 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Lens choice
Hi everyone, I'm considering buying a mid-range telephoto lens for my Nikon D70s. I have already had the kit lens (18-70mm f/3.5-4.5) and a normal prime (50mm f/1.8). The lenses I'm considering are: AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 AF 85mm f/1.8 I've heard that the optical performance of 70-200 and 80-200 are quite similar, so I'm just wondering whether it is worthwhile spending a lot more on the 70-200 for the VR feature. I also consider 85mm because I'm much into portrait photography and the lens is sharp and light-weight. So here are my several questions: 1. Is it unnecessary to own a 85mm f/1.8 if I want to have a 70-200 or 80-200? How's the optical performance of the prime vs. the zoom? 2. Is 70-200 or 80-200 not suitable for people who travel a lot? I heard that both are built like a tank and weighed like a tank too! 3. Choice between 70-200 and 80-200? 4. As I'm based in UK, any idea where is the best place to buy the lenses? Is it sensible to buy them through online dealer based on US, such as Adorama and B&H? Any opinion would be very much appreciated! Thanks! Jun  SignatureJun Liu Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester United Kingdom 85mm is like 127mm on a D70 which may be too long for portrait work, I don't know. The main advantage is the extra stop of light & shallow DOF if you want that sliver thin DOF look. But you have that with the 50. The 70-200VR is about the size & weight of a good sized water bottle. The VR is really handy though if you don't like to mess with a tripod. > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Jun > SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com Thanks Paul. I thought 85mm may give me more distance away so that the subject could feel more comfortable (well most of us will feel nervous in front of the camera aren't we?). But maybe 50mm will do the work of DOF and I can save money for 70-200 VR, which is also very good for portrait work I guess. Thanks again. Jun > 85mm is like 127mm on a D70 which may be too long for portrait work, I > don't know. The main advantage is the extra stop of light & shallow DOF [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> Jun >> SignatureJun Liu Advanced Interfaces Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester United Kingdom > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Any opinion would be very much appreciated! Thanks! www.ajpurdy.co.uk www.warehouseexpress.com Thanks Ian. The price is still very high compared to that in USA. Has anyone tried buying lenses from US? Will there be much trouble concerning import tax and (more importantly) warranty? Thanks Jun > www.ajpurdy.co.uk > www.warehouseexpress.com > Thanks Ian. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > www.ajpurdy.co.uk > > www.warehouseexpress.com Just my vote for AJ Purdy too, ordered an out of stock lens 22 Dec am, very communicative emails from AJ Purdy letting me know progress, lens arrived 23rd Dec. Very Pleased. Don't forget on the US stuff to allow for import duties, vat and pricy shipping. SignatureJon B real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com > I've heard that the optical performance of 70-200 and 80-200 are quite > similar, so I'm just wondering whether it is worthwhile spending a lot more > on the 70-200 for the VR feature. The 70-200 is an amazingly good lens, and the VR is definitely a great thing. The only (minor) tradeoff is that the lens is so big you'll need a trailer to tow it behind your car. But, once you use it, you won't care about that. > 1. Is it unnecessary to own a 85mm f/1.8 if I want to have a 70-200 or > 80-200? How's the optical performance of the prime vs. the zoom? I think the 70-200 will beat the 85/1.8 in quality. Probably the only real reason to add the 85/1.8 would be for the size advantage; that honking big zoom could be intimidating to a model. :) Now, the 85/1.4 is another story. The 70-200 is one of the best lenses around, but the 85/1.4 is even better. You won't find anything better, in any brand. > 2. Is 70-200 or 80-200 not suitable for people who travel a lot? I heard > that both are built like a tank and weighed like a tank too! I haven't held the 80-200, but I have the 70-200, and, well, like I said, once you use it, you won't care much about that. It'll get packed first, with other things fitting in as they can. But then, that's how I travel anyway; camera stuff is first, and then whatever else I can fit. Yes, the lens is pretty epic in its scale, but it's so nice. > 3. Choice between 70-200 and 80-200? If you go for the 70-200, there won't be anything out there that you'll ever wonder if you should have gotten instead. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com Thanks Jeremy. I think 70-200 is surely a great lens, no doubt. My only concern would be its price and size, both of which are of professional standard. Actually I'm only a zealous amateur who likes travelling and do street photography (I particularly like photographing people on their own without knowing a camera pointing at them). The 85mm f/1.8 is very attractive for its size and the low price, but its quite a dedicated "portrait lens" which is not so versatile as the 70-200. You mention that "70-200 will beat the 85/1.8 in quality". By quality you mean image quality or build quality? I really like shallow DoF when doing portrait but is 70-200's bokeh any good compared to 85mm? Thanks! Jun >> I've heard that the optical performance of 70-200 and 80-200 are quite >> similar, so I'm just wondering whether it is worthwhile spending a lot [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If you go for the 70-200, there won't be anything out there that you'll > ever wonder if you should have gotten instead. SignatureJun Liu Advanced Interfaces Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester United Kingdom > Actually I'm only a zealous amateur who likes travelling and do street > photography (I particularly like photographing people on their own without > knowing a camera pointing at them). The 70-200 is not exactly inconspicuous. But then, the 80-200 wouldn't be, either. > You mention that "70-200 will beat the 85/1.8 in quality". By quality you > mean image quality or build quality? I was speaking of image quality, but the build quality of the 70-200 is top notch as well. > I really like shallow DoF when doing portrait but is 70-200's bokeh any > good compared to 85mm? Oh, yes. The 70-200's bokeh is about as good as it gets. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >The 70-200 is an amazingly good lens, and the VR is definitely a great thing. >The only (minor) tradeoff is that the lens is so big you'll need a trailer >to tow it behind your car. But, once you use it, you won't care about that. Big? Yes. But need a trailer? No, that's for the 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor! First to carry the money to pay for it, then to carry it home.....drool...drool... >> 3. Choice between 70-200 and 80-200? > >If you go for the 70-200, there won't be anything out there that you'll >ever wonder if you should have gotten instead. Besides the VR, it's also faster focusing as it's an AF-S. I love mine. SignatureEd Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 >AF 85mm f/1.8 I use both the 80-200mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f1.8. I haven't really looked at the 70-200mm VR lense, but I would assume it has advantages over the 80-200mm that are worth having. >I've heard that the optical performance of 70-200 and 80-200 are quite >similar, so I'm just wondering whether it is worthwhile spending a lot more >on the 70-200 for the VR feature. How much do you like using a tripod? If you are basically addicted to one and don't mind it, go for the 80-200mm, particularly if price is an issue. If you are annoyed every time you have to use a tripod, or worse yet if you basically don't every use one, the 70-200mm VR will make you a lot happier. >I also consider 85mm because I'm much >into portrait photography and the lens is sharp and light-weight. So here >are my several questions: > >1. Is it unnecessary to own a 85mm f/1.8 if I want to have a 70-200 or >80-200? How's the optical performance of the prime vs. the zoom? Unnecessary? Probably. But the only thing I'd trade my 85mm f/1.8 for is an 85mm f/1.4. It is light, it focuses fast and accurately (most of the time), it has good bokeh and is just easy to use on or off a tripod. The 80-200mm will make your arm strong if you don't put it on a tripod. At f/2.8 the zoom isn't quite as fast as the f/1.8, doesn't have as narrow a depth of field, nor is it as sharp wide open. At 80mm it is slightly wider than the 85mm, and both of them are more than just slightly longer than is optimum for portraits. I don't know of a great 60-70mm portrait lense in a Nikon mount, so the 85mm f/1.4 and then the f/1.8, in that order, seem to be the best. >2. Is 70-200 or 80-200 not suitable for people who travel a lot? I heard >that both are built like a tank and weighed like a tank too! Good description. >3. Choice between 70-200 and 80-200? See above comments. >4. As I'm based in UK, any idea where is the best place to buy the lenses? >Is it sensible to buy them through online dealer based on US, such as >Adorama and B&H? I would think so. EBay and used lenses are another option, but of course that requires courage when buying pricey items. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Hi Jun: > Hi everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 > AF 85mm f/1.8 I have used all these 3 lenses and still own them and here are my thoughts. I am also assuming that the 80-200 you mention here is the non-AFS ED version and not the AFS version that is discontinued. > I've heard that the optical performance of 70-200 and 80-200 are quite > similar, so I'm just wondering whether it is worthwhile spending a lot more > on the 70-200 for the VR feature. I also consider 85mm because I'm much > into portrait photography and the lens is sharp and light-weight. So here > are my several questions: On the optical performance front, the 70-200 is a little better than the 80-200. To be more precise, in my opinion sharpness is the same but the 70-200 bokeh is better. The operations of the 70-200 is also better thanks to the AFS (giving you faster AF). The 70-200 AFS also feels faster and quieter than the AFS of the 80-200AFS lens. Having said that, the 80-200 is still a top performer for me, especially considering it is half the price of the 70-200. > 1. Is it unnecessary to own a 85mm f/1.8 if I want to have a 70-200 or > 80-200? How's the optical performance of the prime vs. the zoom? There is no optical difference between the 85/1.8 and the 80-200. Again, the 70-200 has a better bokeh. As people have already mentioned, the lens with a better bokeh is the 85/1.4. > 2. Is 70-200 or 80-200 not suitable for people who travel a lot? I heard > that both are built like a tank and weighed like a tank too! The 70-200 and the 80-200 are almost of the same size and weight (give or take 10%). Yes, they are built like a tank but I never mind taking them with me. I used to think that taking the lighter and smaller 70-300ED with me to travel was a better choice (also because I get more range), but once I tried the 80-200 and saw the differences in the resulting photographs, I felt like beating myself for being so foolish about a few ounces of weight savings. > 3. Choice between 70-200 and 80-200? simple: if you want to save money, you will be so happy with the 80-200... if you can afford the 70-200, you will feel so good for spending that extra money! I used the 80-200 for years. One day, I went to the store and the owner told me I could try out the 70-200 and return it with a full refund within 2 weeks or trade in my 80-200 within 2 weeks. Well, I kept both. I travel with the 80-200 (it's just a little bit more compact and looks less like a weapon so it's my preferred lens to carry around with my D100) ... I use the 70-200 for more serious shots (sports and portraits) with my D2H. this also applies to the 85mm: I am very happy with my 85/1.8 ... if money is not a problem, go with the 85/1.4 (I have both: http://www.pbase.com/cvanlang/photo_gears ) here is my recommendation: buy the 80-200 and get yourself comfortable with this optical range... as the 80-200 holds its value quite well, when you think you need the AFS speed and the VR feature of the 70-200, upgrade it... Be careful, you may end up keeping both like me ! > 4. As I'm based in UK, any idea where is the best place to buy the lenses? > Is it sensible to buy them through online dealer based on US, such as > Adorama and B&H? I cant help you here because I am in the US. > Any opinion would be very much appreciated! Thanks! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > University of Manchester > United Kingdom ps. I come to Manchester once a while.... may be you can tell me where to hile for nice nature photography. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.