Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 80-200mm 2.8D ED or 18-200mm VR?

Go to last post
G

Goonnay

Active member
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
Location
Buffalo, NY, US
I'm having trouble deciding on a future lens. I was set on purchasing the 80-200mm for its 2.8 aperture, for concert photographs, stand up photographs, and poor lighting in gymnastics meets or sporting events.

But I'm not familiar with vibration reduction, but the lightness of the the new VR lens. I hope someone can clear things up or maybe open up some ideas on what to look at.

Thanks!
 
One thing to keep in mind, VR can steady any of YOUR movement, but slow shutter speeds and moving subjects don't mix. For that, there is no substitute for fast glass.

Also, the 18-200mm is an Amateur Photographer level, and the 80-200mm is a Pro level lens. The build quality and the image quality show the difference, and you'll apprecaite it more as your own skill and eye progresses.

Personally, I'd pick up a used 80-200mm unless you're doing low light still life. I've seen the 80-200mm f2.8 go from $400-700 depending on model (vintage) and condition.
Goonnay said:
I'm having trouble deciding on a future lens. I was set on
purchasing the 80-200mm for its 2.8 aperture, for concert
photographs, stand up photographs, and poor lighting in gymnastics
meets or sporting events.

But I'm not familiar with vibration reduction, but the lightness of
the the new VR lens. I hope someone can clear things up or maybe
open up some ideas on what to look at.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
The Lonely Raven

Jack of all Trades,
Master of None
 
Lonely Raven wrote:
...
Lonely Raven said:
Personally, I'd pick up a used 80-200mm unless you're doing low
light still life. I've seen the 80-200mm f2.8 go from $400-700
depending on model (vintage) and condition.
Click to expand...
Are you guys confusing the 80-200 f/2.8 with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ?
 
The main question you want to ask is how much weight you want to carry.

The 80-200 is much bigger and heavier than the 18-200. The 80-200 will have better image quality and will allow you to isolate a subject more effectively (because of the F2.8) but the 18-200 is much better as a general purpose "walkaround" lens. And 99% of the people who look at photos by both won't really be able to tell the difference.
 
You might also want to look into the 135mm prime. You can pick one up used for about 600 dollars.
Goonnay said:
I'm having trouble deciding on a future lens. I was set on
purchasing the 80-200mm for its 2.8 aperture, for concert
photographs, stand up photographs, and poor lighting in gymnastics
meets or sporting events.
Click to expand...
 
I have both the 80-200 f/2.8D and the 24-120 VR (which is similar, but not identical to the 18-200 VR, so you milage may vary).

Everything that Lonely Raven said is pretty much correct, but you may also want to consider the camera(s) you use as well. The 18-200 VR is a DX lens, meaning you can't use it on film cameras, which may be an issue down the road.

Also, I found that my D70 was a bit slow focusing the 80-200 (which is not an AF-S lens), while the 24-120 does focus quick (with AF-S and SWM). However if your camera is an F5 or D200, I found those cameras would throw the focus around on the 80-200 very quickly indeed, so that may be a factor as well.

My 24-120 VR was my main walking around lens for a while, however I found it wasn't as sharp as my other lenses, so now it's been largely replaced with an old 35-70 f/2.8 which I picked up used very cheaply. Having those extra stops makes a fair bit of difference in lots of shooting conditions.
 
135mm prime?

Would that be a fixed distance? How are the f stops? Or it doesn't matter for this special lens?

I wish I had a lens library at school, so I could try them to my comfort.
 
Ah I'm working with a D70, but go to a D200 within the next years.

I'm wodnering if it's my tecnnique involved during these events. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Or I always have to work at 1600 iso and get rid of the noise. If only I could capture things in every light situation, or maybe I can.

I have a 50mm 1.8, and 18-70mm DX. I'm considering getting rid of the Sigma 70-200mm APO Macro lens too when I'm decide what to purchase.
 
Hi Goonnay

I don't pretend to show you perfect pictures because there is PLENTY of better photographers than me, anyway if you want to see the difference between WITH or WITHOUT VR, look here: I've just 18-200 you are looking for.

http://italy74.smugmug.com/gallery/1158478

I posted some pictures for all who are looking for the difference. Besides, the latest ones in the other gallery (core pictures) are done with VR ON, and without flash, so you can give them a look, they are done in low indoor daylight

--

Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.

http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos
 
srogouski said:
And 99% of the people who look at photos by both won't really be able
to tell the difference.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with this statement. I have tons of images that would tell me otherwise. I usually use the 80-200 from f3.2-f5.6. the 18-200 doesn't even get to these apertures unless it's wide open - and then it's not going to be sharp. The sharpness, bokeh, and distortion differences are going to be extensive.

put both lenses on tripods and take pictures of the same person from the same distance at 200mm f5.6 and I bet almost 99% of people could see an image difference in a printed 8x10.

They are 2 different lenses for 2 different uses.
11x VR zoom for travel/snapshots.
2.5x zoom for great image quality.

Ian
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

 
For concert photography your really going to need both VR and the faster aperture - or - a shorter focal length.

Seriously, in darker environments like a concert even the 80-200 at f2.8 probably isn't going to give you the shutter speeds you need to get a steady shot. - but, on the other hand the 18-200 at f5.6 isn't going to give you the shutter speeds you need even with VR as you will likely get a lot of subject movement (1/30-1/50th of a second isn't going to do well with a moving subject).

the 50's, 85's, 105 f2, 135 f2, - or the big daddy 70-200.

your really going to need the faster apertures and higher ISO's to get the results your after.

Ian

The 80-200 would probably be good for you - especially with a monopod. And it would be a huge step up from your 70-300. But, at concerts you will likely still struggle with it.
--
http://www.ianz28.smugmug.com

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top