derek_l. Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 First things first...I have a Nikon D70, Nikon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 17-35mm 2.8, Tamron 28-200mm 3.5-5.6, and will be buying a Nikon 85mm 1.8 after Christmas. I shoot promo photos, portraits, my travels and small local semi-pro stuff. I've been reading and I am wondering if instead of another telephoto, that I should just get a Nikon 180mm 2.8. My question is simple what range can this lens cover? I think I could use a faster lens in the telephoto area. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelging Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Derek, I was just packing my 180mm 2.8 , for a trip 10 minutes before I read your post. Its a great lens,very sharp,will blow away a background in a portrait and is a good all around telephoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 >>>> I shoot promo photos, portraits, my travels and small local semi-pro stuff. <<<< This doesn't tell us alot. People shoot travel, portraits, promo and semi pro stuff with all kind of lenses. The 85mm 1.8 and 180mm 2.8 are both considered telephotos. They get a 1.5 crop factor with nikon digital ala the d70 so they would be ~ 130mm 1.8 and 270mm 2.8 respectively. I don't think people should buy lenses unless they really know what they want or need imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_l. Posted December 20, 2004 Author Share Posted December 20, 2004 Leslie, I wasn't in the market to buy...only to ask advice from other users. You offered really nothing of any value. I don't think users should respond unless they can contribute to the general base of knowledge, imho. How's that feel? See how being a smart aleck sounds? Try some civility when people are honestly looking to bounce ideas off other hobbyists. It's not a graduate course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 As Leslie points out, a 180mm lens is almost in the super-tele category on a D70. Is that what you want/need for your work? (Generally speaking, I consider a 300mm or longer a super-tele for 35mm film.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_richard Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Obviously, a lot depends. From what I see of your current arsenal, and figuring the 'digital effect" , it would seem to me that you are short on the wide angle side, not the telephoto side. A 180mm is approaching a 300mm, 35 equivilent. ( good for birds and sports) I still shoot film, Nikon camera, and 90% of all shots are 85 mm or 20mm. I'd look wider, not longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 My intention wasn't to insult. I'm sorry you took it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I bought the 180mm 2.8 for indoor auditorium shots of my children in recitals, etc. It works perfectly for that purpose on a film camera, but when I used it recently on my D70 it was too long. I foundmyself wishing I had an 80-200mm 2.8. Same length and max. aperture, but you can shorten it a bit if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_lu Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 there's something to what leslie said...85mm and 180mm (+1.5x) is a pretty big difference. an effective 270mm is quite long. i'm sure a clever photog could use it for a variety of purposes. but hey, you have lenses ranging from 17-200; you can use that to see what you may need/want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Leslie, Your answer was just right. I would not get offended by your advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw63 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 The 180 is certainly a well respected lens and very usefull in the film camera arena, but at almost 300mm effective length on your D70, I would wonder how much you would use it. Since your Tamron is a 5.6 at 200mm, and it rather slow for that length, I can see where your going though. If you use the long end of the Tamron zoom frequently, then you can't go wrong with the 180 f2.8. I guess that's the key question. Do you use that long of a lens often enough to warrant the 180 prime ? If the answer is yes, then go for it. If not, then perhaps a prime that is effectively a 180 would be what you want. Would that be about a 135mm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_k2 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I have had a 180mm for many years and although it is tack sharp, I have hardly ever used it. You just don't go out intending to take a lot of shots that are exactly that long. It's too long for portraits even without the digital multiplication factor. The 80-200mm is the one I use for that length. For most long shots the extra length of the 200mm outweighs the slight sharpness advantage of the 180mm. If you do portraits, the 85mm 1.8 is a great choice. I would recommend the 105mm Micro for you over the 180mm. It might be just a tad long for portraits using digital, but it's a great all-around lens for portraits, landscape, travel and macro. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I use the 180 all the time on my D70 - it gives wonderful image quality by the way, something that blows your socks off. Because of the high sensitivity of the D70, and the large aperture, I can use it hand-held most of the time without any problems - and the combination is relatively lightweight. I totally disagree that you can't go walking around expecting to get shots with it. I do it all the time. I don't bother to use my 300/4 much because it's basically a tripod-bound lens, too long and too slow. But the 105/2 and 180/2.8 are my most used lenses.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Oh no, that was the wrong shot. Here it goes.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Shame on you ILKKA;*) I think that couple wanted some privacy no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 BTW, to add to Ilkkas comment: the 180F2.8 works very well with a 1.4 kenko pro tele-converter on D70 and on film (still better than any 70-200 or 80-200 zoom I know) . this makes it a useful travel combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 While I personally prefer the 70/80-200mm/f2.8 zoom because of its flexability, I have no doubt that the 180mm/f2.8 is an excellent lens. The real question is what is your application that can take adavantage of such a lens. In particular, on a D70, the 180mm is a pretty long lens. If you add a 1.4x TC on it, it gets really long and hand holding is not very practical any more. Unlike the newer 70/80-200mm/f2.8 zooms, the 180mm/f2.8 has no tripod collar and that becomes an issue on a DSLR especially with a TC. Hand holding will negate some of its sharpness advantage unless you always shoot at 1/500 sec or faster. As Leslie points out, Derek needs to be clearer about exactly what type of photography he is into. 180mm is definitely too long for portraits work on a D70. I am not sure exactly what "small local semi-pro stuff" means and what "promo photos" are. We are merely trying to get more information so that we can provide better answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulr Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Hello Derek, I use two medium telephoto lenses on my D100. The 85 f/1.4 and the 105/F2D DC. I prefer the 105mm as it is perfect for portraits and travel and seems to focus a bit faster then my 85mm. The DC feature is interesting to use on portraits as you can defocus the background or foreground regardless of the f/stop. I highly recommend the 105mm or the 135mm f/2D DC for your travel and portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 If anyone has a 105/2 DC lens for sale please contact me...sorry I can't add anything useful to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I usually shoot at 1/800 s with the 180 mm when hand-holding. Because it's very sharp at wide apertures, the results are excellent. With 35 mm film the DOF is a bit short and a tripod would be a good idea. A tripod collar would have to be mounted around the aperture control ring and so it's impossible to implement such a thing in a useful way in my opinion. Rainer Burzynski makes one for the 180 for macro use, although frankly I've never felt the need for one. Despite the 80-200 having a tripod ring, the 180 blows it away, center and corner, between f/2.8 and f/11. Also, the 180 is of about 40% lower weight than the f/2.8 telezooms, which makes it something which you can just hang around your neck all day. I wouldn't be doing that on a 80-200/2.8 (actually I have done it, and sold it). However, if you want to do outdoor portrait stuff, a 105 would be great, and the 50 for indoors. The 180 is great for informal snaps of people and other domestic animals, as well as architectural close-ups etc. A kit which I often walk around with is the 20, 35, 50, 105, and 180, with the latter two taking most of the shots. If you're prepared to carry more weight then a 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR would be great. However, don't expect it to have similar optical quality to the 180. It's a trade-off between weight, optical quality and versatility (the 70-200 being the most versatile obviously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Jim, sorry, my 105/2 DC is not for sale ;-) I hear that Nikon sells it though, and it's available at several online camera stores. Click and ad on photo.net and see if a brand new 105/2 comes in after a few days. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnw63 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Dereck, Is it the faster speed you're looking for ? The 180mm f2.8 can be had a LOT cheaper than some of these high speed zooms , some of the other posters are mentioning as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgarrett Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet, but a lens that long wouldn't be good for portraits. The lengthened depth of field makes the subject look fat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Sorry, Jim. My 105mm f/2 DC Nikkor is not for sale either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Yes, Ilkka, a nice, new 105/2 DC would be nice. But I have limited use for it and a clean, used one would be ideal. Still, Nikon USA does have a great rebate available at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now