who shoots 200+mm @ f2.8? and VR?

[csuzor]

I am trying to finalize my choice of a tele zoom for d2h, and I am

really wondering why I should spend so much for a 80-200 or 70-200

f2.8, when it seems the DOF will be really too shallow, and these

zooms are a little soft @f2.8 anyway... but the other options @f5.6

are very dark (I currently have 24-120VR, f5.6 at long end and very

dark, but I typically shoot @f6.7 or @f8.0 for sharpness and DOF

anyway).

 

There must be a market for 70-200 f4.0, but not for nikon these days

(there is canon, but that is for another thread!). Is the f2.8 really

just nice for bright viewfinder and low-light focusing, but people

shoot with it at f4.0 or higher?

 

Finally, for a particular shot (let's say a distant portrait at

180mm), if you have to choose between f2.8/f4 for sufficient shutter

speed, or f4/f5.6 with low shutter speed and VR, or f4/f5.6 with

increased ISO, which do you choose?

[umd]

<i>..when it seems the DOF will be really too shallow..</i><br><br>

 

depends on the shooting distance. if you indeed believe it is shallow for you consider 80-400VR for less money, bulk and more range. Btw people buy and use 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2, 300/2.8 with success.<br><br>

 

<i>and these zooms are a little soft @f2.8 anyway...</i><br><br>

There are very few lenses which are at their sharpest wide open.<br><br>

 

<i>There must be a market for 70-200 f4.0 but not for nikon these days.</i><br><br>

 

There is the 70-180/3.5-5.6 ED micro Nikkor, which is excelent at both macro and regular distances in my experience. Also compact and well built. Not the fastest focusing lens though.<br><br>

 

<i>Finally, for a particular shot (let's say a distant portrait at 180mm), if you have to choose between f2.8/f4 for sufficient shutter speed, or f4/f5.6 with low shutter speed and VR, or f4/f5.6 with increased ISO, which do you choose?</i><br><br>

 

Depends on how much DOF or background blur you want, how acceptable high iso noise is for you, how good you handhold a lens. At 180/2.8 DOF may be too shallow for a headshot but can be ok for a upper body portrait. Personally I don't hesitate shoot wide open with good lenses.

[ryan_brenizer]

Obviously it's hard to beat a great prime for sharpness, and no lens is at it's sharpest wide open, but the 70-200 is plenty sharp. Here is a 100 percent crop of a photo taken at 200mm f/2.8. NO sharpening has been applied:<div></div>

[ryan_brenizer]

Here's the original, downsized, to show how shallow DoF can work for you.<div></div>

[dennis_oconnor3]

I use the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 on the F5 and shoot 80% of frames at f2.8... What is the point of having an aperture if you cannot use it? Better you should get one good zoom, or one prime lens, that is acceptably sharp at the corners wide open, than have an entire bag of junk lenses for less money...

Yes, when I need critical corner sharpness I stop down to f5.6 (usually)and there are times that the light exceeds the shutter speed and I have to stop down... But other than that, the camera is set on aperture priority and left wide open... Great lens...

Canon glass is good stuff also... There are other makes that are good as well... I have a cheap back up camera, a Minolta X-700 with their good 50mm lens that cannot be told from the best of my Nikkor glass on the light table...

In this world you get what you pay for... Buy a cheap lens, get cheap results... So, get one good lens and shoot away with it opened up... On the VR I don't have experience... Given my age I am not steady any more and I probably should go that route... I do a lot of jamming myself into a corner, or against a fence, etc...

 

denny

[scott_linstead]

My experience with the 2-ring 80-200mm, is that it is soft @2.8 AND at close focusing distances. This COMBINATION of variables produces unsharp results. At reasonable distnces, it performs fairly well. I think manufacturers compromise in terms of where the inevitable softness will occur in a zoom by designing it into a less critical area of use. (i.e. really close subjects wide open in the case of the 2-ring)

[csuzor]

Interesting... I find that whenever I try a head-n-shoulders portrait at f5.6 or less, there just isn't enough DOF. Here, 120mm@f8, perfect. Having an f2.8 lens wouldn't have made any difference for this shot, nor for most of my typical shots, which don't seem to suffer any lens artefacts (except bokeh, see other thread). I wanted to know if you guys actually use the faster lenses at f2.8, and it seems yes... maybe with longer focus distances, or shallow DOF subjects?

 

There's something I haven't figured out with color space yet, "save for web" to jpg changes the colors significantly from the adobeRGB psd images I work with. Something I need to investigate.<div></div>

[wilsontsoi]

Agree with Ryan above. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3749642">This</a> and

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3788959">this</a> were shot with 300 f2.8 wide open to blur away distracting background. Based on your posted image above, if you feel that's the look you want, feel that background is sufficiently blurred, then that's great. Nothing wrong with that as it's your preference, your shooting style. You can save few Gs and stick with what works for you.

[lex_jenkins]

Christopher, unless you really need the VR and the obvious benefits of the zoom, maybe the 180/2.8D AF-Nikkor would do the trick. As someone on the forum demonstrated not long ago (can't recall whether it was Vivek or Ilkka), the 180/2.8 is much sharper at the edges than the 70-200/2.8 VR and a little sharper in the center.

 

While the 180/2.8D lacks the SWM I doubt it'll matter much with the D2H. I've compared the 70-200/2.8 VR and 80-400 VR side by side with my D2H and autofocusing was almost equally quick and positive.

 

If I didn't absolutely need VR to compensate for my shaky hands I would have already followed my own advice and purchased the 180/2.8D. I already have an older 180/2.8 and it's terrific. But I know I'll probably be handholding a moderate telephoto at least half the time so it's almost pointless for me to get anything other than a VR. The alternative would be to use a monopod but I'm not sure I'm ready to go that route unless I can find one that will also double as a good cane or walking stick.

[ilkka_nissila]

It was me, Vivek doesn't like the 180/2.8. He think it has CA problems. (I agree it has CA in slightly out of focus areas but nevertheless it blows away the 70-200 if we ignore the VR). I've shot with both a lot, sometimes in marginal light and both lenses produce high quality results, but the 180 mm shots are crisper and the images are cleaner. However, with the 70-200 you can stop down more and this makes up a lot. The images have a different look with the prime producing crisp, high-contrast results with good color separation, but the zoom with VR gives better sharpness when hand-holding at marginal speeds.

 

I use the zoom a lot these days but if I had to have only one or the other, I'd still pick the 105/2 & 180/2.8 over the zoom. Shooting is more difficult with the primes but the best shots you end up with are more spectacular as long as you have the patience to use them.

[klix]

<i>Shooting is more difficult with the primes but the best shots you end up with are more spectacular as long as you have the patience to use them. - Ilkka </i>

<p><p>

Agree 100%. As much as I love my 70-200mm VR, if it came down to one lens and given time, I would pick my 85mm/f1.4 AFD every time.

<p><p>

KL

[loreneidahl]

To answer your third point.

 

I would and do ALWAYS chose a 2.8 Zoom Non VR over a F4 Zoom VR. Because the VR does not stop SUBJECT MOVEMENT. Only a faster shutter speed can do that.

 

And in the type of settings (rock concerts, arena extreme sports) that I shoot in I need as much shutter speed to stop subject movement that I can get. DOF concerns are secondary if the subject is blurred.

 

Monpods and Tripods and dangerous and prohibited in the settings I shoot in. So I will always choose large Apature over Vibration reduction with moderate apature.

 

I handhold my 80-200 2.8 to get my head shots - usually about 6-8 feet from subject. I have not had a problem shooting wide open using my D2H. I wish someone would make a 80-200 F2.0 or even a 80-120 F2. That I would buy NOW!

 

The limited DOF that 2.8 gives is a benefit. Now when I use my 85 F1.4 then I begin to have issues with DOF.

 

The 180 F2.8 is a great lens (very sharp). The only problem I have with it is that it is too slow for a fixed focal length lens so I will be getting the 200 F2-VR which combines VR WITH large Apature.

[dennismk]

To Lex, Gitzo makes a very good mono pod walking stick with a built in ball head in the top of the handle which is covered when not needed. I love mine/ check one out called the trecker or something like that.

[ShunCheung]

This thread reminds me that a couple of weeks ago, I tested my friend's 200mm/f2 AF-S VR against my 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. I had some free time in my motel room and decided to use a Coke bottle as the test subject. It wasn't an ideal test condition but it was worth a try. The camera body is a D2X and I bounced my SB-800 off the ceiling to reduce reflection from the glass bottle.

 

These two shots were both made at 200mm, f4 and ISO 100. The shutter speed was 1/250 sec but since they were flash shots, the shutter speed doesn't matter much.

 

Under those shooting conditions, the 200mm/f2 is clearly the better lens, but it has the advantage of being two stops from its maximum aperture instead of one for the zoom.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

The version shot with the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR at f4.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR at 200mm, f4<div></div>

[csuzor]

Thanks for all the advice guys.

 

The optical advantage Shun shows of the 200/2VR is amazing, obviously the 70-200/2.8VR is far from maximum optical quality.

 

Unfortunately, I really need a fast focusing zoom, my subjects move in-n-out constantly, and changing lenses or cropping a d2h photo @4mp is not an option. Moving subjects also need faster shutter speeds, so VR usefullness is generally limited to >125...

 

I can't justify the 70-200 at 2x the price of 80-200, the 80-200 would also be easier to resell with not much loss.

 

I will get an 80-200/2.8 (preferably 2-ring version?), and probably shoot it at f4/f5.6 most of the time for sharpness and DOF (unless the subject is further away).

[ilkka_nissila]

If you want one of the f/2.8 telezooms, the VR is clearly the best choice. E.g. at 200 mm and 1/200 s I get noticeably sharper pics with VR than without. If you compare it to a non-VR telezoom, frequently the VR allows you to stop down a couple of stops, improving image quality and increasing depth of field.

[ShunCheung]

I don't for a second share the sentiment that "primes are king." If you make critical comparisons between a 200mm/f2 or 180mm/f2.8 vs. a 70-200 VR, the primes will be better at the equivalent apertures. However, the modern zooms are more than good enough.

 

As a lot of you know, I don't even bother to use any prime below 300mm except for macros. I used the 70-200 VR extensively during my recent trip and I never feel that "oh, this image would have been better had I used a prime instead." In every case, it is my ability as a photographer to capture the moment being the decisive factor. If you shoot landscape or studio portrait, you might have all the time in the world to pick the right lens. For those who shoot actions such as sports, wildlife or even just wedding, frequently it is all about capturing a particular moment. By the time you change lenses, those moments are long gone.

[ilkka_nissila]

If you need to catch a picture of every instance which presents itself, then you definitely need a zoom. However, I only really care about a handful of images of mine. And I've many times shot with a f/2.8 telezoom when I could have used a prime and gotten a better result. But obviously there are many situations where there is only a brief window of time to capture a certain shot, and then zooms can be very useful especially in the 70-200(-300) range. I do however think a good shot requires 1) good framing, 2) good light, 3) good subject, 4) good timing, 5) a good lens, 6) a good medium, 7) good post-processing, and probably some factors which I've forgotten to mention. Having a zoom instead of a prime helps with 1 and 4. Having a prime instead of a zoom helps with getting a crisp shot (5), and it helps to better take advantage of 2. In my photography I find the light is the most important constituent and I most of the time use primes, although the 70-200 is seeing a lot of action.

[ky2]

Ilkka, a good photograph needs only one thing.

 

A good photographer.

 

Good photographers are king.

[ilkka_nissila]

Can't really agree with you on that. Perhaps we have a different idea of what a good photograph is.

[ky2]

It's simple, really. Give a skilled photographer a Nikon FM10 with a slow zoom, and pit him against an average photographer with the best gear, and see who brings in the winner shot.

[frank_skomial]

Look up Nikon Japan MTF charts for the 70-200/2.8 VR lens, where the curves drop off sharply beyong the center of the picture. This explains softer corners on film cameras, but also on Dx format.

 

The Nikkor 180/2.8 beats the 70-200 VR lens hands down in sharpness, expect the flexibility of picture composition when shooting action. Sample variation with 70-200 can be the problem.