Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR G or Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D

[jnseventscapture]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>My main goal is to get deeper in the events (mostly birthday's, church activities and weddings) photography business. I also have a good amount of interest in macro photography, but that is only as a hobby. My gear consist of 2 body's [D3100 and D7100] and 4 lenses [18-55 kit lens, 35/1.8 DX, 55-200/4-5.6 DX and 85/1.8G]<br>

In the past couple of months I did a few events and my most used lenses are the 35 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.8. Although this combination has served me very well, I still miss an optically good lens for wide angle and a telephoto.<br>

Up till now I saved like $1400 to be able to buy either the 24-70 or the 70-200.<br>

But now I'm in a little dilemma because a friend of mine is selling his 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D for $850 and because I have my eyes for a long time on the 105mm f/2.8 VR G to be able to enjoy my hobby. <br>

I know non of these lenses are what I'm saving my money for. But it's still gonna take me a couple of months to have about $1900 for the 24-70 or $2400 for the $70-200.<br /><br /><br>

So i was thinking about getting either the 80-200 or the 105. The 80-200 can 'replace' my need for the 70-200 and the 105 can help me dive deeper into my hobby but it can also double as a portrait lens (besides the 85 I already have)</p>

<p>what do you guys advice?</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

I'd say get the 80-200 if that is the version with a tripod collar, since there are cheaper options for macro. Keep in mind that your D3100 will not AF with AF-D

lenses. Upgrade to the 70-200 when you have more money.

[pge]

<p>I personally would not use a long lens without VR to photograph events. Although a long lens without VR has many fine uses, I don't see events as one of them. Challenging light situations, mostly hand held, this is where VR thrives. I rented a 180mm f2.8 recently and was glad I hadn't bought it. Although fine optically, its a long lens without VR unless you are using some form of support or fast shutter speeds (such as with sports). For events I would keep saving. As for the 105mm, I have nothing but respect for it.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Or for $1400 you could purchase the 70-200mm f/4 VR. Check your EXIF data. How many times to your shoot wider than f/4? Even if you do, the VR lens will give you at least 3 stops, and some have reported up to 5 stops advantage which will more than offset the wider aperture of the 80-200 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I believe Shun did a review of the 70-200 f/4 here on photo.net.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>For $1400 you can buy the Sigma 50-150mm @ $989, the Sigma 70-200 for $1199, or for another $100, you can buy the Tamron 70-200mm @ $1,499. I hear really good things about the 50-150 Sigma and I tried the Tamron on my D7100 and it was good.And they're all stabilized.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I did review the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR a little over a year ago: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review<br>

That is still a lens I would like to get some time in the future, mainly for outdoor use when I am already carrying a heavier lens such as the 200-400mm/f4 or longer. You may notice that all of the sample images I captured with that lens for the review are outdoors. For indoors, f2.8 still has its advantages, especially AF speed and accuracy. Having VR is even better, but if the budget doesn't allow, I would get f2.8 first.</p>

<p>The 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is a great lens, but for macro work, there are plenty of less expensive options, as we recently discussed on this thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cWpg</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I still miss an optically good lens for <strong>wide angle</strong> and a telephoto.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you go for the 80-200 @ $850, you will have enough left over for the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. the 24-70 is a bit long for DX since it starts in the 40mm [equiv.] range. so even if you saved up enough to get it, you'd still be missing a wide angle. the 18-35/1.8 would be even better optically and in low-light, but a) it's more expensive and b) you'd have a huge gap between 35 and 80.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The Tamron 70-200 SP VC lens has excellent IQ and the stabilisation is amazingly rock-solid.... <em>but</em> the shrinkage of magnification as you focus closer is horrific. Not so much focus "breathing" as focus hyperventilation. However, if you can live with that, go for it. The lens still represents great value for money, since Nikon and Sigma's latest 70-200 f/2.8 offerings also fail to deliver a true 200mm focal length at close distances.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The Tamron 70-200 SP VC lens has excellent IQ and the stabilisation is amazingly rock-solid.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Tamron is about $1500 at B&H, which is far beyond the OP's budget and similar to the price of a used 70-200 VRI. earlier versions of the Tamron had pretty slow AF, so hopefully the new one improves on that. but in any case, it's not nearly as great a value for the money as an 80-200 AF-D, which is about $1k new. </p>

[jnseventscapture]

<p>Today I'll get a chance to test the 80-200. That will much likely make it easier for me to decide.<br>

I didn't mention earlier why I'm also considering the 105 over the 80-200. the 105 will give me the possibility to take ring shots and other detail shots and it can also double as a portrait lens. Also the lack of VR on the 80-200 might be a real disadvantage for me, because most of the times I shoot indoor under very dimly lit conditions. <br>

However the sigma 18-35 in combination with the 50-150 is worth considering. Then again I personally prefer Nikon over a third party manufacturer. </p>

<p>But tonight I'll may have a clearer view of what I should get, after I've got the chance to test the 80-200 </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>In these days, Sigma makes some excellent lenses. However, if you are serious about event photography, weddings, etc., the chance is that sooner or later, you'll move to FX for the superior low-light performance. If you are indeed going to stay with the DX format for a year and beyond, I wouldn't hesitate to buy more DX type lenses.</p>

<p>If you have plans to move the FX in the coming months, I would stay away from those Sigma 18-35 and 50-150mm lenses. In particular, I have said it a few times before, 18-35mm is not a convenient zoom range for event photography with DX bodies.</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>What's wrong with a Nikon 70-200 f4 AFS, turn the iso up a bit to compensate for not having a 2.8 aperture, that's what I would do.. I'd forget about the 80-200 2.8 focus is much slower and you can't the lens on the 3100 unless your a fan of manual focus ? I have a Nikon180 AFD 2.8 and man is that thing slow to focus,wait till your trying to move a lot of elements around on that big zoom, no way.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd forget about the 80-200 2.8 focus is much slower</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends a lot on the body - on my D300 and D700, it's really not slow, certainly not in comparison with my AF-S f/4 zoom (24-120 f/4). The f/2.8 lens does give the AF system twice the light to work with - and that's noticeable. Raising the ISO cannot overcome that aperture deficit - in low light, f/2.8 lenses really go AF better. How well the D7100 drives these lenses, no idea, though, others may know.<br /> For the OP: for ring shots, you do not really need a "true" macro lens going down to 1:1, I think; a decent close-focusing tele can do that perfectly well (yes, the 55-200 probably does work for this); for portraits the 105 f/2.8 does nothing your 85 f/1.8 already can do. But, if macro is your hobby, then sure, it could make sense. However, if you're seriously building a business around your photography, the hobby better wait - so, your first choice would be that: work or play?<br /> If you go for the zoom, whether the 80-200 is the right choice, is yet another question, though - it is heavy, big and before buying it, do test how well focus works at 200mm at close distances. Quite some lenses tend to be a bit off there. Especially for event/portrait, this does matter as it's not something you can correct with the AF correction in the camera.<br /> If you give the hobby precedence... Well, as much as I like Nikon lenses, for the macro lenses the 3rd parties really are par with what Nikon offers, for a lot less money. I never regretted a single moment getting the Tokina 100mm macro.. and probably also would have regretted the Tamron 90mm. They're seriously good lenses.</p>

[alan_bessler_sr]

<p>I use the lens 180 on my D610 it doesn't craw,l but it's slow even outdoors in good light, it's no AFS, I'm in the process now of selling it to fund a new AFS lens, probably a Nikon 70-200 f4.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The 24-70 and 70-200 IMHO are the bread and butter lenses of event photography, and most other photography from news to portraits to weddings. I've gotten paid for more shots made with these two workhorses than for all my other lenses together (and I have over a dozen since I started in the days of film and manual focus primes). Kit lenses are worth what you paid for them and a fast 35 or fast 85 are nice as "icing on the cake" but not until after you have the 24-70 and 70-200. If I were in your position I would not even think about the 105. The 80-200 is a good bargain but if you can stretch the budget and get a used 70-200 VRI that would be my recommendation.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>However the sigma 18-35 in combination with the 50-150 is worth considering. Then again I personally prefer Nikon over a third party manufacturer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>except nikon doesn't offer an 18-35/1.8, nor a stabilized DX standard zoom.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, and I know I'm in the minority, I didn't get on with the 80-200 AF-D. The mk1 is <i>really</i> slow to focus; I don't have that problem with the two-ring, but it gets significant focus shift (I believe the telecentricity changes, which throws the AF module) as you focus close, and I don't believe it's all that sharp at short distances anyway. It's perfectly reasonable at long distances, although whether its idea of f/2.8 is really acceptable on a 24MP body might be open to debate. I gave up on the foibles of mine and got a 70-200 VR2 as soon as I could afford it. On a DX body, I'd seriously consider a used VR1 if you could, since the biggest issue (IMHO) with the VR1 is the corner performance on FX at 200mm.<br />

<br />

The 105mm micro-Nikkor never really appealed to me, partly because the 90mm f/2.8 Tamron (pre-VC version) is very good and much cheaper. The latest one is probably better, particularly regarding chromatic aberration, but is obviously more expensive. I found the small premium for the 150mm Sigma was worth it for the additional working distance (and correspondingly background control) compared with the 105mm. But I've never actually tried the micro-Nikkor. I believe LensRentals noted that its performance is significantly better in the macro range than at longer distance - the same may be true for the 150mm, which does seem to lose out slightly at infinity.<br />

<br />

Anyway. I'd avoid the 80-200, but with the understanding that a lot of people like it (supposedly the optics of the 80-200 AF-S are better but there's an issue with spare parts for repairs). I'd err towards a 70-200 VR1 + old 90mm Tamron than the 80-200 + 105mm, but I'm not sure how that impacts the cost equation.</p>

[jnseventscapture]

<p>So here's a little update. I've got the chance to test the lens yesterday. AF was fast enough and accurate enough. It was my first time shooting with such a big lens and it was very heavy though. But instead of getting more excited to buy it, it worked around the other way. My excitement for this lens dropped. The one thing I really liked is the fact that it can focus really close even at 200mm.</p>

<p>The test was done outdoor of people walking on the streets, about an hour before sunset. I first shot it wide open and tested the whole range and after that stopped down to f/5.6 and did the same. My ISO was set to 400. At f/2.8 I got shutter speeds from 1/500 to 1/2000 and at 5.6 the shutter speed was around 1/125 to 1/500. <br>

At f/5.6 the images were not as sharp (center shaprness) compared to f/2.8. I then set the ISO to 800 and was able to shoot at 1/500 at f/5.6 and the images got sharper.<br>

Later as the sun was setting and the scene got a bit darker it got even more difficult to get sharp images. My shutter speed dropped down to 1/60 at f/2.8 and still on ISO 800.<br>

My thought is that the lack of VR is causing this. And my biggest concern is how will it perform indoor under poorly lit conditions? </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>My shutter speed dropped down to 1/60 at f/2.8 and still on ISO 800.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>obviously, 1/60 is not a fast enough shutter with an 80-200 handheld; 1/FL is the bare minimum for a non-stabilized lens. so you will need to raise your ISO above 800. the d7100 should be able to get usable images at ISO 3200 (which should allow you to shoot at 1/250 and 2.8); did you test it at this setting?</p>

<p>in your price range, you don't have many options that are stabilized. sure, you could blow your entire budget on a tamron 70-200 VC or nikon 70-200 VR I, but you would still have a slowish standard zoom and no fast prime wider than the 35. the d3100 is not as good at high-ISO as the d7100, so the 1.8 of the sigma 18-35 would be a boon there. however, 35-80 is too large a gap IMO. </p>

<p>if you're going to shoot pro events with a DX camera, you need a fast tele and a fast standard zoom. the sigma 17-50/OS + 50-150/OS would give you 25.5-225/2.8 equivalent with stabilization on both lenses for just a little more than your $1400 budget. that's probably your best option right now. or if you think you will be moving to FX in the future, buy used and sell them down the line for what you paid.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For indoors without flash, you need to use higher than ISO 800, possibly as high as ISO 3200 and 6400 when the venue is dim. That is why:</p>

<ol>

<li>You want to stick with an f2.8 zoom. If you use an f4 zoom, you will have a one-stop handicap (against your competition) and AF will hunt more.</li>

<li>VR will be helpful. If possible, use a monopod with your 80-200mm/f2.8 lens; it will support some of the weight and help stabilize the lens. However, subject motion will still be an issue such that your shutter speed still cannot be too slow. There are other VR options such as the older 70-200mm/f2.8 from Nikon as well as Sigma and other brands. I tested the Sigma for photo.net and it is a very fine lens, not exactly the same as Nikon's AF-S VR II but still quite good.</li>

<li>FX has a distinct advantage for low light.</li>

</ol>

<p>IMO, a mid-range zoom such as 17-50mm/f2.8 for DX, 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX, is more important than a 70-200mm/f2.8 for event photography. If that type of photography is your focus, I would get a mid-range zoom first before a long zoom.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>a mid-range zoom such as 17-50mm/f2.8 for DX, 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX, is more important than a 70-200mm/f2.8 for event photography. If that type of photography is your focus, I would get a mid-range zoom first before a long zoom.</blockquote>

<p>thanks for clarifying what i was saying, shun. if you have a fast standard zoom, you can get by with a telephoto prime lens on a second body; an 85/1.8 will act like a 135/1.8 on DX -- which has the same magnification as the 70-200 VRII on FX at close ranges, anyway, due to focus breathing. an 85 obviously gives you a faster aperture than 2.8, which could be critical on DX.</p>

<p>a monopod might give you 1-2 stops, as opposed to 3-4 w/ VR, and will also reduce fatigue from a heavy lens. remember that VR or a monopod with a slow shutter will help mitigate camera shake but wont stop motion blur at all, so if you're trying to capture indoor action w/ a VR lens at 1/60 or on a monopod, you're still gonna get the blurs. where VR helps the most is for shooting stills, while a monopod mainly helps balance heavy lenses but also provides some stabilization.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>My main goal is to get deeper in the events (mostly birthday's, church activities and weddings) photography business. I also have a good amount of interest in macro photography, but that is only as a hobby. My gear consist of 2 body's [D3100 and D7100] and 4 lenses [18-55 kit lens, 35/1.8 DX, 55-200/4-5.6 DX and 85/1.8G]</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />If I had your lens inventory, based on my event shooting style, I would make the following changes in the following order:</p>

<p>1. Buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 to use as my primary event lens.<br>

2. Continue to use the 35mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 for low-light situations.<br>

3. Continue to use the 18-55mm lens until I could afford to replace it.<br>

4. Replace the 18-55 with a 14-24mm f/2.8<br>

5. Keep the 18-55mm as a backup lens.<br>

6. Continue to use the 55-200 until I could afford to replace it.<br>

7.Replace the telephoto zoom with a new or used 70-200mm f/2.8 or a used 80-200mm f/2.8 D AF-S<br>

8. Keep the 55-200 as a backup lens<br>

9. Much later, I would add a macro lens<br>

10. Later still, I would add another body to use as backup to the other two.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 to use as my primary event lens.<br /> Replace the 18-55 with a 14-24mm f/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, the OP is shooting DX. hardly think the 14-24 is practical, especially on a d3100. also, a 24-70 isn't very well suited for DX either.</p>

<p>i shoot events on FX and DX. i have separate standard zooms for each (sigma 17-50 and nikon 24-70). using the 24-70 on DX for events only makes sense if you never need to shoot wider than 36mm FLE or also have an UWA, which the OP currently doesn't.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Eric,</p>

<p>At one time I shot weddings with FX cameras (i.e. 35mm film) and the following Nikon lenses:<br /> 180mm f/2.8<br />35-70mm f/2.8<br />20-35mm f/2.8</p>

<p>The 35-70mm f/2.8 was perfect as a standard zoom lens. However, when I started shooting weddings on DX bodies, it was not wide enough for my shooting style. Therefore, the 20-35mm became my standard zoom.</p>

<p>On a DX body, the Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 was no longer wide enough. Therefore, I added a Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, which was, and I think still is, the best choice for a fast wide-angle zoom lens on DX bodies. If I did not need the speed, the 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6 lens would serve me well.</p>

<p>Since my 180mm was a manual focus lens and I was having difficulty accurately focusing on my DX bodies, I replaced it with a 80-200mm f/2.8 D AF-S.</p>

<p>Today, I use the following zoom lenses on two identical DX bodies for event photography:<br /> 14-24mm f/2.8 <br />20-35mm f/2.8 <br />35-70mm f/2.8 <br />80-200mm f/2.8</p>

<p>If I ever need to replace my 20-35 and 35-70 lenses, I would do so with the 24-70mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>For backup, I have a third DX body and the following lenses:<br /> Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-f/5.6<br />Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-f/5.6<br />Nikon 35mm f/1.4<br />Nikon 85mm f/1.8<br />Nikon 105mm f/2.8 micro</p>

<p> /> </p><div></div>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Johnathan Chen,<br>

If you need to replace your 18-55mm kit lens with a faster lens that is not as expensive as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, consider the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8.</p>