New 70-300VR or used 80-200 f2.8?

[simon_hickie1]

I'm steadily getting to grips with the D300 and currently tend to favour using the Tamron 17-50mm over my

18-200VR, although at a wedding last weekend I used the 18-70 mainly due to better low light focusing. At the

wedding I also borrowed a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for candids etc. The Sigma showed good image quality and enabled some

nice depth of field control, but the focusing was twitchy and lack of VR was a pain for hand-held shooting (using

a tripod was impractical at the venues).

 

My budget means that I can afford either f2.8 max aperture or VR but not both. My 18-200VR does not cut it at

longer focal lengths. Therefore, there are two possible candidates: either a new 70-300VR or a used 80-200 (two

ring version due to faster focusing). The lens would be used for candids, some landscape / architecture /

portraits etc. The attached image shows what I'd like to be able to achieve on a more consistent basis.

 

Any advice from present / former users of both lenses would be welcome.

 

Image below taken on D80, Sigma 70-200 @ 200mm, 1/60th hand held, F4, SB-600, ISO 1250.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Have you ever tried working with a 4-section monopod? They can collapse down to something that's well out of your way, but can easily make up for most of no-VR situations at 200mm. I ask, because I think the 80-200 is a far, far more versatile lens if you're after portrait-type quality. The long, slow end of the 70-300 just doesn't cut it for interior work I don't think. It's a very subjective issue, of course. But so many of these types of scenes are cursed with a cluttered/busy background. Having to be at f/5.6 or so is a major handicap, from a creative point of view (never mind the exposure issue). I don't think anyone every regretted buying faster glass and a monopod.

[simon_hickie1]

Hi Matt. I have a three section Manfrotto that gets reasonably low, but I can see the benefit of a 4 section model. I'd have to be able to mount the camera whilst still using a flash bracket - my current bracket allows this, but I'm looking at a more compact model. I find a monopod gives be about 1.5 to 2 stops slower shutter speed, so 200mm (300mm equiv.) means I should be OK at around 1/80th.

[walterh]

Simon unless you really need the 300mm you will be better off with the 80-200 f2,8 lens.

[steve_denton]

Another vote for the 80-200... focuses faster, f2.8 will allow you to capture shots and blur backgrounds the 70-300 won't. The only downside to the 80-200 is if you need 300mm.

 

The 70-300 isn't a bad lens at all, but the 80-200 is just so much better.

[bruce_margolis]

Hi Simon. Got to agree with the others. Seems to me if you are looking at the 70-300, you might as well stay with the 18-200. Having tried it out as a guest at a wedding, I know what you mean when you say it just won't cut it.

 

You seem to be very comfortable with a monopod so the 80-200 seems the best choice for speed and optics but of course, there is a very noticable difference in weight.

[SolaresLarrave]

Another vote for the ANY version of the 80-200. Mine is old: no tripod ring and just the push-pull zoom with rotating front

element, but it is FAST to focus, locks on well, and the results are gorgeous. With a lens this fast you need no VR.

Shope carefully and you'll find them very reasonably priced.

[shuo_zhao]

Simon, VR will only compensate for the movements of your camera, it won't be able to "freeze" the motion of your subjects. A large aparture lens such as the 80-200 2.8 will allow more light to get through, allowing more efficient AF, better DOF control (shallow), and help achieve faster shutter speeds required to freeze motion.

 

Getting the 80-200 is definitely a good idea.

[gregf1]

Definitely get a 80-200 2.8....... i have a 70-200 F2.8 VR it's my favorite lens.

[veeee]

Yep I have the 2.8 and had the VR which I sold after getting the 2.8, don't really miss it, but would still love to have for the Zoo shoot which are outside, I may pick a used one up if I get a decent price on it..but for wedding this Lens would never work...you need all the lenses to be 2.8 or lower, plus if you shooting Pro, I think you should dump the 3rd party lenses and get all Nikkor, I personally find the difference to be massive, I had a bad experiance the the Tamron 18-50mm 2.8 (the lens would lock after using it a few hours) I dumped it and picked up the 18-55 2.8 Nikkor, and awesome lens man...all my lenses are now Nikkor. I believe to haveing less lenses but to lenses than having many 3rd party...

[simon_hickie1]

Thanks all. Looks like the 80-200 Nikkor is the one to go for! I guess I knew it really......In an ideal world I'd also have the 17-55 Nikkor too. As Veej suggests, fewer lenses of higher quality is a sound move. I fancied VR after positive experiences with the 18-200. I know it doesn't help with subject movement, but helps with the shakes. I'll experiment with the monopod and my 70-210 f4-5.6 to see how low I can go reliably before camera shake sets in. I'm shooting some informal reception shots at my nephew's forthcoming wedding, so need to decide quite what to use!