OK, maybe this is an apples to oranges. I'll be honest and admit that family and friends will be a majority of my pictures. I have a D700 so far with a 24-70. I have two little ones that move fast and of course don't pose most of the time. The 24-70 is pretty chunky and of course I have to get pretty close to the kids. I was considering the 70 or 80-200 but I'm worried the physical size will limit me from using it. I'm sure you can get used to large lenses but I saw raves about the 135 and it's fast, smaller and seemingly very good to boot. I admit it, I am and will probably always be a casual enthusiast and want to be realistic about my uses, but getting the right shot is worth a bundle. The D700 allows me to get shots indoors I could never get before with DX cameras. Any of you try either or both of these for shooting people (non-studio) ?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
80-200 f/2.8 or 135mm f/2
- Thread starter Ben2e
- Start date
amorin
Well-known member
80(70)-200: large and heavy. Scary to some subjects. Relatively fast focusing.
135/2: smaller, slow focus speed, flares easily, reduced microcontrast.
My take: If you do not want to carry the big zoom, either a 180/2.8 (very sharp, not too flare prone) or 105/2 (sharper and faster to focus than 135. Better microcontrast too)
135/2: smaller, slow focus speed, flares easily, reduced microcontrast.
My take: If you do not want to carry the big zoom, either a 180/2.8 (very sharp, not too flare prone) or 105/2 (sharper and faster to focus than 135. Better microcontrast too)
svx94
Senior Member
The 135/2 is a portrait lens, and have limited application. And it is especially challenge to use on kids due to the slow AF.
80-200 range is the most useful to pair your 24-70.
80-200 range is the most useful to pair your 24-70.
deecee2
Member
Shooting in really dark places and not wanting to make everything underexposed ..
I chose the 135 2.0 I miss AF, but for what I paid, I get most bokeh for the buck.
First one is at 1/60 ISO 3200
Second one is at 1/80th ISO 5000
Maybe I could have made them just as well with a, 80-200.. but I doubt it.
I also have an 85 1.8 to have a bit wider field and this one is AF.
But for general daylight work, go for the 80-200 I would say.
D1X, D300, D700, and some weird glass, some super, but some plain weird but working stuff. ((14 2.8 Sig, 50 1.4 AF, 85 1.8 AF, 135 2.0 AI, 200 4.0 Ais, 300 2.8 Afi, Xenar 105 3.5, Tammy 90 2.5 macro MF, TC-20EII, SB900, Rokkor 50 3.5 Macro for bellows))
I chose the 135 2.0 I miss AF, but for what I paid, I get most bokeh for the buck.
First one is at 1/60 ISO 3200
Second one is at 1/80th ISO 5000
Maybe I could have made them just as well with a, 80-200.. but I doubt it.
I also have an 85 1.8 to have a bit wider field and this one is AF.
But for general daylight work, go for the 80-200 I would say.
D1X, D300, D700, and some weird glass, some super, but some plain weird but working stuff. ((14 2.8 Sig, 50 1.4 AF, 85 1.8 AF, 135 2.0 AI, 200 4.0 Ais, 300 2.8 Afi, Xenar 105 3.5, Tammy 90 2.5 macro MF, TC-20EII, SB900, Rokkor 50 3.5 Macro for bellows))
Fostereast
Leading Member
If kids are involved I'd go for speed and versatility. The 80-200 won't scare the kids, the young ones may try and touch the glass though.
That one seems much more reasonably priced than the 70-200. Not much smaller but the $600/700 price difference is substantial. I think I can do without the VR since I'm shooting mostly faster shutter speeds.
I do have a 50mm f/1.4 on order.
I did see the 180mm f/2.8 but it looked just as large as the 80-200 with no speed/price advantage. Sounds like an amazing lens though.
I do have a 50mm f/1.4 on order.
I did see the 180mm f/2.8 but it looked just as large as the 80-200 with no speed/price advantage. Sounds like an amazing lens though.
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
On my D3, the 135 has a severe front-focusing problem for near subjects. This reduces as the subject distance increases, so it can't be adjusted out with AF fine tuning (unless you can stay within a narrow range of subject distances).
For kids, it would be very challenging to say the least, without zoom capability. The 70-200 isn't terribly large and it handles nicely; you would become accustomed to it quickly.
I'd take the 135 f2 hands down over the 80-200 or even the 70-200. It has a way of rendering people that I've never seen on another lens, hairs appear tack sharp but skin, flat surfaces, are smoother, less blemished and seem to almost glow. It's kind of supernatural. closest lens I've ever seen to it is the 85 f1.4 and I like the 135 more.
Another great advananage is the blur you can get with the f2 and the defocus control really works. My kids often have distracting foregrounds and backgrounds and the defocus control helps a lot. It works well and is easy to use. Do note that it's effect is less pronounced on close foregrounds and backgrounds but as the distracting elements are further away from the plane of focus you'll find the defocus effect to be very pronounced and effective.
Get the 135, you'll never regret it.
Tom
Another great advananage is the blur you can get with the f2 and the defocus control really works. My kids often have distracting foregrounds and backgrounds and the defocus control helps a lot. It works well and is easy to use. Do note that it's effect is less pronounced on close foregrounds and backgrounds but as the distracting elements are further away from the plane of focus you'll find the defocus effect to be very pronounced and effective.
Get the 135, you'll never regret it.
Tom
Well that's a lot of stuff you got there, you want reach and flexibility, but not the bulk and weight. You like the size of the 135mm F/2.0 but not the fixed focal length. And you have the D700 which let's you get the shot at HIGH ISO's
IMHO the best lens for you is............105mm F/2.8 Micro VR
105mm on an FX sensor provides a relatively wide FOV, not too far from the 80mm wide end of the zoom and not too far from the 135mm end of the prime so you can comfortably crop the image to make it look like a 135mm or 150mm
The 105mm F/2.8 is very sharp wide open, 135mm F/2.0 is soft wide open and has a very thin DOF, added with the slow focusing will cause a lot of out-of focused shots. So you really need to stop it down to F/2.8 at which point you're better off with the 105mm F/2.8 since it is sharper, has AF-S for lazer fast focus acquisition and has VR which makes up for 2 stops. Finally you get to use it as a Micro lens, and it is a great portrait lens.
IMHO the best lens for you is............105mm F/2.8 Micro VR
105mm on an FX sensor provides a relatively wide FOV, not too far from the 80mm wide end of the zoom and not too far from the 135mm end of the prime so you can comfortably crop the image to make it look like a 135mm or 150mm
The 105mm F/2.8 is very sharp wide open, 135mm F/2.0 is soft wide open and has a very thin DOF, added with the slow focusing will cause a lot of out-of focused shots. So you really need to stop it down to F/2.8 at which point you're better off with the 105mm F/2.8 since it is sharper, has AF-S for lazer fast focus acquisition and has VR which makes up for 2 stops. Finally you get to use it as a Micro lens, and it is a great portrait lens.
Tom
That is absolutely true, but you know ( and probably have the scars to prove it), how difficult it is to master shooting thin DOF @ 135mm F/2.0 on an FX sensor PLUS using the DC feature.
I would say it takes at least one year with solid practice to really get the hang of it, and there is a lot of frustration along the way
The fact that you have mastered it with you kids is even more amazing since kids never stay still in the DOF area to get the shot.
That is absolutely true, but you know ( and probably have the scars to prove it), how difficult it is to master shooting thin DOF @ 135mm F/2.0 on an FX sensor PLUS using the DC feature.
I would say it takes at least one year with solid practice to really get the hang of it, and there is a lot of frustration along the way
The fact that you have mastered it with you kids is even more amazing since kids never stay still in the DOF area to get the shot.
Yep, aligning lenses. lucky mine was perfect out of the box. But I don't use f2 too often. usually f2.4 and up and I find it's very sharp at f2.8 where many of it's competitors aren't as sharp.
Actually I found it very easy to learn quickly. What really helped was someone posted the patent for this lens. Reading that I realized that essentially what happens is the falloff of depth of field sharpness is accelerated.I would say it takes at least one year with solid practice to really
get the hang of it, and there is a lot of frustration along the way
I think the reason most people think it's a subtle effect is they are placing an object only a meter or so in front or back of the plan of focus, shooting, and then looking for a big change. They won't see it. Put the object 3 meters back, shoot with and without defocus and you'll see an enormous difference. Once that's understood I think anyone can make use of the defocus ability very quickly.
Basically if you want a very blurry, very soft background then move your main object away from what you want blurred, or position yourself to achieve the same, set the defocus for front or back depending on what you really want to be blurred, I use front for Tae Kwan Do shots with lots of people between me and my subject, as per Nikon's instructions and fire away. Works every time for me.
Tom
It's really just about anticipating the shot and putting myself into the right position to shoot it. They are unpredictable but I find the focus is fast enough that I can be close from the start and that's all it takes.
Forgot to mention one other point for the OP. I think there'll be a replacement for the 70-200/80-200 within the year. I don't think we'll ever see Nikon or anyone making defocus lenses again. I'm holding onto mine.
Have both the 135f2dc and 105VR, two different lenses, the 135f2DC handles skin tones much more gracefully than the 105VR. The 105VR is clinically sharper and has more contrast. The 135f2dc also hunts less than the 105VR (macro lens) and locks focus quicker. Both are very good lenses..different horse for a different course.
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
M Katz
Leading Member
Would you mind posting some of your Tae Kwan Do shots? I have long wanted to see the DC feature used in a real life application, and not just test/comparison shots of the DC set to neutral and to some other setting, which is what i normally find online.
Wow, First time I hear the 105mm Micro VR hunts, does it hunt as a telephoto or as a micro?
My 200mm F/4 AF Micro will hunt on micro use, but as a telephoto, it nails it everytime, although slowly b/c it is not af-s
My 200mm F/4 AF Micro will hunt on micro use, but as a telephoto, it nails it everytime, although slowly b/c it is not af-s
Paul Pasco
Forum Pro
Not true, the 180 is 145mm long and weighs 766 grams and the 80-200 is 187mm long and 1300 grams. Price-wise the 180 goes for about $600 used and the 80-200 about $800 used at KEH. At B&H they cost within a $100 of each other new. Also check out the Sigma 150 2.8 macro at B&H for $670, but beware that it may hunt in low light.
Regards, Paul
--
Lili's Dad
Hunts more in the non- macro range (depending on the light level). I guess I should use the limit switch....that's why Nikon included it. I think it is a very good lens and I think all macro lenses hunt a bit.
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum