This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Another boring gear question, I am looking to replace old and battered 80-200 2.8 zoom. Top of my list would be the 70-200 2.8 vr but this costs shit loads, the other end of the scale is just get a 180mm prime but this would be limiting for climbing shots. Also is af-s worth having? any thoughts or experiances on this would be helpfull, No buy yourself a cannon comments pleeeese.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Don't bother Jethro. It weighs a bomb. Would you really fancy carring that up the hill every time. I've just got an 70-300 (about £130 incl. filter), and it's incredibly light. Let's face it how often do you use a tele lens. A wide angle always looks more impressive. Reviews have criticised the noise of the motor but thats not a concern in climbing. Try one out and take it from there.
Don't bother Jethro. It weighs a bomb. Would you really fancy carring that up the hill every time. I've just got an 70-300 (about £130 incl. filter), and it's incredibly light. Let's face it how often do you use a tele lens. A wide angle always looks more impressive. Reviews have criticised the noise of the motor but thats not a concern in climbing. Try one out and take it from there.
In reply to Sean Kelly:
!!!!
> Let's face it how often do you use a tele lens. A wide angle always looks more impressive.
!!!!
In reply to Tim, the Grey: That is the route I might take but I have used vr before and it does work, but another £500+!! weight within reason isnt an issue picture quality is more important and the abilty to take a bit of abuse.
well there's the Nikon 80-200mm AF-S. It has the focal length you're used to, is much cheaper than the 70-200mm, but obviously as they dont make it then you need to find one secondhand. Of course the current 80-200mm is great but doesn't come with AFS. The AF-S makes it slightly quicker to focus (10-20% or something in that order?) so obviously you need to decide if you need fast focussing.
i'd just get a new 80-200mm AF-D, you can get them fairly cheaply on ebay. I remember seeing it in a local shop at £750, so about 500 on ebay or something?
i'd just get a new 80-200mm AF-D, you can get them fairly cheaply on ebay. I remember seeing it in a local shop at £750, so about 500 on ebay or something?
In reply to Richard Carter: I am looking for an af-s on ebay at the moment as I want the option of using a 1.4x teleconverter I am trying to avoid the mistake of getting stuff that isnt future proof.
yeah sounds like a good plan to me
In reply to Richard Carter:
Spot on Richard - I just got a new 80-200mm AF-D on eBay - for £499.
Great lens, great shots -
http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=18585&month=3&year=2007
but it does weigh a ton. Would have loved the VR too, but another £500 put it out of my league.
Bri.
Spot on Richard - I just got a new 80-200mm AF-D on eBay - for £499.
Great lens, great shots -
http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=18585&month=3&year=2007
but it does weigh a ton. Would have loved the VR too, but another £500 put it out of my league.
Bri.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
How about the Sigma f2.8 equivalent? A very good lens (I don't have one but know someone who does) about 95% of the quality of the Nikon lens for £680, i.e. £500 less than the admittedly excellent Nikon VR.
I too would love the latter but may have to settle for the Sigma
boB
How about the Sigma f2.8 equivalent? A very good lens (I don't have one but know someone who does) about 95% of the quality of the Nikon lens for £680, i.e. £500 less than the admittedly excellent Nikon VR.
I too would love the latter but may have to settle for the Sigma
boB
In reply to jethro kiernan:
I have the Sigma F2.8 70-200mm Lens and its great, and as others have said a fraction of the price of the Nikon one.
I have the Sigma F2.8 70-200mm Lens and its great, and as others have said a fraction of the price of the Nikon one.
In reply to jethro kiernan: Having used the nikon 80-200 in various guises during it life here's me 2 pence worth.
the origional push pull lens the 80-200 af was sharper than the replacement two barrell twist-to-zoom AFD ED but the Af was about the same, crap.
The *take deep breath* Nikon 80-200 AFS-D ED 2.8 is heavier than the newer 70-200 VR but has a faster focusing response in my opnion, a fraction more. It's fatter and fits my hands better.
Since we've had a 300 2.8 VR Lens in the office, we've never made use of it's wonderfull vibration response. Whats the point of shooting a moving subject at a very slow shutter speed.
A good ASF on ebay, I got one for 550.
the origional push pull lens the 80-200 af was sharper than the replacement two barrell twist-to-zoom AFD ED but the Af was about the same, crap.
The *take deep breath* Nikon 80-200 AFS-D ED 2.8 is heavier than the newer 70-200 VR but has a faster focusing response in my opnion, a fraction more. It's fatter and fits my hands better.
Since we've had a 300 2.8 VR Lens in the office, we've never made use of it's wonderfull vibration response. Whats the point of shooting a moving subject at a very slow shutter speed.
A good ASF on ebay, I got one for 550.
In reply to Mike Simmonds:
Another option you might want to consider is the Sigma 50-150/ 2.8. On a Nikon D, gives a 35mm equivalent of 75-225. Much smaller than the big Nikon zooms, and gives a more useful short end. Has sigma's version of AF-S, very fast and accurate. £450 new, balances very well on a D200. Mine at least is very sharp, certainly out-performs the D200 sensor.
If you really think you'll need a 300mm equiv - add a 1.4x (the sigma ones are tiny), only downside is obviously loss of s stop. But at 300mm its still plenty wide enough to give seperation from the background.
Can't understand why folk cart around massive glass to cover a 35mm image circle they don't need.
Another option you might want to consider is the Sigma 50-150/ 2.8. On a Nikon D, gives a 35mm equivalent of 75-225. Much smaller than the big Nikon zooms, and gives a more useful short end. Has sigma's version of AF-S, very fast and accurate. £450 new, balances very well on a D200. Mine at least is very sharp, certainly out-performs the D200 sensor.
If you really think you'll need a 300mm equiv - add a 1.4x (the sigma ones are tiny), only downside is obviously loss of s stop. But at 300mm its still plenty wide enough to give seperation from the background.
Can't understand why folk cart around massive glass to cover a 35mm image circle they don't need.
In reply to jethro kiernan: Cheers for the thoughts something to think about.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
If you're looking for the af-s lens, is it worth bothering with ebay? They're selling for £650-700 new...
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod151.html
J
If you're looking for the af-s lens, is it worth bothering with ebay? They're selling for £650-700 new...
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod151.html
J
In reply to Adam L: The long glass it really required trust me, dispite the weight I usually shoot ISO 1250 which gets me 650th @ 2.8 and i'm between 1/3 and a whole stop under when shooting night football. Nothing else that's up towards the 400mm length will give those shutter speeds.
But for those without a back problem smaller is allways better.
But for those without a back problem smaller is allways better.
In reply to jethro kiernan: Get an old 80-2002.8, either afs, or afd ed even.Dont bother with the 70-200 afs vr, its a piece of sh*t IMHO..
In reply to Barry Chocolate: interesting, glad i'm not alone. Our staff prefer the Older AFS and AFS2 lenses to the brand spanking VR when it comes to sport.
In reply to Mike Simmonds: Yeah, were defo not alone, a few other guys on the paper aswell, they would love to have the old 80-200's back.the 70-200 is way too slow in the focus department(compared to the 80) and just not as pin as the older lenses.
come on nikon, get yer act together..
btw Mike, nice site, some great images on there..
Are you press based?
come on nikon, get yer act together..
btw Mike, nice site, some great images on there..
Are you press based?
In reply to Mike Simmonds:
Hi Mike, reply was aimed at Jethro really, ballsed up again!
Sure, if I was shooting football I'd want the fastest, sharpest lens too. Have you had chance to try a 200/2?
For climbing, though, its pretty rare to go over 200mm, and action rarely requires high speed focus or shutter. The 50-150 is a lot smaller than an 80-200, nicer to lug around, and still f2.8
To be honest I'm suprised Canon and Nikon haven't brought out more digital-only lenses. Looking at the Olympus E-system, there are some really nice compact, fast tele lenses taking advantage of the smaller image circle. Pity they can't get it together to bring out a body worth mounting them on...
Hi Mike, reply was aimed at Jethro really, ballsed up again!
Sure, if I was shooting football I'd want the fastest, sharpest lens too. Have you had chance to try a 200/2?
For climbing, though, its pretty rare to go over 200mm, and action rarely requires high speed focus or shutter. The 50-150 is a lot smaller than an 80-200, nicer to lug around, and still f2.8
To be honest I'm suprised Canon and Nikon haven't brought out more digital-only lenses. Looking at the Olympus E-system, there are some really nice compact, fast tele lenses taking advantage of the smaller image circle. Pity they can't get it together to bring out a body worth mounting them on...
In reply to jethro kiernan: Thanks guys looks like I will be saving myself some money by not getting the vr version of the lens. I have thought about the sigma lens but I have had a few sigma lenses and I dont have a 100% confidence in them, I bought the sigma 18-50 2.8 and know in the back of my mind that I really wanted the nikon version.
In reply to orge: Cheers for the link looks like a usefull site, when you follow the links there all for the non afs version. I am more interested in the afs just because I want to get the 1.4x teleconverter some time and they only make an afs version at the moment.
In reply to Barry Chocolate:
"Dont bother with the 70-200 afs vr, its a piece of sh*t IMHO.. "
lol! well you don't beat about that bush do you :-P
personally i think its up there with the best in terms of durability and performance. perhaps yours was faulty
"Dont bother with the 70-200 afs vr, its a piece of sh*t IMHO.. "
lol! well you don't beat about that bush do you :-P
personally i think its up there with the best in terms of durability and performance. perhaps yours was faulty
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Like I said they don't make the AF-S version anymore I think. Not to worry though the af-d is almost as fast and cheaper than the AF-S was
Guess you need to find a seconhand 80-200 AF-S or save up for the 70-200mm if you need AF-S
Like I said they don't make the AF-S version anymore I think. Not to worry though the af-d is almost as fast and cheaper than the AF-S was
Guess you need to find a seconhand 80-200 AF-S or save up for the 70-200mm if you need AF-S
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Just out of curiosity, I compared the focusing times of the 70-200 af-s and 80-200 af-s and the 70-200 was quicker. the build of the newer lens seems to me to be better (more metal) so I was wondering how come you guys don't like it?
Just out of curiosity, I compared the focusing times of the 70-200 af-s and 80-200 af-s and the 70-200 was quicker. the build of the newer lens seems to me to be better (more metal) so I was wondering how come you guys don't like it?
In reply to jethro kiernan: I felt the low light and Low contrast performance not a reactive or accurate. nikon's a very very bad at low contrast AF compared with Canon and i felt that the 70 didn't hit the mark as fast or as reylably as the 80.
In reply to Richard Carter:
perhaps yours was faulty
. perhaps yours was faulty
Try telling that to the many other photographers I know who have complained to their picture desks about the lens.(suppose you reckon it was a bad batch?)
Seriously, Im basing this on personal use aswell, using the 80-200afs for 4 years and the 70-200 for almost 3 years.IMHO my old lens was sharper and faster at focussing(esp moving subjects).
perhaps yours was faulty
. perhaps yours was faulty
Try telling that to the many other photographers I know who have complained to their picture desks about the lens.(suppose you reckon it was a bad batch?)
Seriously, Im basing this on personal use aswell, using the 80-200afs for 4 years and the 70-200 for almost 3 years.IMHO my old lens was sharper and faster at focussing(esp moving subjects).
In reply to jethro kiernan:
No problem. I wasn't totally certain they were the right lens, but thought I would post the link, just in case.
J
No problem. I wasn't totally certain they were the right lens, but thought I would post the link, just in case.
J
*shrug* dunno then.
But in my experiance the 70 is better, maybe mine are good ones?
But in my experiance the 70 is better, maybe mine are good ones?
In reply to Richard Carter: Thats cool mate, if you are happy and you are getting the results thats all that counts.Ive tried the lens on 4 different bodies with the same results.I still use the lens(its the only one ive got in that range at 2.8)but I treat it with caution..
Ive even tried manual focus during football games and its tough stuff.Man, those old school boys were damn good at their job! Respect!
Ive even tried manual focus during football games and its tough stuff.Man, those old school boys were damn good at their job! Respect!
In reply to jethro kiernan: I have the Nikon 180mm prime at f2.8. I looked at getting a zoom, but the weight of the zoom makes it a pain in low light, and restricts you so much more with the need for a tripod.
The prime is incredibly sharp too. I really rate the lens. Below are a couple of images I've taken with the lens, note the gull would certainly have been a lot more difficult to track with a heavy lens.
http://antarcticasphotos.fotopic.net/p39418279.html
http://antarcticasphotos.fotopic.net/p36657944.html
http://antarcticasphotos.fotopic.net/p39418284.html
The prime is incredibly sharp too. I really rate the lens. Below are a couple of images I've taken with the lens, note the gull would certainly have been a lot more difficult to track with a heavy lens.
http://antarcticasphotos.fotopic.net/p39418279.html
http://antarcticasphotos.fotopic.net/p36657944.html
http://antarcticasphotos.fotopic.net/p39418284.html
In reply to Matt_b: cheers matt like the pics by the way its still an option as I could get a 300mm and a 180mm for the price of a zoom and still have some change for a new tripod. A zoom is propably the way I would go I am already used to the weight of my old push/pull zoom and I dont think I would use 300mm that often hence the thinking behind a teleconverter.
In reply to jethro kiernan: I used to have the manual 180 ED,a great lens, supposedly one of Nikons sharpest ever! On slow slide film its magic, i heard the AF version is even better, i have not tried one on digi yet though, Btw, the 300f4,AF is surprisingly sharp on Dig, but the tripod foot is rubbish!
In reply to dek: cheers its all these little insights that really help.
In reply to dek & Jethro:
Kirk do replacement lens collars for the 300/4.
http://www.kirkphoto.com/lenscollars.html
The 180/2.8 is a great lens, but I'd still maintain on a nikon digi at 35mm equiv of 270mm it'll be too long for most climbing photography. Have you looked at the 135/2?
Kirk do replacement lens collars for the 300/4.
http://www.kirkphoto.com/lenscollars.html
The 180/2.8 is a great lens, but I'd still maintain on a nikon digi at 35mm equiv of 270mm it'll be too long for most climbing photography. Have you looked at the 135/2?
In reply to Adam L: Thanks very much for that!
In reply to Adam L: I have a 85mm which I have just got this gives me about 120mm on the digi. Its also turned me back on to the whole prime lens thing because it is so crisp and sharp, This lens is really usefull for those climber potrait type shots where you want to isolate the background. So I guess my next lens is going to be a proper telephoto ie up to 200mm. Are you up to much photographicaly at the moment not seen many new pics on here but seen a few in the mags.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
Yeah I'm a big fan of primes too. Bought a D200 back in December, a big culture change for me, up til then was shooting almost solely with OM-system, pretty much all primes. My favourite lens was a Zuiko macro 90/2, similar to yours. Trying to get an adaptor at the mo so I can get it on the digi. I guess I'm not shooting big trad crags as much as you but I rarely go over 135mm (200 equiv). Really hoping Nikon will bring out some more digi-only primes with all the size, weight and handling benefits that will bring.
Still shooting loads, got a couple of articles which should be out in the next month or two.
Yeah I'm a big fan of primes too. Bought a D200 back in December, a big culture change for me, up til then was shooting almost solely with OM-system, pretty much all primes. My favourite lens was a Zuiko macro 90/2, similar to yours. Trying to get an adaptor at the mo so I can get it on the digi. I guess I'm not shooting big trad crags as much as you but I rarely go over 135mm (200 equiv). Really hoping Nikon will bring out some more digi-only primes with all the size, weight and handling benefits that will bring.
Still shooting loads, got a couple of articles which should be out in the next month or two.
In reply to Adam L:ive got my eye on a few big trad crags and I am missing my telephoto already, shot some pics the other week and they were all buggerd, one knock to many so its time for it to go, to old and to bother with getting it fixed as they will charge a mimimum of £150. Cant recomend the 85mm nikon enough, works ace with the D200.
In reply to Barry Chocolate: Yeah mostly national but more recetly a daily local which is much the same amount of fun but without the stress, which is were most of the images on the site a from.
You?
You?
In reply to Mike Simmonds: Cool.I know where you're coming from with regards national v daily local. you're stuff looks great btw.recognise the name aswell, is it from here or bylines?, hmm. Anyway...
I was staff on Edinburgh Evening news for 2 years, joined an agency for 2 years doing all sorts of stuff, working for Scotsman, The Times, Glasgow Herald etc mainly.Went freelance and now working for The Scotsman, Sunday times and Scotland on Sunday, but doing more commercial/pr stuff aswell.Still trying and learning to be a proper photographer Its all good fun though, until deadline time.
Cheers
I was staff on Edinburgh Evening news for 2 years, joined an agency for 2 years doing all sorts of stuff, working for Scotsman, The Times, Glasgow Herald etc mainly.Went freelance and now working for The Scotsman, Sunday times and Scotland on Sunday, but doing more commercial/pr stuff aswell.Still trying and learning to be a proper photographer Its all good fun though, until deadline time.
Cheers
In reply to Richard Carter: still seeing what ebay has to offer there seemed to be loads of choice when I was browsing but now I am looking in ernest not very much. Still made no concrete desicion.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
I'd love to recommend the 70-300 VR nikon but i'm not an expert so wont. Have a look at some pictures taken with it though if it helps. It costs about 340, but might be hard to get hold of.
http://flickr.com/invite/history/guests/?open=72157600078355383#gp_72157600...
the swan and the carp are both taken with the 70-300. The front of the ship is as well but the sensitivity was on high i think. The rest were aken with the nikon 18-70 kit lens
p
I'd love to recommend the 70-300 VR nikon but i'm not an expert so wont. Have a look at some pictures taken with it though if it helps. It costs about 340, but might be hard to get hold of.
http://flickr.com/invite/history/guests/?open=72157600078355383#gp_72157600...
the swan and the carp are both taken with the 70-300. The front of the ship is as well but the sensitivity was on high i think. The rest were aken with the nikon 18-70 kit lens
p
In reply to Adam L: Ive got the 1.8 got it for less than £200 definatly a favorite at the moment.
In reply to Hotbad Peteel: I have thought about it bur I think the extra speed and quality of the 80-200 2.8 has the edge, I know they are heavy as I have owned an earlier model, but that is something I can live with as I usually go out with the intention of taking photos rather than the offchance. I will post on here and let you know how my mini lens saga concludes.
In reply to jethro kiernan: Thanks for all the input guys, I have got a second hand nikon 180 2.8d its half the weight of the zoom its cheaper and super sharp (just waiting to get back from work so I can try it). I was thinking that the money saved could be put towards a nikon 10.5mm fish eye any thoughts?
In reply to jethro kiernan: Looks good. if you can keep your feet out the pic?
Seen this? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105fe.htm
Seen this? http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105fe.htm
In reply to jethro kiernan: The new lens has been used in anger very pleased with the lens. http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=67154
thanks for all the advice.
thanks for all the advice.
In reply to jethro kiernan: What's the route? High Life?
In reply to sandywilson: suprisingly everyone remained dry!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...