Questions on the 70-200 F2.8 VRII for Kids and family photography

sun_p · January 2, 2015

Hi Everyone,

Here is wishing a very Happy New Year to everyone reading this!

I was planning on buying the 70-200 f2.8 VrII lens this year and wanted some advice from the experts here. Unfortunately at my place I don't have the option to rent the lens so am posting over here like I have done before. All the gear I currently have is thanks to the recommendation from experts here and I am more than happy with what I have.

To give you a background, I primarily shoot kids, couples and families and have been doing so for the last two years. I shoot both indoors in a studio setting and outdoors in the open. Outside I shoot natural light without flash. I have a Nikon D600 and the sigma 50 1.4 and nikon 85 1.4 D both of which I use and have managed to get great photographs. Although with little kids, I noticed I tend to use the 50 more since the 85 sometimes takes a little while to focus.

One issue that I see with the 50 and the 85 is that the working distance between the subject and myself is quite less and for head shots when I get closer to kids, they generally have that startled look with open eyes. The other option is that I step back and take photographs and then crop later which results in a little loss of resolution. I also give prints of all the photographs I take. So I thought the 70-200 f2.8 might benefit in the following ways

1. I will be away from the kids and can zoom in at about 200 and get a lot more natural looking head shots and some eye shots.

2. With the perspective and compression at 200, it will add to a slightly different yet flattering look especially for head shots, which would help with the sales

3. I see the AF is very fast on the lens, which is very important with kids. Not to mention the VR will help by almost 2 stops so even if I shoot at 200mm, I can have a slower shutter speed outside by almost two stops.

4. I am a sucker for bokeh and the 85 and 50 at 1.4 excel. However, I understand at 200mm, the angle of view is that much lesser so even if the bokeh of the lens is not the best, at least it makes the subject pop out if the distance from background is good due to the different angle of view at 200mm

So plan is to continue using the 50 or 85 mm at 1.4 like I currently do and then use the 70-200 for head/shoulder shots and also the added benefit of slightly different background rendering due to the smaller angle of view. AF speed of the lens also being an important factor.

Wondering if any of the experts here feel that it might not be a good idea or have any other suggestions? I shoot mostly kids in the age group of 2 - 12 months.

thanks!

Sun

User_6502147 · January 2, 2015

What about Sigma 105 ? It's sharp and has a creamy bokeh, tho AF (like Tammy) is lagging. I use 105 (Nikkor) in manual and it's perfect for portraits...well, so it's my Tammy 90. Hmmm, maybe you prefer a zoom. Have you looked into Nikkor 70-200/4 ? It has v. good reviews and it's lighter.

Les

paul_k1664875007 · January 2, 2015

To begin with a, since you plan to use the 70-200 for close ups, very important warning.

You should keep in mind that it suffers from focus breathing, which in the real world means that when zoomed out at 200mm and used for close ups (like the intended 'eye' shots) it becomes a virtual 135mm, and consequently will give a less close up look then you may be looking for. Here's a link to a further discussion on this subject http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1102187/0&year=2012.

Also, I don't think it size will make a more discrete impression on possible sitters, it's a big lens and still can come over as quite intimidating.

That said, it's an excellent lens (I have one myself), fast, silent, outstanding sharpness and IQ. Don't care much about the VR, but that's more because I usually shoot either in situations with enough light that allow fast shutter speeds or fast action (like surf and catwalk) where due to the moving subjects using a fast shutter speed is a necessity so use of VR has no added value in either situation.

As far as bokeh is concerned, IMO in particular the 1.4/85 is superior over the 70-200.

As you say the 70-200 VRII still gives a pleasing OoF rendering of the background, but it's IMO much less compared to the 1.4/85 or 2/200VR.

Following a question on a different forum I posted a comparison between these three lenses on my website which you may find informative http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/85_vs_70200_vs_200 (the first 7 pictures were shot with a 2/200, next 2 with the 70-200, and the rest with the 1.4/85).

On a side note, you maybe could have a look at the 2/135DC. Yes, I know, 20 year old design, no VR, no AFS, sometimes a bit of CA, focusing a bit challenging when using the DC function (but you can switch that of so IMO not really a big issue).

But smaller (and less intimidating) then the 70-200, still long enough to keep a reasonable distance from a subject even when shooting a close up, and a bokeh to dream about, IMO only less then the 2/200, but at least comparable to 1.4/85mm, and superior to the 70-200.

Haven't used my (recently bought) copy for portraiture seriously yet, but so far the results from my portrait test set ups show excellent promise. And of course it still is an excellent medium telelens despite the above stated IMO in the real world of taking pictures as opposed to pixel peeping and specifications splitting universe not really serious issues.

My two cents

Wouter Willemse · January 2, 2015

I'm certainly no expert at portraits as you describe, but a little advice from "the other side of the lens" - what Paul wrote: .."it's a big lens and still can come over as quite intimidating" is a very valid point. It creates distance between you and the subject, and it *might* block you from really engaging with your subject. For kids the extra distance can be nice to get those undisturbed portraits, but there too, a large lens will draw attention you do not want.

If you feel you will use this lens mostly at 200mm, I'd give a look at the 180 f/2.8 - I've used it for portraits where I had to stand back a bit, and it's a sweet lens for it (in my view, better bokeh than any of the f/2.8 long zooms). Its biggest downside for what you describe is the AF speed, it's not fast. Smallish lens, more discrete. The 70-200 f/4 is worth considering too, I think. For normal working distances, my preference remains the 105mm f/2.5 - but I do not find manual focus a problem often. Small, light, cheap and very good performance.

CvhKaar · January 2, 2015

If you want a 70-200mm but would like to save some money for other investments, then the Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM lens might also be a good choice i think.

Here is a review : http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/763-sigmaex7020028os

If you do not realy need the zoom, but around 150mm prime would serve your purposes, then i would have a look at the Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro OS HSM , allowing you to go realy close to if desired..

Here is a review : http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/624-sigma15028ff

sun_p · January 2, 2015

Thanks for the responses.

Paul, the 200 becomes a 135 at MFD!! wow. I did read about focus breathing, but those articles were mentioning it would be more like 165 or so. However, AFS is critical for me. The kids move really fast, so manual focus and slow focus is a total no - no. I actually, have the nikon 105 VR micro which I had got 2-3 years back when I used to shoot a bit of food and products. I did try it out on portraits, but it was too slow. I was missing a lot of shots. Also, I guess, at the head shot and shoulder shots, considering the angle of view, there might not be much of background anyway. My main intention was the compression and a slightly different perspective which would add some value to my customers. Right now, like I said, with the 50 and 85, head shots are a bit of a struggle for me, but when I do get them, they generally end up being the customers favourite. I also shoot a lot into the light, and a couple of years back had the 135 in mind but read that it was too slow and the CA was bad. I guess, it would be great to shoot adults with it, but not so sure about kids.

Wouter, generally, with kids, that I shoot in the 8-11 month age, most of them are busy doing their own thing, I generally get the parents to interact with them sitting behind or by the side outside the frame. In many cases I have noticed, If I actually interact with them, then they get a bit startled, eyes widen, pupils dilate etc when they see me so close. Also, I don't plan to make the 70-200 my primary and only lens, I continue shooting with 50/85 and then for head shots and maybe a few other shoulder/eye shots switch to the 70-200 and shoot only at 2.8 (hence not considering the F4 version). I will take a look at the 180 2.8 online to read about it.

Les - I have the 105 VR. But don't use it. Its too slow for kids. And also a bit too sharp for my liking. I prefer a slightly softer look.

rodeo_joe1 · January 2, 2015

Sun, if you're now thinking that you can avoid the shortening of focal length by getting either the Tamron or Sigma 70-200 VR (OS, VC, whatever), then forget it. I've tried all 3 and they all suffer from the ridiculous shrinkage of focal length when focused close. A case of design copy or "me too"? I don't know, but it's a pity they didn't come up with a design less prone to shrivelling up and dying when focused close.

Strange, because the previous non-VR versions didn't, and neither does Nikon's 70-200 f/4 VR lens quite as much. So keeping the focal length with optical stabilisation is perfectly possible.

Seems like there may be a gap in the market for a fixed true 200mm f/2.8 lens with stabilisation. F/2 is just too big, heavy, intrusive and expensive for the job really. Or are Nikon thinking that if they introduce such a lens then sales of their overpriced and wilting zoom might take a beating?

Matt Laur · January 2, 2015

Sun: Despite the focus breathing concerns (and that's a legitimate semi-complaint, but less urgent an issue given the post cropping you can do with a higher-resolution body like the D600, and likely an even higher resolution sensor that it's safe to say you'll probably have later, right?), I think a 70-200/2.8 is an ideal lens for the sorts of scenarios you're talking about. That lens really does produce lovely images, and is super responsive, AF-wise. You'll also appreciate the physical focus lock buttons out at the end of the lens - something I never thought I'd use, but end up using regularly as it turns out - I'm an incurable focus-and-recompose guy. Though most of the small mammals I shoot end up being canine, not primate, all the same issues apply: fast-changing circumstances, wiggly subjects, the need for crisp focus on the face while obscuring sometimes uncontrollable backgrounds. Happy as I am with several other lenses in particular uses, the 70-200 is the first thing that goes on the camera when the situation starts to look like the one you describe.

Two23 · January 2, 2015

I actually do family portraits for money and use the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR1. I have some thoughts. Kids are very fast moving objects, almost like wildlife. :-) A fast zoom is the way to go. You have seconds to compose and nail the shot. The focus breathing deal just hasn't been an issue for me--it just doesn't matter. What does matter is the FAST autofocus (especially on D7100 and D800E). As for the lens "intimidating" kids, I've not seen it. They are too busy horsing around. If anything, the problem is they pay too LITTLE attention to me. The 70-200m f2.8 is my most used lens for these kinds of shots.

Kent in SD

sun_p · January 2, 2015

Hi Matt - Great to hear from you. You were instrumental a couple of years back in my getting the right camera and lenses especially the sigma 50 1.4 and the Nikon D600. I think you got it absolutely right. I also happen to shoot pets and a faster AFS is something that you need in both cases, kids and pets :) . Its almost non-negotiable. For adults even a manual focus lens would do. I had one question regarding the focus breathing. If I zoom out till 200mm and try to focus at minimum focus distance, as mentioned it will actually be around 135mm. What about the compression and perspective? Does that also change to that of a 135 mm lens? Also, then when would this lens show the true 200mm length? Would it be if I pull back further? Say for example, a kid is about two feet in height sitting down. Approx, what distance would I have to step back to get the full 200mm focal length and based on your experience, how much of the subject would it cover? Just thinking if I would need to crop in post with the zoom also.

Kent - Couldn't agree with you more! Kids are too busy doing their own thing and if anything react mostly to the parents. Infact, If I am close and try to get their attention, they get all startled spoiling the photographs sometimes. This is the reason why I was thinking of getting a longer focal length lens. Of course, love the compression also! Just doing what ever it takes to make my customers happier this year.

Rodeo Joe - Sigma and Tamron as such don't have a proper office at my place. So its mostly dealers who get it from different places outside the country. so its a little risky. Nikon and Cannon have proper offices and we get warranty etc. So considering the cost, I was planning my finances in a way to get this zoom if required. However, since I don't have access to test or rent these lenses, thought of putting my questions over here. Nothing like experience from other photographers! At least, I have always got great advice here.

rodeo_joe1 · January 2, 2015

Kent, Sun, for some reason best known to Nikon, the VRI version doesn't have anywhere near the same problem with focus breathing. It has a maximum RR of around 1:6 at its MFD of 1.5 metres. Whereas the VRII lens focuses down to 1.4 metres but only gives an RR of 1:8.3. So you can get a bit closer using the VRII, but with nearly 40% less magnification!

Those figures mean that the VRI has an equivalent focal length of just over 180mm at MFD, and the VRII is effectively a 135mm lens at MFD. That's some difference.

By comparison Sigma's offering also focuses to 1.4 metres with a maximum RR of 1:8, while Tamron's 70-200mm VC lens has a stated MFD of 1.3 metres and an RR of 1:8 also. That makes Tamron the shrinkage winner with an effective focal length of only 125mm at MFD. What is wrong with these guys?

Edit: "What about the compression and perspective? Does that also change to that of a 135 mm lens?" - Yes, of course. The lens actually does shrink to a 135mm focal length.

"Also, then when would this lens show the true 200mm length?" - Only at the practically useless distance of infinity (if then, since the 200mm focal length is only a nominal figure). The shrinkage is quite noticeable compared to a true 200mm prime at distances of 25ft or more.

robert_bouknight1 · January 2, 2015

I was happy with my 70-200/2.8 VRI, but the new f/4 version has replaced it in my bag. Still have a 180/2.8 for if I really think I need 2.8 at around 200mm. You have the short end more than covered with the 85 you have.

I would rent the f/2.8 and f/4 AFS VR zooms and see which works better for you. I don't often miss my 2.8 zoom, in fact I am much more likely to have the f/4 lens actually with me.

ilkka_nissila · January 2, 2015

The Nikon 70-200/2.8 II would be excellent for what you're trying to do. It has one of the best implementations of autofocus in any Nikkor. The high AF speed and accuracy were possible via an optical design which loses focal length on close focus; this is one of those tradeoffs that designers have to make to achieve their goals. Since the lens is extremely sharp at close focus, the focal length loss is not a serious problem - it still reproduces more detail on the subject than its predecessor did at similar close distances wide open, even though the magnification of the newer lens is lower in this circumstance. Just use a high pixel count camera body (such as the 24MP D600) and the results will be excellent even after cropping to offset the loss in focal length. The main drawback with the 70-200/2.8 II is that its out of focus rendering is not the nicest at long distances (tens of meters and up) in my experience, but if you're mostly doing portraits of children on FX cameras, it should be fine.

The 70-200/4 Nikkor is also a great lens for summer daylight or studio use, but in portraiture and photography of children you probably want the faster maximum aperture so that you can freeze the movement in available light and the f/2.8 also helps with the AF. For studio use I like the f/4 because it focuses down to 1:4 and is much lighter and smaller, so there is less of an issue with fatigue, but the f/2.8 hesitates less when autofocusing in indoor circumstances, including studio. I haven't done a formal comparison as both lenses are sharp enough for me, but I'd say the f/4 is not quite as well suited to kids running around especially indoors or otherwise in low light. Of course, the photographer wielding the f/4 lens may be able to run faster to chase the subjects. ;-) Still the f/4 is enjoyable to work with as long as you understand its limitations.

A used Nikon 70-200/2.8 1st version is also an option you may consider. It has some drawbacks; at f/2.8 it is soft at 200mm on close focus. But it may still be acceptable, depending on your requirements, and when doing tight portraits you probably want to stop down for depth of field at least in the studio. The f/2.8 first version also produces some vignetting that is unusual for this focal range (this is probably mainly because Nikon emphasized performance on DX cameras when the first 70-200/2.8 was designed). You can fix it in software of course, but I found it annoying.

bob_bill · January 2, 2015

My 70-200 vr1 is a versatile lens. Wouldn't do a wedding or most run and gun events without it and the 24-70. If you have subjects on the move, especially closer and further, a zoom is invaluable. My choice of best compression for my eye and comfortable working distance, much lighter and compact package, an extra stop of light at 2.0 and bokeh that is way better than the zoom is the 135 2.0 dc. Traveling light, I carry a 35, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 with it and depending on the location can leave the 50 home and only lug the 3 primes. In studio, the 135 is my go to glass. Holding it all day doesn't take biceps like Arnold's. With 24 mp you shouldn't be afraid to crop quite a bit so that makes up for some additional length. I'm shooting with 12 mp for portraits and have no problem with IQ. Upside of that too, is you have plenty to crop for great composition.

michael_bradtke · January 2, 2015

I am not a portrait shooter I shoot sports mainly so I need fast and accurate AF as well as sharpness. I ended up buying the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM. The image quality I get from this lens is 99% of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II for considerably less money. The Sigma is built very well and is physically a little smaller then the Nikon so that might cut down on the intimidation factor.

eric_arnold · January 2, 2015

if you need to shoot close from far away the Nikon 70-200 is a go-to. its great for portraits but as noted before the AF is nearly isntantaneous. it's one of the best for shooting Things That Move. it can be intimidating in some situations but can also allow you to work less obstrusively. if i were you, i'd maybe also consider renting the Sigma 85/1.4, which has much faster AF than the Nikon 85/1.4 D.

dave_wilson1 · January 2, 2015

I just want to add that I use the 180 f2.8D all the time, if that's the lens you're talking about is screw drive and doesn't

focus that fast plus you're stuck with the one length. It's a very fine lens and I have used it for all kinds of shots along the

way, but I think in general a fast focus zoom would be the ticket.

studio460 · January 2, 2015

Sun:

I initially bought a refurbished AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I for $1,300, specifically for its closer-focusing ability; however it's ended up being one of my least-used lenses. I felt that it was simply too long and heavy for handheld portraiture, and I wanted something a bit lighter and shorter. So, I bought the Sigma 150mmm f/2.8 OS (optically-stabilized) because it's 0.36 kg lighter, and 5 cm shorter, making it noticeably easier to handhold. Once I began using it, I found the Sigma to be tack-sharp, with spot-on AF-accuracy.

Thanks to the Sigma's excellent optical performance, it fast became my portrait lens of choice. Plus, at 150mm (on a full-frame body), it has a really nice amount of compression, visibly more so than an 85mm or 105mm. I shot some headshots recently, comparing a DC-Nikkor 105mm and the Sigma 150mm, and the 150mm focal length was clearly more flattering.

The other cool thing about the Sigma is that since it's also a macro lens, minimum focus distance isn't an issue, so I'm also able to use it for extreme close-up beauty work. Working distance should be okay for head-and-shoulders portraits (e.g., 2-3 meters). I know you're hesitant to buy Sigma since you're without a local distributor, but it's really a great lens and focal length:

<img src="http://studio460.com/images/BRIT-150-1.png" alt="" /> Nikon D800E + Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS; ISO: 50; f/5.6 @ 1/200th.

eric_arnold · January 3, 2015

since it's also a macro lens, minimum focus distance isn't an issue, so I'm also able to use it for extreme close-up beauty work. Working distance should be okay for head-and-shoulders portraits (e.g., 2-3 meters).

</blockquote>

i've run into the MFD issue only once or twice while using the 70-200 II in 4 years of field use, shooting concerts and being a bit too close. the 70-200 II's MFD is 4.6 feet or 1.4 meters, but at typical working distance, this isn't an issue. The Sigma 150 sounds like a crackerjack lens in the right situation, but its a long telephoto prime. If you're going to use it as a portrait lens, it will be most useful in studio environments, while the 70-200 can be either a studio lens or a field lens, due to its versatile focal range. the 150's extended closeup ability is nice if you're shooting closeups of eyes or lips, but how often do you need to do "extreme beauty work"? a 100mm macro is significantly less expensive than a 150, and will do essentially the same thing, if close-up beauty work is what you're after. IMO, if you arent also doing macro work, the 150 isn't a great choice. it could be disastrous for shooting kids who move a lot, since the rigid, longish focal length requires a fairly static subject (as in Ralph's pic). Also, macro lenses are geared for focus accuracy, not focus speed. It's doubtful the 150 is any faster than any other ultrasonic-motored macro lens; though it may indeed be spot-on, i would go with the Nikon if focus speed ranks high on performance criteria. it's one of the 70-200's best features, along with build quality, overall IQ, and out of focus rendering at longer telephoto lengths.

sun_p · January 3, 2015

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Like l said, the 85/50 would continue to be used for the session as my primary lens. But I think I have got my answer in terms of what lens to get. It might also be interesting to use a zoom after shooting only prime for the last two years after migrating from my very first D40/d90/18-55 kit lens.

I had one more question on this - Considering the fact that the focus breathing happens only at minimum focus distance(I hope I got that right), for those who have the lens, would a baby's face (around 8-12 months age group) require us to be at MFD to fill the frame? The reason I ask is because we would be going closer to the subject to fill the frame approaching the MFD only if the size of the subject is really small. What about a baby's face (8-12 months age group)?

Thanks!

rodeo_joe1 · January 3, 2015

Sun, you can work out the area a lens covers at MFD from the maker's data, which is why they give it. The maximum magnification of the VRII is 1:8.333 as given by Nikon (on some of its websites!). So all you have to do is multiply the frame size of your camera by 8 and a third.

A full-frame 24 x 36mm camera will cover 200 x 300mm at MFD, and a 16 x 24mm DX sensor will cover an area of 133.33 x 200mm at MFD.

That means you could get a reasonably tight head shot of an adult on full-frame in portrait orientation, but a baby's head would only fill about a quarter of the frame. Also, if the baby was lying in a normal height cot I think you'd have a job to get the camera 1.4 metres above the child and still be able to see through the viewfinder to compose.

ilkka_nissila · January 3, 2015

For photographs of just the baby's head, something like a 60mm or 105mm Micro-Nikkor would work well. You could also do it with the 70-200/4 but I would pick one of the Micro-Nikkors for this task if you want a frame filling image.

CvhKaar · January 3, 2015

I noticed I tend to use the 50 more since the 85 sometimes takes a little while to focus

</blockquote>

Maybe the newer (and much cheaper) Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8G could solve this challenge for you ? it is a very good lens also, and since it is an AF-S lens it focusses much quicker than the F/1.4D ...

Other challenges concerning focal length of your lenses could also be solved by adding a DX (APS-C) body to your "tools" , a D7100, or D7200... :-) ) could make a valueable addition i think ... (and costs less than a 70-200 VR II) ..

jose_angel · January 3, 2015

When I have been in your very same situation, I mostly used a 105VR for the task. I cannot think on a better lens. Close focusing (unlimited in comparison), fast focus, VR, comfortable to use. I have rarely taken the 70-200VRII, which is plenty useful for many tasks, but in my experience not for baby portraits. The minimum focus distance is simply too large and you`ll be always looking for the limit. Also, in comparison, the lens is quite uncomfortable to use (big, heavy).

Buy the 70-200VRII, is a very nice lens to have, although not for close baby portraits.

stevenseelig · January 3, 2015

I use the 70-200 f2.8 VRII all the time. It is an excellent lens. I do lots of portrait and wedding work and along with the 24-70 f2.8, essentially 99.5% of my pictures are taken with either of these two lenses. You can see examples of either lens on my website at http://e2photography.zenfolio.com/f335458316

My very strong recommendation is for you to rent the lens for a week and take a test run. I use Lensrental.com, but there are other that are good, and perhaps even local places.

I have read some of the technical stuff people have posted here, but in my view, the real question is can you produce images that you will love with the lens. It is not the gear, but the photographer that makes great pictures.

Sign In

Questions on the 70-200 F2.8 VRII for Kids and family photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in