Nikon 70 to 200 2.8

[jonas_mccord]

<p>Do I need to use a tripod with the 70 to 200. My purpose is to shoot kids portraits, in natural environments. I want to be shooting between 85 to 110. Yet its such a heavy lens, and I'm not familiar with another lens that will give me that range, besides fixed lens. I've been looking at DX lens, but I am wondering if using a DX on a full frame camera doesn't defeat the purpose. Canon has a 24 to 105 4.0 lens for its Mark II, but Nikon doesn't seem to have anything like that.</p>

[raymond_ocampo]

<p>I handhold the camera+70-200 at events when I need to cover at various points, but it does get heavy pretty quick. Have you considered a monopod? This would be your best option.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>With a little practice, the 70-200 is very usable hand-held. I use it for hours that way, though sometimes a monopod is nice for hurry-up-and-wait situations like sports. But for the pace and duration of natural portrait work? No problem. And it's such a versatile lens in that sort of situation. Just practice by lifting a large stein of beer every night. Or a bag of turnips. Or ... a camera with the lens mounted! You'll love it so much, optically, that you'll never even consider the mass of it as a problem. I <em>like</em> it that way - it actually steadies me more than do small, lightweight primes. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I can't imagine shooting kids in natural environments with a camera mounted on a tripod. Moving and adjusting the tripod all the time appears to me more tiring than hand-holding the lens. I don't own the 70-200/2.8 but hand hold the 80-200/2.8, 300/4 AF-S and 80-400 VR all the time - for hours if necessary.</p>

[christianaires]

<p>I use tripods for long exposures and for bracketing.. that's about it.</p>

<p>If you do find that the lens gets to heavy for you over time.</p>

<p>Then i would recommend a monopod. ;)</p>

[alvinyap]

<p><strong>Do I need to use a tripod with the 70 to 200. My purpose is to shoot kids portraits, in natural environments.</strong><br>

I don't think you'll need a tripod, but it does get a bit heavy. I've only rented it once, and used it for about two hours for a low light band performance (d200, iso 1600, f2.8/1xx kind of situation). I had it braced up against my knees and stuff.<br>

<strong>I want to be shooting between 85 to 110.</strong><br>

How about the 85mm or 105mm DC? They lack the flexibility of a zoom, but they seem like really sweet lenses for portraiture.<br>

HTHs!<br>

Alvin</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would just use the 50mm and 85mm primes for that, maybe a macro lens like the 105 VR for close-ups. The 70-200 is indeed heavy, but certainly it can be used without a tripod. For indoor work the 50/1.4G AF-S and the 85/1.4D would be ideal, I think. If you were using longer focal lengths of the 70-200, that lens can certainly serve well for this type of photography, but working in close range I would use the fast primes.</p>

[djthomas]

<p>When you say "natural environments" do mean primarily outdoors? Are you talking about existing light indoors too? I gather from your question that you are probably not using a flash or studio lights (?) If this is the case, I suppose ultimately it comes down to what shutter speed you end up shooting at and feel comfortable holding without a tripod. I know that the VR buys you a stop or two difference, but if you are still down below (what used to be the inverse of the focal length of the lens + in this case say two stops in exposure time) you might find your shots not as sharp as you'd like. Of course you can always play around with the ISO and shorten the exposure time, but that presents other potential issues as well.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>70/300 VR lens is more easily managed. If you want a faster lens, then a 85 or 105. Mine are AIS primes, but newer ones are autofocus.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There are various fixed 85mm and 105mm lens that may work. If the 70-200 is too heavy, there has been a number of shorter zooms such as the 28-105mm from the past that can get the job done.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>I find the 70-200 is fine with either a monopod or hand held. I don't think I've ever used it on my tripod. (Perhaps because my tripod weighs just less than my car.) </p>

<p>I would second Shun's comment regarding a shorter focal length zoom or perhaps a prime. 50mm f/1.8, or 85mm f/1.8 would be my two suggestions for kids portraits and I'd do it hand held probably with flashes off camera on stands.</p>

[mats nilson photography]

<p>Nikon does have a 24-120 VR (to match the Canon you mention) if you feel the range would suit you. Otherwise, I don't feel the 70-200 is particularly heavy. On a D3 it balances very well and gives the whole rig a desirable heft that makes for steady hand-holding. It may feel a bit front-heavy on a lighter body, though. I travel a lot and always bring the 70-200, particularly for hand-held shooting. It does feel heavy when carried with a D3 in a strap around the neck, however, which is why I mostly carry it in my hand. And - just for the record - I've never even been close to a gym and couldn't with the best of will be considered 'strong'. :-)</p>

[micahfriedman]

<p>No problems holding a D300 with the 70-200; I find that when I bring the monopod along then it is two things to carry around (Camera & Mono). Since that fateful realization I just take the camera and lens!</p>