70-200 VR-how practical for travel etc?

[dwight200]

<p>My apologies for dissing all those people who sell photos taken with the 18-200. If you know how to use it to its strengths it's a good lens. However, the 70-200 is significantly faster at 200mm and if the OP is interested in dance I would recommend it since it would enable him to use a faster shutter speed. My experience with dance is limited, but I would think the lighting that would be encountered would be similar to theater (moderate to poor) and dance is much more dynamic.</p>

[wholephotography]

<p>I am a fairly new investor in Nikon and their wonderful lens selection, so here is my 0.02</p>

<p>My first purchase with my first D300 was a 24-70 VR f2.8 and a 70-200 VR f2.8. I love them dearly, I travel with both often. I added so cheap lenses to support a second body I purchased, the 18-55 and 55-200 ... their slow and they suck, but I wanted a lens to take into caves and I needed a wider lens but couldn't afford the second body and a 14-24 f2.8 yet. So.. here I was with 2 D300s and 4 great lenses, I have ended up having the 24-70 on one body and the 70-200 on the other almost 95% of the time.<br>

I just bought an 85 f1.4 and I truly love this lens, so if you can deal with the fixed mm of this lens I would highly recommend it for modern dance. from a distance of about 50' you will have a 5' depth of field to get the whole body in focus but take all else into beautiful blur.<br>

My next lens will be a 14-24 f2.8 but honestly I spend my evenings getting my automation setup using the WT4 and lightroom so I can shoot and shoot and then when I am done, its all waiting on me in lightroom in the editing room, no transfer time.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, the 105 VR by itself would be a good choice for this application, but with the TC it becomes a fairly slow lens and sharpness suffers. Basically for a TC to work well the main lens has to be crazy sharp to begin with (think "300/2.8"). If you go with primes, for this application you want the fastest lenses you can afford - VR can be used for special effects like letting subject movement blur the subjects artistically but I think a larger aperture such as f/1.4 or f/2 is more often useful. f/2.8 is already quite slow and the 105 VR has some vignetting. I am not saying you shouldn't get this lens - it's a good lens and I am sure you'll find applications for the VR but don't count on the TC to deliver top quality results with it. The combination can be used in a tight situation but it shouldn't be something you rely on all the time.</p>

<p>Certainly the 105 VR+a TC-E teleconverter would be much more travel-friendly than the 70-200 but frankly I would prefer choose the latter. Or, you can get the 105 VR and the 180/2.8 which would be a great combination, but again heavier in the bag.</p>

[dennismk]

<p>When traveling in Italy in 2000 I found the f/2.8 80-200mm to be of great use just wished it had VR. When traveling like that with many hours on your feet I found that using a belt system to be the answer. It put the weight on my hips and everything was at hand, not on your back. Also get a good pair of comfortable shoes, very important! Kinesis makes a great belt system or you can build your own by getting one of those black wide tool belts with hip support and add your gear cases to this. I like the tool belts because it has a real buckle not a snap on which can be released in a moment and all your gear is now at your feet and gone by deft handed theives. I now use the 80-400 VR in its place and sold the 80-200. VR is just great! Now this is a slow lens and if I were doing weddings I would get the 70-200VR and never leave home with out it. I have used the 400 at wedding and love the reach for getting canided photos but in low light it does have trouble focusing sometimes. With the 80-200 I used a 2x converter many times for landscape shots with great results. I used this in Italy shooting some amazing sunrises with a tripod of course. Hope this helps.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Thanks for the belt tip, I'll check it out.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>I wouldn't want to travel with that thing, but I've seen other people traveling with it. It's pretty heavy.</p>

[dennisbarnett]

<p>I carried the 70-200VR around Japan a couple of years ago and almost died by the end of the trip. I swear my right arm grew several inches. It's a great lens, but, to me, not as a travel lens, unless you can keep it in a car until you need it. The following year I purchased the 55-200VR for a trip to Patagonia and it was a life-saver. I was skeptical of the quality but it turned out many beautiful shots. I took many images while in a bus travelling the rocky dusty highways, and even on a horse!, and even many of those photos came out sharp. And, since it covered the same area (and more) as my 70-200, I was quite pleased with the decision.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>While the 70-200 f/2.8 AF Nikkor is a great portrait lens, I wouldn't carry it around in travel venues. For that I have an AF Sigma APO 70-210 f/3.5-4.5. It's a little more fragile, but my arm isn't as sore as with the Nikkor. </p>

[alvin_lim5]

<blockquote>

<p>Read a thread suggesting an alternative approach; 105mm f2.8 VR with TC<br /> It will be sharp, light, and cheap-though <strong>obviously less flexible</strong> . I think it's the size/weight of the 70-200 VR that bothers me: it may stay in the cupboard too much.<br /> What do you all think of this combo? Why isn't it more popular?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you have already answered your question there. While it is cheaper, the lack of flexibility can be a pain.</p>

<p>And as Ilkka pointed pointed out, you will lose some light that way. I find primes for uses like dance photography maybe a a little limiting; because for such photography, you are usually stationed at one position with not much space to move.</p>

<p>Even if you can move, you will still got to be be careful and not get into the way of the dancers. So, a zoom would still be more useful and practical.</p>

[freddie_kelvin1]

<p>Thank you all for your advice and great suggestions.<br>

Yesterday, I bought a friend's almost unused 70-200 ($1,500) and am very excited.<br>

I'll certainly use it on domestic travels by car or plane. I'm still a bit wary of taking it abroad.<br>

In March, I'll be in London, Vienna and Prague. I'm equivocating about taking it with me to foreign cities, especially as some threads say it's not ideal for the streets, where I usually shoot the buildings and interesting characters. I usually spend an hour or two each day this way. Do you think it best to give up on image quality, and just take the 18-200 (and, maybe, 12-24 Tokina)?</p>

[freddie_kelvin1]

<p>Thank you all for your advice and great suggestions.<br>

Yesterday, I bought a friend's almost unused 70-200 ($1,500) and am very excited.<br>

I'll certainly use it on domestic travels by car or plane. I'm still a bit wary of taking it abroad.<br>

In March, I'll be in London, Vienna and Prague. I'm equivocating about taking it with me to foreign cities, especially as some threads say it's not ideal for the streets, where I usually shoot the buildings and interesting characters. I usually spend an hour or two each day this way. Do you think it best to give up on image quality, and just take the 18-200 (and, maybe, 12-24 Tokina)?</p>

[edward chen]

<p>I once rented this lens. There are some reasons why I don't consider owning a 70-200 VR:<br>

1. Weight and size: heavy and obtrusive.<br>

2. After years of shooting, I generally feel that even at f/2.8 is not fast enough for general indoor shooting.<br>

3. I am using DX. It's too long.<br>

So i am happy with cheaper, faster, and lighter alternatives of 50/1.4D, 85/1.8D, and 105/2.0DC.</p>

 

[bmm]

<p>The way I've approached this when travelling overseas is to not see it as an 'either or'. For travel I have the 18-200 mounted for most of the time but also have a couple of selected primes in my bag - my own choices are the 35/2 and 85/1.4 - but of course the concept would work equally well with whatever prime(s) work in your 'sweet spots' according to your style.<br>

When I see a shot that I really want to be a keeper, I take it with the 18-200 and then I switch out to one of my primes and replicate more carefully. Of course some of the time I know I am going to have to crop if a composition is tighter than what my 85 offers, but that's not a problem.<br>

This allows you to use the flexibility of the 18-200 and to have top-end options at hand while remaining very portable and not too obtrustive in terms of lens size. Having a prime or two also obviously gives you a lot more low light performance when required.<br>

Just as a footnote, don't be too harsh on the 18-200. Its an amazing tool all things considered and my own experience with it has been overwhelmingly positive - and I say that as someone who shoots >50% with primes. Check out what people like Matt Laur and Richard Armstrong do with it and ask yourself whether or not you'd be proud to have those images in your own portfolio (I certainly would!).</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'll echo Bernard's thoughts on the subject (and not just because he's being flattering!).<br /><br />I carry the 18-200 mounted, quite a lot. And in the bag (depending on the bag, the circumstances, etc.,) I usually have a 30/1.4 prime, sometimes the Sigma 10-20 HSM, sometimes the 70-200/2.8, and sometimes a speedlight. The 18-200 is the quick-draw lens, and has done me right on many occasions. When I have time to react, or time to plan, I get pickier.<br /><br />I don't always carry the 70-200, but I have reason to think that I'll specifically be in conditions that call for it, the size and weight never bother me. The results are just too good.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I agree with Matt, the results with the 70-200 are fabulous. No question, its a brick, especially hanging around the neck. But once I decided to go slr, I wanted the best quality possible because I never know when the shot of a lifetime is coming my way. Since my best shots usually arent on the days shot list, I always carry it, unless I am specifically concentrating on wide angle/low light. </p>

[angkordave]

<p>If you are photographing wild life as I like to do when traveling; the 70-200 combined with a 1.7 converter is very versatile kit and far lighter that a fast dedicated birding lens. OK its not got the reach of a 400 or 500mm but its far more usable with the option of not using t/c for low light and portraiture.<br>

I have an 18-200 which is versatile and gives good results if you understand its limitiations; however after 2 years of use its worn out. The 70-200 is built to last.</p>

[mats nilson photography]

<p>I've travelled to all sorts of places - India, Mexico, England, Tunisia, to name a few - and always carry with me a D3, a 70-200/2.8VR, 24-70/2.8, 14-24/2.8 & SB800, all in an inconspicuous Crumpler Geekster. It certainly happens that my shoulder aches at the end of the day, but that's nothing to the frustration I'd feel if I missed a shot because of laziness. A backpack would be an alternative that is better for your ergonomics, but is slower to operate and is less easily guarded against theft. Storing the gear in a hotel safe is a non-issue since it'll be with you all the time, or else you're sure to miss something fantastic. :-) If one can't be bothered to carry ones equipment because of its weight, one would be well adviced to carry a high-grade Coolpix instead.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is a marvellous lens for travel photography. Congratulations to your purchase!</p>

[freddie_kelvin1]

<p>Bernard,<br />I like your approach, and will probably follow it. I will probably take a small bag with the 18-200 to London, Vienna and Prague, together with the 85mm f1.8. in my pocket. I don't think I'd want to flaunt the 70-200, especially in Prague. There are so many opportunities to use the 70-200 all over the States and, when abroad, the above combo makes sense as then I'm a bit more of a tourist than a photographer. I still wonder whether to cram the 12-24 Tokina into that relatively small bag, though, as it would be neat for street scenes...right?</p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p><em>If one can't be bothered to carry ones equipment because of its weight, one would be well adviced to carry a high-grade Coolpix instead.</em></p>

<p>What a load of crap.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>What kind of photographs do you want to take when traveling? If you want to photograph people so that they're isolated from the background, focusing the picture on a person or two, this should make the 70-200 a great lens to have on a trip. However, if you want to show the people within the environment, a shorter lens would work better. If you have a specific interest in dance photography wouldn't you want to do that while on a trip also? On the other hand the 70-200 is quite long and maybe it's too much to carry. Personally I subscribe to the idea that when traveling it's good to photograph subjects that you're experienced in, instead of going for everything that looks different. Also I think it's good to photograph things that non-photographer tourists aren't going to be able to do.</p>

<p>A lighter bag may make a happier traveler though, and that translates into a better travel experience and a clearer mind to take pictures. Always a compromise, what to pack in a bag. I'm just planning this summer's trip to New York and primes from 18mm to 135mm are the most likely setup (FX). I'll be able to do architecture and people which are the most interesting things to me in that city. But if I still had the 70-200 it would certainly be considered.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Freddie - re "I don't think I'd want to flaunt the 70-200, especially in Prague"... remember you'll be in Europe! Its not like you're in the Congo or Anglola or the dodgier parts of Bogota! Indeed your gear will be safer in Prague than it is in the major cities in the States...</p>

<p>More broadly, and perhaps pertinent to Ilkka's approach (though I do recognise the convenience of the argument for a prime shooter), just remember its unrealistic to want to take a kit that "takes everything". People seem so worried about potentially missing a shot when they are overseas and they almost develop the mentality of a photojournalist or documentary shooter.</p>

<p>I've tried to leave that thinking behind and think more when I travel like I do when I go to my local beach or park with just the one or two lenses on, with my thinking being much more to match my images and vision to the tools I have (creatively of course) rather than try to match my tools to cater for the impossibly broad range of potential images that I might encounter. There's a real art in taking a few top-notch tools and then just 'making it work'.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Another question, one I cant answer living in an area that sees rain only a few months a year and no snow unless I travel to it, that perhaps might be a consideration if traveling to less than ideal climates, is the build quality of the 70-200 for adverse weather. The darn thing feels bulletproof. Any comments on it or how it compares to the other lens selections mentioned? Can anyone comment on any snow/cold/rain experience with it.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>I have used my 70-200 and 17-55 in conditions that consumer lenses would die. I live in SE Asia which suffers from extreme heat and humidity for 6 to 7 months and dust for the remaining 4 to 5 months. Its been almost too hot to touch while out in the sun and yet Ive never had any reliability problems. I have taken it on boats, subjected to fresh water spray (not salt water), been out with days in rain forest, down caves and even been drenched with tropical rain for short periods.<br /> Both the above lenses are in fine condition after 2 years or so. I will add that my Nikon Bodied Fuji S5 is looking a bit tired now, a bit corroded but still works fine.<br /> My old Nikon 70-300 was used to destruction and lasted 3 and a half years. My 18-200 has had light use by comparison but has suffered with mould growth and was pretty well shot to hell after 2 years. It still works but makes nasty noises and rattles.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Ironically I have had only two Nikon mount lenses which failed to work in the cold properly: the 20-35/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. The former would develop condensation inside between the elements when I shot the partly open sea or a lake in the winter. The diaphragm of the latter would get stuck in the cold, which I did get fixed. None of my F mount primes have had any problems with the cold, as far as I can remember.</p>

<p>I did expose my 70-200/2.8 to some rain and it didn't have any problems with that. Nowadays I tape a plastic bag for protection.</p>

[freddie_kelvin1]

<p>I'll be shooting mainly outdoors buildings and outdoors people. I often like the background in focus for the latter because it adds context. I'll be switching planes, trains and likely also trams...and feel more comfortable with the 18-200 in those circumstances. It seems to me that a better time to take the 70-200 is when the environment is a little more predictable than it will be on this trip. Also, I can't expect my wife to wait long while I compose. It's probably easier to take photography on a "grab shot" basis and with a lighter lens when out of one's comfort zone, I think. I want to take my new 70-200 baby with me, but am not that sure for a longish trip to these places. Maybe I just lack the courage to take it (yet).</p>