Need a lens longer than 105 for general use and kid pix on D700

[brooks_lester]

<p>Current gear: D700, 24-70AFS, 105DC, 50 f/1.8AF, Lens Baby 2.0. I'm very happy with my new 105DC for but I'd like an even longer focal length to get more working distance from my daughter so she won't be as distracted by the presence of the camera. Lens would be used indoors and out. The 70-300VR is appealling on price vs. IQ, AF-S, and VR. A used 180 IF ED is attractive for its reportedly stunning image quality, faster aperture, and compact size. Both lenses are available for under $600, though the 180 IF ED would be used. <br>

The 70-300VR might be the most versatile choice. The 180 IF ED might be the best compliment to my other lenses in terms of IQ. What are your thoughts, and thanks in advance.</p>

[aldrich]

<p>First hand, I can tell you than that the 70-300 VR is excellent, as long as you are willing to deal with potentially high ISO's, as you can only use f/4.5 or slower once you pass 105mm. Of course, at 300mm, f/5.6 is your limit, which is fine if you are in decent light and don't need a completely defocused background.</p>

<p>After doing a VERY brief search on Adorama, it looks like for under $600, those may be your only options. Another option would be the 70-200/2.8, but it will cost you around $1750. The huge advantage is that it's f/2.8 even at 200mm, which would give you ample light and great DOF; you could use lower ISO's in lower light. If my budget was anywhere near there, I'd choose the 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

[elliot1]

<p>If you are not opposed to using flash indoors with the 70-300mm, that would be a good choice. Otherwise stick with a f2.8 or faster lens.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>I shoot a LOT of available light inside...subways, dimly lit livingrooms and subjects ranging from passers by to my 4 year old grandchildren. Meaning, active people in near dark situations.....You are kidding yourself with anything slower that f/2.8...and that IS at higher ISOs (1600 & up...) Whatever telephoto...and a prime might actually make more sense than a zoom, in your case....you chose, the faster the better. If you can't swing the 70-200 f/2.8, then get something in the ~200mm range at f/2.0 or faster</p>

<p>I don't shoot Nikon, but Canon, so I don't have an exact recommendation, but felt I had to warn you about lens speed and low light. If you don't go with the faster lenses, you will be disappointed.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>BTW, I have good light inside my house in the most common shooting areas and find that I can shoot at f/5.6 and 1/100sec during the day without going over ISO 3200. That being said, I definitely see the appeal of the 180 IF ED for fast aperture alone. Of course, I can use the 105DC inside and use this newer, longer lens for outdoor use (playgrounds and parks) if that is the reality.<br />For the record, I'm able to shoot inside my house without flash during daylight hours, however, I do use CLS/SU-800/SB-600's on occasion to get a little more level from the north side of the room. <br /> Here are a few available light shots (no flash) in my home to give you an idea of the light:<br /> f/4 @ 1/160sec, ISO2000<br /> <a title="Pre-nap Story by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3428880693_006405284f_b.jpg" alt="Pre-nap Story" width="1024" height="682" /></a><br /> f/4 @ 1/125sec, ISO 3200<br /> <a title="Warm Light by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/basenjidude/3389559141/"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3389559141_10123a6d2e_b.jpg" alt="Warm Light" width="1024" height="682" /></a></p>

<p>f/4 @ 1/125sec, ISO 3200:<br /> <a title="Making Pumpkins by SuperFriend, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2996386722_6dfe7742cc_b.jpg" alt="Making Pumpkins" width="1024" height="682" /></a></p>

<p>Yeah, I'd be pushing ISO slightly to get the same stuff with the 70-300VR unless I slow down the shutter a little and take my chances with VR (yes, I know VR isn't going to help me if the subject moves). Guess the 180mm might be preferred inside even without the advantage of VR.</p>

[tim_knight]

<p>I have the Nikon 70-300VR and love it. I use it for outdoor shots only. If you are looking for a longer fast indoor lens consider the Nikon, Sigma, or Tamron 70-200/2.8.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>Sorry folks, should have said I am not interested in the 70-200VR at this time. I want a compact lens for under $1000. I've got to catch my breath after getting the 24-70AFS and 105DC in the space of one month...</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I own a 180mm ED lens and it's truely superb. The AF speed isn't the best, but it's workable.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>The 180 would be my choice over the 70-300....</p>

<p>But I keep passing on the 180 myself because I own a Nikon 80-200 f2.8. It has excellent IQ with better corners than the 70-200 for FX format.</p>

<p>It is well balanced with a D700 and easy to handhold. IQ is very good at f2.8 and would be perfect to blur busy backgrounds indoors.</p>

<p>Also a used 80-200 would fit your present budget.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Your ideal solution may have been the 135/2 DC, but you certainly do not want both a 105 and 135 at that cost. Is it possible to return the 105 in exchange for the 135? Would the 135 be able to fully replace the 105 for your uses? Otherwise I like the idea of the used 180/2.8. In the same price range you can get the older Nikon 80-200/2.8 push-pull used.</p>

[walterh]

<p>"The 70-300VR might be the most versatile choice. The 180 IF ED might be the best compliment to my other lenses in terms of IQ. What are your thoughts, and thanks in advance."</p>

<p>My thoughts are the same :-)<br>

180mm : best IQ<br>

70-300VR: most versatile</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>For the images you are taking I'd take IQ over convenience everytime! </p>

<p>Of course that's why I have 6 of some of the best primes available.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>If I was in your situation, my preference would be the 180 simply due to better image quality and larger aperture. At f5.6 the 180 has already reached its peak while the 70-300 is good but still needs stopping down to attain the peak.<br>

IOf course I'm seriously hoping for Nikon to come to their senses and make a 70-200/4 VR...</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>I'll pile on with the 180mm 2.8 bandwagon, I found an older pre-D edition on c-list for $185 around christmas and never looked back. Check out this <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon180mm/">flickr group pool</a> for more examples of 180mm 2.8 images if your on the fence!</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>With the D700, you have many choices. If you want a zoom, the older 80-200 f/2.8D, either version, would work well. Of course, neither of these zooms is petite, but both are in your price range.</p>

<p>You can even go with the manual focus lenses - a big advantage of the D700.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>You might also consider the 55-200 VR and save yourself some money. My 70-300 was disappointing and most folks seem to think the 55-200 has at least equal IQ over its range. Disadvantages are more cumbersome manual focus and slower focus; advantages are much smaller, lighter, easier to carry and half the price.</p>

<p>The other thing I would mention is that in this range VR is <em>really</em> nice to have. Shooting at 1/60 for example, a good speed for kid stuff, is not going to happen without VR but is totally comfortable with a VR lens, assuming you are using 100-200mm or so range. </p>

<p>Also, I would go with a zoom and not consider the 180; of course the 180 would give you some advantages, but kids move around a lot and the ability to zoom the lens is enormously helpful.</p>

<p>Finally, what's wrong with flash? A bounced flash will give you beautifully-lit shots and helps get around a lot of white balance issues, expecially in mixed or fluorescent lighting. </p>

 

[brooks_lester]

<p>People: Thanks for all of the replies. I'm getting close to convincing myself that the 180 IF ED is the way to go, for aperture and IQ that's most complementary to my other lenses. At some point I'll end up getting a zoom telephoto lens such as the 70-300VR or 70-200VR, but I think the 180 may be my next purchase. <br>

Glenn C, I'm shooting FX so the 55-200DX is not a option for me. As for flash, I have an SU-800 controller and two SB-600's with umbrellas and 24x36" bounce cards, and do I this gear on occasion, but find that flashes popping off tend to ruin the moment more than shooting with ambient light does, even if I'm bouncing the flashes off cards or into umbrellas. As you can see from the pictures I posted, there's abundant soft natural light in my home during the day and I prefer to use it for subject lighting. The main reason I want a longer lens is to get further away from my subjects in order to be less disruptive; flashes popping off is a whole order of magnitude more intrusiveness. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>All versions of the 55-200mm AF-S are DX lenses; they will be very limiting on the OP's D700.</p>

<p>At least to me, it seems like we are talking about some casual family/children type images, and convenience should be a lot more important than quality. You are not going to see the full potential of the 180mm/f2.8 unless you shoot from a tripod and make large prints. The problem is the f5.6 end of the 70-300 is not for indoor, existing-light photography, and perhaps the most suitable lens for this situation is already ruled out for cost reasons, which is understandable..</p>

<p>In other words, you need to decide what is your best compromise.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Sorry, did not notice this was for FX. My apologies.</p>

 

[brooks_lester]

<p>Shun, wouldn't I be able to see the 180's superior contrast, color, sharpness, and bokeh both on the monitor and on prints at 8x10"? Convenience is only a relative term as the D700 and any lens is a little heavier than a point and shoot. Not that I mind; I carry a 25 pound sound mixing rig on my body when at work and assist camera operators with 35 pound HD and heavier film cameras, so an under-ten pound camera feels light to me.<br>

I think the two limiting factors of the 180 IF ED are its autofocus isn't going to be nearly as fast as the 70-300VR's and I am going to be foot-zooming to compose my frames. That being said, for a lot of my shots I just need autofocus to lock on an eye as my daughter is momentarily still and I pop off a few frames, then wait for the next opportunity to happen. I usually find a frame and park myself wherever that puts me in this kind of shooting. I'm not really focus-tracking her around so much as looking for little moments. Most people are saying that the 70-300VR isn't going to cut it indoors due to minimum aperture, and I'm wondering if that is also an issue with autofocussing in low light vs. the 180 IF ED's f/2.8.<br>

I think my last question is: how far away will I be for a head and shoulders shot using a 180mm lens? With my 105DC and 2.5 AIS I think I'm around 4 to 5 feet away for this kind of shot. Thanks again, everyone.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>wouldn't I be able to see the 180's superior contrast, color, sharpness, and bokeh both on the monitor and on prints at 8x10"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brooke, I can't speak for you, but if I were hand holding taking family type pictures, I dont' care about those aspects. To me, it is far more important to capture the moment.</p>

<p>If you want superior everything with a tele, I would put it on a tripod and shoot at the base ISO.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>Shun, point taken, it's about capturing the moment, but I'm doing that already with my 105 and 24-70. I'm just looking for a longer lens to do the same. Maybe this is an oblique way to tell me I need the 70-200VR... again, point taken and thanks for your responses.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Brooks the main part of the 70-300 convenience is the zoom part not the low weight, even though that is also a nice feature :-)</p>

<p>The 70-200VR has a convenient range, is a fast lens, got very fast AF and VR helps in poor light. All points that make it very convenient. The large size, scary look with hood, and the weight make it very inconvenient at times.</p>

<p>By the way: The AF of the 180mm AF is not THAT slow. It would be plenty fast for the shots you posted above. And I like the mood of these shots :-)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 70-300 VR is nowhere near the quality of your other Nikkors. It's extremely convenient in terms of "getting the shot" outdoors, but the results are nothing to write home about. It's not "bad", just that there's nothing great about it except the size and performance of the VR. In addition to general fuzziness in the pictures (relative to images you are familiar to from your other Nikkors) you can expect cluttered backgrounds in many situations because of the poor maximum aperture. Stopping movement will definitely be a problem when it's getting dark. Without flash it would be unuseable for indoor pics of people. I think it's a good snapshot lens a step above point and shoots and superzooms.</p>

<p>The 180D AF is excellent and far superior to the 70-300 VR in terms of contrast, sharpness, clarity and of course it delivers smooth clean backgrounds at f/2.8. Focusing is adequate but not the best of the Nikons in this respect. Of course, if you can afford it and have a strong back, the 200/2 would also work ;-)</p>

<p>In addition to the 180, also consider the 70-200/2.8, if it fits within your budget. It has AF-S, VR, excellent bokeh, and it's very practical when you're following moving children around. This would be my first choice for outdoor portraits of children and yield high quality results efficiently (I no longer own one but I did it for reasons irrelevant to this application and to most people without an obsessive-compulsive character, it works great).</p>

 

[glenn_c1]

<p>Ilkka I had a 70-300 VR and quickly sold it as my observations matched yours regarding the "general fuzziness" of the results, especially towards the long end (>135mm). In fact I found I got better sharpness by cropping from 200mm than from shooting at 300mm, and 200mm was hardly great. Quite disturbing.</p>

<p>I had since come to assume that mine was a poor sample, because of so many posts here (and opinions elsewhere) from people saying their samples were excellent. I recall one poster here recently who said this lens was just as good as his 70-200/2.8, on DX!</p>

<p>I'm curious whether you have any insight into this tremendous variation in user perceptions with this lens.</p>