Hi All, After the collectives excellent recommendations for a compact (went for LX3) I now wonder what folks are using telephoto wise on their DSLR's? In a perfect world I'd like a 70-200 vr, but I'm not a pro and can't really justify that sort of money. Would like 2.8 right through and around about the 70-200 range. Cheers.
Bike Forum
[closed]
Fast long glass for Nikon DSLR
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
A 2.8 long zoom is going to cost you a fair bit whatever brand. It's the amount of complexity and glass required to get it fast at such lengths that makes it expensive (and heavy).
You'll find a little bit cheaper with Sigma and Tamron brands, but it will be hard to match the quality of the Nikon 70-200. Maybe look out for the older 70-200 model though as I think they upgraded it recently and the new model is more expensive of course.
Also, buying an import from Hong Kong can save money. Try http://www.onestop-digital.com and http://www.digitalrev.com (they're also on ebay along with a bunch of other HK retailers).
Do you really need f/2.8 though? I've got a fixed length 300mm f/4 Nikkor which is amazingly sharp and a vast amount cheaper than the 2.8 equivalent. Combined with a 1.4 teleconverter I can get 420mm out of it with no difference to the sharpness (though loss of one stop). Heavy again though. When it comes to dragging a camera around on a bike, I just go for my 18-200 vr. Not a fast lens, and not amazingly sharp, but it's a fine all rounder and compact enough to chuck in a backpack.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Deadkenny, I've got the 18-200 too and defo notice a difference in sharpness compared to my fave - the Nikkor 17-55. But I love vr.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Having the f2.8 stop gives you loads of control on depth of field and also assists to focus easier, especially manually which I still do an awful lot using my kit. I've the Canon EF70-200L IS f2.8 and it's possibly their best being razor sharp and very very versatile. Admittedly not cheap but if it's your hobby so what. I did have a Sigma many years ago and for less than half the cost of the Canon it's a very very good lens. I'd be tempted check second-hand places (Mifsuds or Ffordes etc) for a Sigma or even a Nikkor and I promise you, you will not regret it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
VR is a great toy and sometimes useful but it's far from necessary . . .
Depends on your budget but the Nikon 80-200/2.8 lenses are as near as makes no difference optically as good as the 70-200/2.8's . . .
I use a Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AF-S IF ED which I bought second hand on ebay, today you should be able to pick one of these up for about 500ish quid . . . super fast focus, f2.8 throughout the range, weatherproof, build like a tank . . . will you notice the difference between that and a brand new 70-200/2.8 ? . . . doubt it . . . I've played with both and chose not to waste money updating mine . . . In their day these were the 'pro' lenses and that means they last and last and last . . .
Couple of images from mine
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2645561684_554f475214_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2403/3847770892_0a4239bd93_o.jpg
As has been mentioned, they are heavy and large lenses, but sometimes there is no substitute for a wide aperture for a nice narrow DOF . . .
Fd
Posted 2 years ago # -
Checked ffordes just this afternoon 80-200 2.8 for sensible money! Ch-ching!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Try to go for the 'one touch' zoom one rather than the 'push pull' version . . . easier to use and newer . . .
This is the lens I am talking about
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm (not that I'm a fan of Rockwell's BS - just the first link I found)
There are a few variants . . . I think this is the last variant of the 80-200 production . . . however they are all pretty good . . .
Fd
Posted 2 years ago # -
I was recommended these guys by Lenses for Hire - http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/
All good stuff sold there.
I use Canon equipment and loved the 70-200 2.8L IS but found the 100-400 F4-5.6L much better for what I wanted and didn't miss the two stop lower aperture.
Most of my lenses are actually Sigma which are a lot cheaper and quite sharp as well.Posted 2 years ago # -
I've used the Sigma HSM 70-200 F2.8 (or it might be 80-200, can't remember) a fair bit and it's a great lens for the money - around £500-600 compared to the Nikon equivalent which is getting on for a grand from memory.
It's worth also looking at a company called LensesForHire. You can hire most lenses from them for as little as a weekend for about £25, depending on the lens. It's a great way to see how you get on with a lens and their service is excellent. I rented a 10-20mm for a 4 week trip to NZ and OZ for about £60ish.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tamron 70-200 is worth a look. Works well on a Sony at least.
The Sigma is the other one to look for.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Having the f2.8 stop gives you loads of control on depth of field
Whilst a wider aperture does allow for a shallower DOF, the long length of the lens also can bring out some great shallow DOF shots, and more so if you focus close (the three key factors to DOF, aperture, focal length & focal distance).The main reason for f/2.8 on a long lens is for fast action shots in low light, as the wide aperture at a long length allows for faster shutter speeds to freeze action (hence the word 'fast'). It's the kind of thing you need for shooting football matches which is why they all have those £3k fast telephoto lenses at those matches!! Bit beyond my budget
Not sure if this is for bike photos, but they are probably better shot with a flash. No need for a fast lens then.
And don't assume that the only way to get sharp is with a fast lens. Generally any prime (fixed length) lens is very sharp anyway. As I say, my f/4 300m is pin sharp. Just it's a bit big and heavy really
Posted 2 years ago # -
I think the older design 80-200 is a stunning bit of kit for the money
I've got one on loan form my brother in law
I thought focus speed would be rubbish but it was fine on my D70
looks like about 700 new or 399 used from
Posted 2 years ago # -
I use an older AF -S 80-200 f2.8D, the one with the gold rim, non VR.
See if you can pick one of those up maybe?
I have a Nikon 180 f2.8 if you're interested as I've not used it in ages.
tim at t-f-p dot comDid you see the info about the Charlie Waite lecture on 18 Jan - his 2nd favourite camera is a LX3 and that's the subject of his talk with images?
PS - as a rule of thumb: always buy the fastest lens you can.
Mine are: 17-35, 28-70, 80-200, at f2.8 & an 85 f1,4.
I have primes too from 20mm, but just never seem to use them. I do not like ultra wide lenses at all. D700 bodies.Posted 2 years ago # -
I had a Nikon AF-s 80-200 F2.8 a few years back but it had no VR and was a pig to hold still - even with a monopod. I used it for wedding photography but ditched it after a bit in favour of the 28-200VR.
Whilst the 28-200 is great (cos of the VR mainly) I miss the 2.8 aperture and its wicked fast focusing
on a happier note, I only paid £650 for it s/h and sold it through Ffordes for £800
Good glass holds its value so spend more and when you do come to sell it you'll get plenty back also, especially if you buy wisely.
LX3 owner here too. Great little camera, enjoy.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
