Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
f2.8
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
Apr 8, 2019 10:35:10   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
Wrench wrote:
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money ... (show quote)


Wrench wrote:
Yes Larry, the D500 has similar pixel density as the D850 and rental of the prospects will be the final decision maker. I was looking for anyone who has owned/used these lenses to share their likes or dislikes. Thanks for the input.


I was going to ask if you had a budget, but since you are using the rental route to choose bodies that would seem to mean money is not an issue. Renting two bodies for the two weeks or so needed by a non-pro to evaluate a body will cost nearly 1/4 the price of the refurbished version of the new body. Those two bodies will run you somewhere around $250-$300 for two weeks. So I would just go with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 to fill the lens gap. You know it will fill your need and work with your bodies.

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 10:38:23   #
tomcat
 
radiojohn wrote:
"What I wish that some genius would invent is an f/1.8 lens with the DOF of an f/8 lens---then we would have an invention...... This is the downside to my world--shallow DOF."

It was invented and failed. The Lytro "light field" camera had a very fast lens and you could adjust the DOF to whatever you want AFTER the photo was taken. They were pretty expensive, but just not quite sharp enough. I bought one closed out for $169.


I guess it failed because the adjustment was done after the photo was taken rather than during...??

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 10:38:58   #
bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
Wrench wrote:
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money ... (show quote)


If you are not doing sports photography or if a high percentage of your work is not in poor lighting conditions, an f2.8 lens might be overkill for you. If you are not a stickler for low noise (arteffects), you can always use a higher ISO settings with slower lenses to allow faster shutter speeds. I would, however look only at lenses that have a stabilization feature. That will allow you to shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds (lower ISO) and compensate for the slower lens speed.

Reply
 
 
Apr 8, 2019 11:20:58   #
harleridr Loc: S.Texas
 
Hi
I have a Nikon 7200 and shoot with a late model (not slide) 80-200mm 2.8 D AF. This lens is built like a tank and is compatable with all Nikons. This lens is still in production, but they are much cheaper and easier to find used than an "S" version!
Harle

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 11:33:10   #
radiojohn
 
Actually, IMHO, it failed beause they did NOT stress this amazing feature. They stressed that you could make a so-called "living picture" where whatever you clicked on was the main focus. Meh.

The DOF thing lets you take the shot and determine the DOF later. I have a shot of some American Legion honor guards and exported one version at something like F/1.4 another F/22. This is from the same file and the exposure is not different, just the DOF.

My thought was that if they had done a next-generation model and pitched it for sports, nature and news photography, it might have taken off. But they seem fixated on "ooooh, I can click here and it looks like this, then I can click over here and it looks like this!"

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 11:43:21   #
GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan
 
Wrench wrote:
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money ... (show quote)


Whatever lens you choose, should you go outdoors a lot in fog or frosty winter days, make sure it is water resistant. (Along with your camera.)

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 12:03:37   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
I own both the latest 2.8 version and the 4.0 version of the Nikon 70-200. The older 80-200 versions are not as adept as the newer versions. I bought the F4.0 just for the weight savings and I find it to be a good lens, but not as good as its faster brother. I've also become more of a fan of Sigmas ART and Sports series lenses. You might want to rent the Sigma and check it out for yourself. Not a big fan of anything Tamron, sorry. Best of luck.

Reply
 
 
Apr 8, 2019 12:07:11   #
Fotomacher Loc: Toronto
 
Wrench wrote:
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money ... (show quote)


I used the AF80-200mm f/2.8D for many years with D70s, D300, D300s and D700 bodies. When I traded my D300s and D700 bodies to get a (pre-loved) D810, I also traded the 80-200 to get a new AFS 28-300mm G lens. What a piece of crap! Luckily I was able to make a deal with a local used equipment dealer and make a straight trade to re-acquire a Nikkor 80-200mm. Yes, it is heavy but the optical quality is phenomenal and the IQ is great. I traded it last summer for a used AFS 70-200mm f/2.8G VR2 + some cash but only so I could use my TC17Eii. Since there is a newer version of the Nikkor 70-200 on the market, I think you should be able to source a good quality used VR2 like I did.

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 13:04:47   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
Wrench wrote:
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.
Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money ... (show quote)


Use the process of elimination:

D750 is a great camera, but in a nutshell it makes no sense for someone who "likes to shoot birds". A DX camera is a better choice for that.... UNLESS you have the budget for VERY big, fast, expensive lenses AND need to make very large prints. Very few people actually NEED full frame... they just think it will somehow improve their photography. Actually, the images from the FX camera might look better to them, when compared at ridiculously high magnification on their computer monitors. At native resolution, a 24MP camera's image "at 100%" will be roughly equivalent to making a 5 foot wide by 3.5 foot high print... and then viewing it from 18 to 20 inches away. That's silly. By the time they have re-sized their images for actual use, much of the "goodness" of FX is gone and there's little difference between an up-to-date DX camera like your 24MP D7200 and a 24MP FX camera like the D750. The ONLY real advantage to a moderate resolution FX camera that you might see is somewhat higher usable ISO, for those low light situations. Currently the D750 is selling for $800 more than the D7200. It will cost you $1500 (less whatever you get selling your D7200, if you decide to do that).

D500 is also a great camera, IF you need a faster frame rate (10 fps vs 6 fps), fancier AF system (153 points vs 53 points), an articulated Touch Screen LCD and a more durable camera (200K "clicks" vs 150K). HOWEVER, like your D7200, the D500 is a DX camera. AND, it's lower resolution than your D7200... 21MP versus 24MP. AND, it has slightly lower high ISO capabilities (although it has a much wider settable range)... AND it has slightly lower color bit depth and slightly less dynamic range than the D7200. AND, the D500 is currently $1100 more expensive than a D7200... $1800 (less whatever you get selling your D7200, should you do so).

Frankly, instead of a camera upgrade that will make little difference and might even force you to spend A LOT more on lenses, you'd be much better putting the $1500 to $1800 cost of that camera upgrade into a quality lens instead.

I understand your preference for OEM lenses. For that large part, I try to stick with those, too. I've made a couple exceptions where my camera maker didn't offer a lens with features I needed or wanted. But 90% of my lenses are OEM.

The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 "FL" is a wonderful lens, but at $2800 it's quite pricey (comparable Canon are $600 to $1000 less).

The Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR that preceded the FL version is still widely available and is an excellent lens that costs $940 less... $1860.


I am not personally familiar with the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR that sells for $1400 (note that it doesn't come with the matched tripod mounting ring... which I recommend. That's sold separately for $155, adding to the cost of the lens.)

70-200mm f/4 lenses certainly are an option, too. In fact I use one a lot, primarily to "lighten my load". It's about 2/3 the size and weight of the f/2.8 lenses. (Similarly, I also often use a hand-holdable, $1300, 3 lb. 300mm f/4 lens and, unless I REALLY need it, leave at home my $6000, 6 lb. 300mm f/2.8, as well as the tripod or monopod it requires for shooting longer than a few minutes.)

I've found myself stopping down the f/2.8 lenses to f/4 or smaller much of the time anyway... in search of sufficient depth of field. Plus, f/4 is more than a stop faster than many of the alternatives, variable aperture zooms that start out around f/4.5 or so, but end up at f/5.6 or even smaller at their middle to longest focal lengths.

Personally, I do not use my 70-200mm much for birding. I use the 300mm f/4 lens mentioned above or a 100-400mm, both sometimes with 1.4X teleconverter... or even longer (and much bigger, heavier, more expensive) 500mm f/4, also sometimes with 1.4X. There's a saying among birders, "You'll never have 'enough' lens." Essentially that just means if you have 300mm, you'll want 400mm. Once you have 400mm, you'll find it's too short too and will want 500mm.... etc., etc., on and on, ad infinitum. Of course, there's are practical limits of size, weight, price... plus at some point the subjects are just too far away, there's too much atmospheric interference to make it worth taking a shot. But, 200mm really isn't "enough" lens for birding. At a very minimum, you'll need to use a 1.4X teleconverter on it... and, in many cases, there goes your image quality along with it (there are exceptions, but teleconverters generally work much better with prime lenses, than they do with zooms).

Your best bets for "birding" lenses are:

- Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR... 3.5 lb, $2300.
- Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR... 5 lb., $1400.

Third party options are:

- Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM... 2.5 lb, $670
- Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD... 2.5 lb, $700
- Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD "G2"... 4.5 lb., $1300
- Sigma "Contemporary" 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM... 4.3 lb., $940
- Sigma "Sports" 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM... 6.3 lb., $1800

Notes:

- The Sigma 100-400mm doesn't include or have any means of attaching a tripod mounting collar. There is an optional tripod mounting collar available for the Tamron 100-400mm, which costs $129.

- The variable aperture designations of these lenses can be a bit misleading unless you compare them closely. For example, over much of it's range the Nikon 80-400mm is 2/3 stop faster than the third party lenses. The 80-400mm doesn't stop down to f/5.6 until about 250mm. In comparison, the Tamron 100-400mm only maintains larger than f/5.6 through about 180mm and the Sigma 100-400mm stops down to f/5.6 or smaller at just 112mm! The Tamron 150-600mm G2 stops down to f/5.6 or smaller at 213mm. And, the Sigma 150-600mm lenses stop down to f/5.6 or smaller at 180mm (C) or 185mm (S). As a result, rather than what appears at first glance as a 1/3 stop difference, there is actually the third party lenses are actually 2/3 stop "slower" through much of their focal length range.

None of these lenses are going to solve your low light concerns. In order to achieve that with a lens that's truly long enough for "birding" will require a much greater expenditure and mean hauling around a much larger lens, as well as a sturdy tripod to sit it upon.

Instead I would suggest you experiment with post-processing and noise reduction techniques that might allow you to use higher ISOs with your D7200. That's a much more practical solution for most people. Part of this is being realistic about your image evaluation, too. As noted above, many people are vastly overly critical of their images by viewing them "at 100%". This is much larger than they will ever actually use their images and many of the "flaws" they see at that magnification - such as high ISO noise, slight loss of sharpness, etc. - will never actually be seen by anyone else after they've re-sized the image for real world uses. The ease with which we can be seriously overly critical of our images is one of the "problems" with digital. The camera manufacturers love it, though, because it keeps people coming back and buying new cameras and full frame "upgrades" in a never-ending search for "perfect" images. It's fine... even useful to be able to zoom in to 100% or higher when retouching images, doing sharpening, correcting chromatic aberrations, etc. But off to 25% or 33% when evaluating your images for focus accuracy, noise, sharpness, etc... I bet you'll find them a lot better than you think.

P.S. The image processing workflow and work-station are often overlooked in the search for imageperfection. Among other things, a new/better computer monitor, proper calibration and more advanced software... along with classes and/or books how to better use them... might actually be the best place for many people to spend their money.

Hope this helps!

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 13:29:50   #
Mgilbert
 
Aloha from the Maui studio
You have passion so that makes you a pro.
The best 70 to 200 hands down is the Tamron. You could spend more but not get a better piece of glass.if budget is a issue buy the lens that is one generation behind the current model
I would be happy to post images if you like. Also it’s a 2.8 and I use it at 2.8
Aloha
MG

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 13:46:08   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
My impression is that if you're shooting birds, the 70-200 will be too short. If you're considering the D500, which would be an excellent choice, I would suggest the 200-500mm f5.6. The D500 will allow you to shoot at higher ISO's than any other camera except for the D5. The D7500 would match it but not its AF ability. If you've got some money to burn, go for Nikon's newest 500mm f4 at just over 3K.

Reply
 
 
Apr 8, 2019 14:04:33   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
I noticed that the Nikkor 300mm f4 has been mentioned a few times. I have the 300 f4D, which is a Gold Ring lens that is manageable to shoot hand held. It has a few flaws, like a sliding lens hood that gets loose after a while. I bought mine new several years ago, but have seen nice used ones for less than $450. This is the framing equivalent of right at 450mm on a DX camera. Performs very well. Might be worth looking at, as suggested.

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 16:47:18   #
AdamJB
 
I use the Nikon AF 80-200 F/2.8D (two ring model) on a D810. You can buy these used for $400 to $450 on eBay. If you don't like it, you can sell it and get 85% of your costs back. Think of it as a long term lens rental. It gives me outstanding results for portraits and indoor sports (mainly highschool volleyball.) It's main weakness is that being an older design, it has no aspherical elements and suffers from some spherochromatism at the long end. This messes with a DSLR's phase detect autofocus system causing it to backfocus at short range when you are shooting at longer focal lengths. On my copy of the lens, this is likely to happen at focal lengths greater than 155mm when you are at close range, say 10 feet or less. On a D500 or D750 which have strong AF motors, this lens focuses very fast. It's a very sharp lens, even at f/2.8 but gets a little soft at 200mm at F/2.8 and sharpens up nicely by F/4. It's only visible if you are pixel peeping or printing large prints. The new 70-200 models are optically superior and focus a little faster, but you are paying 4-5X the cost of a used 80-200. Don't get the old Nikon 80-200 push/pull model, the autofocus is much slower. I have no experience with Tamron or Sigma's current models, but I would expect them to be close in optical performance to Nikon's current models and better than Nikon's old 80-200. But the 80-200 is just an awesome piece of glass for the price if you can get a good used copy. As much as I love it, it's not a lens for birding. It's just not long enough, unless the birds are sitting on a feeder in your back yard.

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 16:49:23   #
Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA
 
Save your pennies and get that Nikkor70-200-2.8. You will love it. Happy Shooting.

Reply
Apr 8, 2019 16:51:31   #
Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio
 
I have the Nikon D300, D7000, D610 and D500 and I use the D500 most of the time. I also have a range of lenses from the 10.5mm to the 70-200mm f2.8. I also have the 28-300 Nikon but I can tell you that the image quality from the 70-200 is far better than the 28-300mm. You can find a used lens for a lot less than new, I bought mine for $1,800 and it is worth every penny. I could not have afforded to buy it new, so just kept looking for a used one. I would strongly suggest doing that.

Also just for your sake, when you hear people tell you they have X or Y and it is a great lens for them, you must go to the next question and ask them... "Compared to what?" No one ever seems to ask that question and you get people telling you that this or that is great for them. If you question more, you often find out that it is great because that is the only lens they have like that.

My first car was great, until I eventually bought a better one and then a better one and later an even better one. Ask me now and with my past experience, I can tell you my first car was crap. So the only one qualified to tell you how great their non Nikon 70-200 lenses are or any long lens, are the ones who have also USED that Nikon f2.8 70-200mm lens, because they are the only ones that can give you a real answer as to how great the other lenses are compared to that Nikon lens.

I wish there were real world just as good alternatives at much better prices than those expensive Nikon lenses. I have not tried all the latest and greatest lenses out there currently being offered, so can only tell you how it compares to what I have previously owned and used.

The only real way to know is to rent all the lenses at the same time, that you may want to buy and test them side by side in the same conditions over a weekend and then you will know. Hope this helps.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.