Which Telephoto Zoom?

All,

I am really in need of a telephoto zoom - at this point I have the 18-70MM kit lens and the 50MM 1.8. My problem is trying to decide which lens will be right for the type of shooting I will do and will provide the right value.

I take the following types of photos most commonly:

• Indoor photos of my children in sports and dance events - so low light performance will be important
• Outdoor photos of sporting events, including alot of waterskiing
• Portraits

Trying to decide between the 18-200VR, the 70-200VR or the Sigma 70-00 2.8

I love the reviews of the 70-200VR and I have been leaning that way but I just wonder if the extra nearly $1,000 dollars is worth it and if I will get extra value out if given the type of photos I will be taking. In fact the cost difference is even greater when you figure that I could see the 18-70MM kit lens if I choose to go with the 18-200VR

Thoughts?

No hands on use, but everything I have read says the 70-200VR is the best thing money can buy. It's a pro lense and you will probably have it for a long time. If you have the money, buy it. I am sure you will have no regrets.

Mad_Footer said:

All,

I am really in need of a telephoto zoom - at this point I have the
18-70MM kit lens and the 50MM 1.8. My problem is trying to decide
which lens will be right for the type of shooting I will do and
will provide the right value.

I take the following types of photos most commonly:

• Indoor photos of my children in sports and dance events - so low

light performance will be important

Click to expand...

This eliminates the 18-200 VR. Anything moving indoors in low light is too fast for a lens with f/3.5-f/5.6 at 18-200. The VR won't help you with subject movement.

Mad_Footer said:

• Outdoor photos of sporting events, including alot of waterskiing
• Portraits

Trying to decide between the 18-200VR, the 70-200VR or the Sigma
70-00 2.8

I love the reviews of the 70-200VR and I have been leaning that way
but I just wonder if the extra nearly $1,000 dollars is worth it
and if I will get extra value out if given the type of photos I
will be taking. In fact the cost difference is even greater when
you figure that I could see the 18-70MM kit lens if I choose to go
with the 18-200VR

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The 18-200 VR is out if you want indoors with low light and moving subjects. If you get the 70-200VR, you will never be sorry. The VR lens will help you get stuff like school plays and stuff where the shutter speed drops down to 1/60 or 1/80. The Sigma won't get you that, but it's a sharp lens though.

--
See if you can help someone in a forum today!

D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

You might consider the Nikon (or Sigma for $100 less) 70-200 2.8 for half the price of the Nikon VR

The 18-200 VR is not really an option for low light with a max aperture of 3.5. This leaves the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR. The VR is the biggest difference between the two as they are both optically spectacular (with a slight edge given to the Nikkor). VR will help you with camera shake issues but make sure you understand that it wont help you stop action in low light. I chose the Sigma and have been very happy with it. That being said, I have to admit that I would have gotten the Nikkor if cost was not an issue. The Nikkor is one of the best lenses ever made but I couldnt justify spending an extra $1000 for VR.
--
...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Please check out my gallery at http://shutterpuck.smugmug.com

Keep in mind that the fast zooms tend to be on the heavy side. Make sure you try one at the store before you commit to lugging it around. A monopod can help ease the burden.

I think I'll be getting an 85f1.8 or 85f1.4 for indoor low light action shots such as basketball (50 just isn't enough). If that doesn't work then I'll consider a fast zoom.

Can't beat the sharpness with sports shooting...





and the VR is awesome for indoors low-light stuff. Just to see how slow I could go, I hand-held this shot at 1/6s.



You'll love it, but it is on the heavy side. A monopod will help.

--
Jim Mullen
Galleries located at:
http://www.pbase.com/jmullen

I lust for the 70-200VR. Everything I've read and seen about it is fantastic. That being said, I own the Nikon 80-200 2.8. I couldn't afford the extra $1,000 for the 70-200 VR, so compromised. The 80-200 is great lens and I think takes just as sharp pictures as the 70-200VR. Its a fast lens, with 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range. So the 2.8 will get decent shutter speeds. The problem is when you want more DOF but can't sacrifice the shutter speed. You can't beat VR. I've never owned a VR lens, but I have had many photos spoiled by camera shake. I wish I could own the VR, but when it comes time to upgrade I think I'm going for a Nikkor prime between 300-500 with VR.

If you've got the cash, I say the 70-200VR. If you don't have that cash, look into the 80-200 2.8. Great quality pro glass for the money.



--
D50
80-200 f/2.8
http://skypilot.smugmug.com/

Do you have any photo examples where there are people on the stage in that low light situation. I think that is what the other posters are saying. The 18-200VR cannot handle low light photos where subject movement is an issue.

Jo

Mad_Footer said:

All,

I am really in need of a telephoto zoom - at this point I have the
18-70MM kit lens and the 50MM 1.8. My problem is trying to decide
which lens will be right for the type of shooting I will do and
will provide the right value.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you need the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR, Not cheap, But it is a fantastic choice.

Mad_Footer said:

I take the following types of photos most commonly:

• Indoor photos of my children in sports and dance events - so low

light performance will be important

• Outdoor photos of sporting events, including alot of waterskiing
• Portraits

Trying to decide between the 18-200VR, the 70-200VR or the Sigma
70-00 2.8

I love the reviews of the 70-200VR and I have been leaning that way
but I just wonder if the extra nearly $1,000 dollars is worth it
and if I will get extra value out if given the type of photos I
will be taking. In fact the cost difference is even greater when
you figure that I could see the 18-70MM kit lens if I choose to go
with the 18-200VR

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

No, the VR will not help you with motion blur, only camera shake. It will help to a degree if you are panning with a subject, but the subject's motion will still be visible. That's just a funtion of shutter speed and you can't get away from that.

Jo4321 said:

Do you have any photo examples where there are people on the stage
in that low light situation. I think that is what the other
posters are saying. The 18-200VR cannot handle low light photos
where subject movement is an issue.

Jo

Click to expand...

--
Jim Mullen
Galleries located at:
http://www.pbase.com/jmullen

jmullen said:

No, the VR will not help you with motion blur, only camera shake.
It will help to a degree if you are panning with a subject, but the
subject's motion will still be visible. That's just a funtion of
shutter speed and you can't get away from that.

Click to expand...

Seeing that the 70-200 VR is a 2.8 lens you can get a faster shutter speed to help reduce Motion Blur than say using a 70-300 3.5 lens.

jmullen said:

Jo4321 said:

Do you have any photo examples where there are people on the stage
in that low light situation. I think that is what the other
posters are saying. The 18-200VR cannot handle low light photos
where subject movement is an issue.

Jo

Click to expand...

--
Jim Mullen
Galleries located at:
http://www.pbase.com/jmullen

Click to expand...

--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

Bill Karadimos said:

jmullen said:

No, the VR will not help you with motion blur, only camera shake.
It will help to a degree if you are panning with a subject, but the
subject's motion will still be visible. That's just a funtion of
shutter speed and you can't get away from that.

Click to expand...

Seeing that the 70-200 VR is a 2.8 lens you can get a faster
shutter speed to help reduce Motion Blur than say using a 70-300
3.5 lens.

Click to expand...

Yes, slightly. But the point was that if you're shooting indoors in low light, you will probably be shooting wide open at slow shutter speed. Given that, the VR will help calm camera shake but it won't help motion blur of the subjects.

--
Jim Mullen
Galleries located at:
http://www.pbase.com/jmullen