| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2006 07:47:51 AM · #1 |
I already have:
AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G
Am thinking of getting one of the following:
AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED
AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
I don't do a lot of sports/concerts, but when I do I suffer from the distance, speed & low light. Does the VR make up for low light?
Would appreciate any thoughts. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 07:54:44 AM · #2 |
Make up for? No. Help with? Yes. You can generally shoot a few stops lower than without the VR, but it's not a cure-all.
You seen to be a fan of big zooms. A wise old photogographer once told me that, unless you're spending thousands of dollars on it, a zoom which covers 300mm of focal length will produce lesser quality images than one of 100mm of focal length. In other words, the larger the range, the lower the quality of photos.
Will you ever be able to see the difference? I dunno. The 70-200 VR is getting rave reviews, but it's 100 mm shorter than your 300. Do you use that lens often? (I have the same one, and I almost never use it!) When you're talking about spending $1000 on a lens, it might be worth it to find a rental shop and rent one over a weekend or something.
---A
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 07:55:07 AM · #3 |
VR can make up for low light, but not for sports! If your shutter is too slow for sports, all VR will give you is sharp grass and blurred action.
For sports I would recommend the 70-200 f2.8. You could add a 1.4x teleconverter to that if you liked.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 07:59:58 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by guroos:
AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED |
That would probably be one of the best and sharpest zoom lenses you could possibly buy.
Combine it with a 1.4 x convertor and you have a 98-280mm f/4, or with a 2x convertor a 140-400 f/5.6 that will still be sharper than your 70-300 (using Nikkor AF-S convertors, of course). And you VR would still operate. Super-big zooms probably compromise too much, maybe not in sharpness, but certainly in barrel and/or pincushion distortion.
hth.
Wobb. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 08:49:33 AM · #5 |
I am considering getting some new glass and am therefore prowling the internet for into. Many photographers say that you should not use converters with zoom-lenses. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 09:44:44 AM · #6 |
Get the 18-200 if you need an everyday lens for inside the home (with flash if things are moving) excellent for nature, goes very wide to 200mm...with no need to change lens.
I wouldn't recommend it for sports unless you are close to the action and there is "lots of light". Don't get me wrong, the lens is great but does have some limits!
KS
Originally posted by guroos:
I already have:
AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G
Am thinking of getting one of the following:
AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED
AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
I don't do a lot of sports/concerts, but when I do I suffer from the distance, speed & low light. Does the VR make up for low light?
Would appreciate any thoughts. |
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 10:05:30 AM · #7 |
Gentlemen you have been terrific, all great comments. Since I started this post I have been studying several things:
1. The focal length of the photos I aspire to
2. The focal length of my highest rated photos, ergo the ones I like to take.
3. The lenses owned by photogs I respect
4. Finally, the highest rated photos taken with lenses on my short list.
After all this I am considering a turn around in my thinking and am looking at:
Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D - for reasons stated above
AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED - this seems to be the replacement for the 60mm & has all the bells & whistles. I think it is too new as I cannot find it listed here on DPC.
While I would love to be able to take shots at a distance in low light I realise after reading some of the comments (here & elsewhere), that to do this properly would be way out of my budget & anything else is a compromise.
I enjoy taking portraits & have not yet had a chance to explore macros. Considering these lenses, I believe, will improve one & introduce me to the other.
Many thanks for all your comments.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2006 07:17:02 PM · #8 |
| Bumping to see if any more thoughts from the other hemisphere. |
|
|
|
05/16/2006 08:20:45 PM · #9 |
if you were looking at the longer side to start with i would suggest the 200mm micro (i'ts next on my list ;)
i tend to use the 105 more than the 60mm ....
and expect to use the 200 more than the 105.. (once i can afford it )
85pc is a sweet tool as well but you need an extender to get 1:1
edit for spelling doh!
Message edited by author 2006-05-16 20:21:32. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/31/2025 06:26:55 PM EST.
