thirty years of using them (but there's always a first time).