Toronto Photography Meetup Group

so,

i am interested in purchasing a telephoto lens, and i have narrowed the decision down to 3 potential candidates:

1. Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
~$600

2. Nikon AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 D ED
~$1500

3. Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED (assuming i can still find a new VRI if and when i decide to buy this one)
~$2400

so my question is, which lens is the best 'bang-for-buck'. i like the 70-300mm since it is relatively inexpensive, but the speed and (relative) quality of this lens is what worries me. i like the 80-400mm because of the added reach, but the speed and age of this lens is what worries me. lastly, the 70-200mm, what is there not to like, but the price. i am a little swayed away from buying the 70-200mm simply because i don't think i'll use it enough to justify paying that much for it (especially if you can just rent it for ~$40 per day whenever you need it, and i assume i won't need it for more than 50 days per year) and also because i've owned a 55-200mm before, and 200mm is a little on the short end of my liking. the reach of the 80-400mm is what entices me to buy it, but is it really worth the extra ~$1000 for the added 100mm over the 70-300mm? i don't know. also, how does the bokeh compare? does 300mm or 400mm at f/5.6 separate the subject from the background better than say, 200mm at f/2.8 does?

anyways, i ask all of you who have had experience with any and all of these lenses, which is the best 'bang-for-buck' lens, before i go and buy a telephoto.

thanks,
- match stick

If you have the cash to buy a 70-200 2.8 new I'd suggest finding a used one and picking up a teleconverter to make up the range. There are 1.7/2.0x converters at 1.5/2 stops. You really cannot match the glass in the 70-200.

Once you try to go beyond 300mm, you have to pay the price.

The jump from a consumer 300mm zoom to a pro level 300mm is a big one also.

You really have to decide what you'll get the most use out of, a 70-200/2.8 or the 400/5.6. They're not really comparable. I've use a Sigma 70-200/2.8 + 2xTC, and the drop in IQ is very noticeable. The drop in AF speed is also very noticeable.. I really don't use a 2xTC unless I have to.

Man, you're going to have to tell us, what are you going to shoot? Lighting? Do you need something with quick AF?

Also will you be sending the images for publication?

I have the 70-200 2.8 VRI (I think you can still find these new out there - I got mine new this past summer for just under $2000 plus tax) Try Aden Camera or Downtown Camera (they have the best price - but Henry's will match).

I do have to say I love this lens!! I think it is my favourite lens and I use it way more then I ever thought I would (thats how good it is) I hardly ever used my used 70-210D (on my camera like 10% of the time) but now that I have the 70-200 2.8 - I'd say its on my camera like at least 40% of time, if not more - depending on what i'm shooting).

I did rent a 1.4x teleconverter for it - and it was great - gave the extra reach with really no image quality lose (I shoot DX so any issues of image quality of the outer portion of the lens are removed). The 1.4x will give you 98-280 F4 constant and if you go to a 1.7x teleconverter (I have read image quality is still excellent - you may have to step the lens down a little though) you get a 119 - 340 f.4.8 constant (still faster then the 70-300VR) Obviously the only real issues comes down to costs (its another $450 for a teleconverter) and weight - its not a light lens - let me tell you!! BUT I LOVE IT!!!

J.

The 70-200VR f/2.8 is an excellent lens! I love mine, it rides with me most times, but if you are looking for a lighter solution... the 70-300VRII not only costs less, but is a much lighter solution. My observations with the 70-300 is that it seems a tad sharper on my D700 than my D90. I don't know what it is about it... it is just sharper when I shoot it in FX. That being said, its not bad in DX either. It is a slower lens however, which is not a big deal with newer generation camera's where you can boost your ISO for good results. That being said, I do a lot of shooting with a tripod. The VR does help a lot too for handheld shooting.

Back to the 70-200.... price is much higher, yes. But this lens performs really well. Suited for action photography, or otherwise. It is a bit of a heavyweight in the backpack!

The 80-400 is a nice lens indeed... and most who have owned it, have had a love-hate relationship. It has screw driven focus, thus it will only work on particular bodies, it is also a much slower lens IQ wise over either of the other two lenses. Personally, I would stear clear of the 80-400, as it is well overdue for an update.

I am planning to get a 200-400 sometime in the near future. But that might be out of your budget!

thanks for all the input everybody! to answer specific questions:


by pay the price, do you mean, more likely to get blurry photos? or literally, more expensive lenses?


ya, i don't have ~$5000 to spend on a 300mm f/2.8.


shooting everything from everyday stuff with the family and friends, to street photography where you can get nice candid shots with nice bokeh, and in the case of the 70-200mm probably portrait's and work-related stuff as well. as for images for publication - no.


the weight of the 70-200mm is not an issue. i'm used to carrying heavy camera gear for several hours at a time with the stuff i do for work. your arms get used to it.


good point.


yeah, it still has an aperture ring. who still uses those these days anyways? (kidding, kidding...). but i have noticed this, and am hesitant to buy the lens because i know as soon as i do, a new version of it, or a replacement of it, will come out haha.


yeah, for the time being at least.

-----
i meant to add on some more questions, but they slipped out of my head and hopefully will come back to me when i am less sleepy.

$$$$. You can't get a modern 300/4 for under $1000- used. Also, most people do not know how to use a 300mm or 400mm telephoto lens.

Good monopod/tripod support is a must for longer lenses, combined with good long lens technique. Additionally, AF can be tricky.... I like to use the AF tracking feature.

please do explain.


can you elaborate on 'proper (longer lens) technique' ?

Here is an excerpt from Moose Peterson's website that explains it:

Proper Long Lens technique is not something I invented, but I was taught long ago. This age old technique assures the sharpest possible image when using any lens that attaches to a tripod via its tripod collar.Used with proper Handholding Technique, you will capture the sharpest possible images!

First and foremost -you must rest your hand on the lens barrel above the tripod head! (you can also put your hand on the bottom of the lens barrel if you're pointing the lens down) You rest your hand on the lens just like you'd rest it in your lap. Vibrations are what causes images to be out of focus, vibrations that normally start at the camera. These vibrations travel as a wave to the front element and if they are not stopped, they travel back through the lens to the film plane, causing images to be out of focus. The simple resting of a hand on the lens barrel stops this wave before it reaches the front. No, a bean bag resting in the place of the hand is not a good idea for many reasons.

Second - use an eyecup and press you eye against it! This again is another way to minimize or eliminate any vibration that might start with the taking of the photograph. If you can't remember to press against the eyecup like I did in the beginning, put a sticky note on the back of the camera to remind you.

Third - roll you finger when firing! Too many photographers poke at their shutter release to fire the camera, causing all sorts of unwanted movement. You want to rest your finger on the shutter release at all times and then slightly roll it unto the shutter release to actually fire the camera. This takes practice, but makes a big difference!

Fourth - practice, practice, practice! You can't expect to have this become second nature or remain second nature if you don't do it all the time. Whether shooting for real or just staying in shape, take the gear out and practice so you don't have to think about it when you're out shooting.

It's not just good long lens technique on a tripod that Dave (lxdesign) referred to. You can handhold a 300mm or 400mm but it takes practice to do it well. Little things like continuing to pan with the subject even after shooting, how you stand, pivoting the whole body, keeping shutter speeds into the 1/500 or higher range.

Most people start shooting with a 400mm or 500mm and complain that the lens is no-good etc, because the pics aren't sharp. Really, it's because they don't know how to use it. Or they're trying to shoot something 1/2 mile away thru dust and thermals and can't figure out why it's awful.

Great tips!! The second and third tips really help. I use an extended eye cup which helps when you are pressing your eye against it.

It's no replacement for a sturdy tripod but for a $1 you can't go wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLlJl7TbXTA

ah, ok. i'm pretty familiar with panning (have done it quite a bit) so that doesn't worry me, but the advice is good (plus, active VR corrects for this, no?). otherwise, i'd be worried about taking simple straight on shots with the blur. i have played with lenses in the 300-500mm range, and it's very easy to notice that if you even breathe with too much motion, the subject may even leave the frame entirely, let alone move enough to blur a little.

thanks for the advice everybody, this is turning into a great discussion.

ps: typing in "70-300 vr" in flickr gives some of the following results, which i think are stunning and very sharp and give enough evidence to show this lens is in fact not that bad.





if i can get photos like these, i will gladly settle for the 70-300vr. sadly it seems like the only thing keeping me from buying the lens at this point, and getting the 70-200mm or the 80-400mm is that they use 77mm filters, and all of my lenses are 77mm, whereas the 70-300vr is 67mm and i'll need to buy a new filter for it since i don't have that size yet.

http://vistek.ca/store/CameraFilters/22 ... -ring.aspx

Love this one...........................................
cheers

i think i have one of these laying around the house, that i got for like ~$8 or something. plus i won't be able to use the hoood.