Options

Help me spend some money!

anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
edited February 14, 2012 in People
My Accounts Payable department (wife) just gave me the green light to buy the lens I've been dying to get for some time now. Problem is, I'm not sure which lens that is. :rofl

I currently do not own anything longer than 70mm. The options I mulling over are:
  • Nikkor 70-200m f/2.8 VR or VRII
  • Nikkor 85mm f/1.4
  • Nikkor 85mm f/1.8

OK... so my main use for this lens would be portraiture and is why I posted this here; I want the advice of people shooters. I like the extra length that I get from the zoom. The prime lenses, especially the f/1.4 will give me speed for low light and shallower depth of field. Help me choose one of these lenses. PLEASE!! I can't decide. :scratch

UPDATE

Just bought this near mint used copy of the 70-200 VR I. I picked it up locally for $1375... great freaking price! It's late so haven't really had time to play with other than the few shots I took while testing it at the guy's home before I bought it. Very excited though.

Thanks for all the help guys.

424938_10150665490085336_625725335_11520430_1751712931_n.jpg
"I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

My Smug Site
«1

Comments

  • Options
    HackboneHackbone Registered Users Posts: 4,027 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    70 to 200 vrII would be my first good lens, then others. Shallow depth of field is cool but would you really use it that much or just for a special occasion. You can get shallow depth of field at 2.8!! You won't find a professional that does not own a 70-200 but you will some of the other lens missing in the bag.
    Charles
    www.cameraone.biz
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    Thank you for your opinion Charles. I don't disagree with you. So that's one vote for the 70-200mm.

    BTW, do you think the VRII is incrementally better than the VRI to justify the price difference?
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
  • Options
    lilmommalilmomma Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    What if you got the 70-200 (either) and the 85 1.8? I love love love my 85 1.8, and they now have the G version out which is only a little over four hundred bucks. You're spending a great deal anyway on the 70-200, whats a few hundred more huh? ;)
  • Options
    HackboneHackbone Registered Users Posts: 4,027 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    I'm not up on Nikon but they say there is a big difference in the new Canon lens.
    .
    Charles
    www.cameraone.biz
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    lilmomma wrote: »
    What if you got the 70-200 (either) and the 85 1.8? I love love love my 85 1.8, and they now have the G version out which is only a little over four hundred bucks. You're spending a great deal anyway on the 70-200, whats a few hundred more huh? ;)

    Well, the great deal I will be spending on the 70-200, if I go that route, is already more than the boss thinks I should spend. This is what happens when you marry an accounting major.
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    Hackbone wrote: »
    I'm not up on Nikon but they say there is a big difference in the new Canon lens.
    .

    Thats right, you should Canon. I will have to research.
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
  • Options
    divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    Do you have a 50 1.4? If so, you can probably wait on the 85 (or consider the Sigma 85 1.4, which is much cheaper than the Nikon version?)

    The 70-200s are generally HEAVY.
    Do you have the space to take advantage of the long end of it?

    I'm a big fan of primes, as much because I don't like lugging a lot of weight as because of the increased sharpness and aperture values. That said, I can imagine I probably will eventually cave and get a 70-200, but for now I'm more than happy with 50 1.4/85 1.8/135 2.0 primes and a 24-70 2.8. YMMV.
    facebook | photo site |
  • Options
    sweet carolinesweet caroline Registered Users Posts: 1,589 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    I love my 85 1.4 for portraits! I use it almost all the time.
  • Options
    DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    I don't know Nikon lenses, but my vote is the 70-200. Go big.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • Options
    lilmommalilmomma Registered Users Posts: 1,060 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    anonymouscuban wrote: »
    Well, the great deal I will be spending on the 70-200, if I go that route, is already more than the boss thinks I should spend. This is what happens when you marry an accounting major.


    Well if she is willing to let you swing it take advantage of it! The 70-200 would probably be my top choice of the list...

    Yeah and I know the feeling.. I am BOTH the photographer and the accountant. I battle with myself dailyrolleyes1.gif
  • Options
    RyanSRyanS Registered Users Posts: 507 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    The 70-200, as most good things in life, is expensive. The nearest shop to me rents it for $35 a day. I would have to rent it about 70 times to make it worth purchasing. Renting makes a lot of sense, especially if the rental shop has good availability (which mine does). Depreciate this lens over 5 years (warranty length) and that means I would need to use it about 14 days a year to justify a purchase. For me, I find its use rather specialized. I enjoy it when I have it, but I can survive just fine renting it as needed.

    I'm rolling with the assumption you've already rented or borrowed these lenses and have a good feel for their benefits and weaknesses.
    Please feel free to post any reworks you do of my images. Crop, skew, munge, edit, share.
    Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
  • Options
    Moving PicturesMoving Pictures Registered Users Posts: 384 Major grins
    edited January 21, 2012
    The f2.8 70-200 almost never leaves my camera. Ever. If you can't afford Nikon-branded versions of it, consider a Tamron or a Sigma. It's a super-valuable chunk o' glass. And I'd not consider it specialized. I've done weddings, portaits, sports ... you name it.
    Newspaper photogs specialize in drive-by shootings.
    Forum for Canadian shooters: www.canphoto.net
  • Options
    zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    70-200 is what I use whenever I can for outdoor portraits.
    Indoors I use the 85 1.4.

    My most used lens is the 70-200, so versatile.

    Get the 70-200 2.8 first and then the 85 1.8.
    I use the 24-70 2.8 second most of all my lenses, after the 70-200 2.8.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • Options
    AceCo55AceCo55 Registered Users Posts: 950 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    zoomer wrote: »
    70-200 is what i use whenever i can for outdoor portraits.
    Indoors i use the 85 1.4.

    My most used lens is the 70-200, so versatile.

    Get the 70-200 2.8 first and then the 85 1.8.
    I use the 24-70 2.8 second most of all my lenses, after the 70-200 2.8.

    +++++1 Way to go. This is the #1 go to lens for pros. You won't find a lot without one.
    My opinion does not necessarily make it true. What you do with my opinion is entirely up to you.
    www.acecootephotography.com
  • Options
    babowcbabowc Registered Users Posts: 510 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    I rented a 85 1.4D and it was pretty nice for indoor portraits at my friend's baby shower..
    I'd say, though. It had a longer than expected minimal focus distance which I frequently reached..
    For indoors I use 50 1.4..

    70-200 would be much too big and minimal focus distance is probably longer than the 85.
    I will say though, that my 70-200 VR2 is an amazing piece of glass.

    Edit:
    I re read your post and I would recommend the 70-200 if you're shooting in open spaces.
    85, if not.. But I'm heavily leaning towards the 70-200!

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    -Mike Jin
    D800
    16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
    It never gets easier, you just get better.
  • Options
    zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    I have the old 70-200 and it is awesome, if you can get one for less than the new version go for it. If you shoot portraits at 200 and at 2.8 the background just disappears.

    In tight quarters inside I normally use my 24-70, for thinner depth of field or lower light I also use the 50 1.8, even the 35 1.8 sometimes as it is super sharp wide open and I like the built in vignette.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • Options
    aktseaktse Registered Users Posts: 1,928 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    You'll never regret the 70-200.
    http://aktse.smugmug.com/
  • Options
    D3SshooterD3Sshooter Registered Users Posts: 1,187 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    Well if you are planning portraits, the 70-200 is not the ideal lens. Don't get me wrong its a great lens but not for portraits in a studio.

    The most importend question is : What camera do you have and what is the crop factor. If it is not a full frame then count on a crop factor of 1.5 . So, no matter what lens you buy, you should multiply the focal lenght by the crop factor.

    So a 70-200 is in essence 105-300 on a camera with 1.5 crop. That is a bit on the high side for portrait.

    A 24-70 or 36-105 (1.5 crop) is a great portrait lens.

    Anyhow, I would only go for a fix light value lens F:2.8 or less.

    Regards
    A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    Thanks for the input guys. I already own the 24-70mm f/2.8. I use this lens almost exclusively when shooting "studio" stuff. I also own the 50mm f/1.4. I do have a full frame body (D700) so these are all true focal lengths; no crop factor.

    You guys have validated all the things are already knew and I've decided to go with the 70-200mm. I will probably use it mostly for outdoor portrait work since my studio space is somewhat small. That's OK because I'm really not wanting this lens for studio work. I'm always wanting more length when shooting outdoors and all your posts reminded me of this. The 85mm may come later but for now, it's the 70-200mm. Now I just need to decide if I get the VRi or the VRii.
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
  • Options
    zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    Get the old one and explain to your wife how thrifty you are being :).
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • Options
    HackboneHackbone Registered Users Posts: 4,027 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    Remember, there are reasons they make a 6,000 camera and a $900 camera, the same goes for other equip also. If you feel a lesser priced product is the same I might suggest they haven't used the product thru it's full range.
    Charles
    www.cameraone.biz
  • Options
    D3SshooterD3Sshooter Registered Users Posts: 1,187 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    anonymouscuban wrote: »
    Thanks for the input guys. I already own the 24-70mm f/2.8. I use this lens almost exclusively when shooting "studio" stuff. I also own the 50mm f/1.4. I do have a full frame body (D700) so these are all true focal lengths; no crop factor.

    You guys have validated all the things are already knew and I've decided to go with the 70-200mm. I will probably use it mostly for outdoor portrait work since my studio space is somewhat small. That's OK because I'm really not wanting this lens for studio work. I'm always wanting more length when shooting outdoors and all your posts reminded me of this. The 85mm may come later but for now, it's the 70-200mm. Now I just need to decide if I get the VRi or the VRii.

    Do not buy the VR-I bowdown.gif I have done it for my D700 just before the VR-II was out.
    The VR-I, although a great lens is not tuned for the D700 or D3 Full frame sensors and results in vignetting when fully open. I did inform NIKON about this fact, the answers was " the new VR-II s coming out shortly" That did really help me.

    There are many artikels on the net regarding the VR-I and the D700/D3. All have the same tenure.
    NIKON will not admit.

    Go for the VR-II, that works great ! Beautifull lens !

    Good luck with the new toys.
    A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    Charles...

    I'm not cheap, trust me. Especially when it comes to this stuff. I won't save money just to later regret I didn't get the best. However, the difference in price between the VRI and VRII is substantial. You're talking about $900 more if you get a good deal on the VRI. I'm not going to spend an extra $900 just because the lens has a II next to the name.

    I've been doing research for a bit now on comparisons. It's tough because opinions are very split. Many claim that vignetting at the shorter focal lengths has been improved/eliminated with the VRII. However, when I've seen many comparison photos and I don't see much of an incremental improvement. Besides, a little vignetting doesn't bother me, especially since my primary use for this lens is portraits and I really don't care much about the edges of the photo.

    Some say AF is fast but then more say it's about the same. I've rented the VRI a few times and I never found the AF to be an issue. I think the improvement is probably marginal, at best, and probably more psychosomatic. People spend $900 more on a new lens and the AF "feels" faster.

    I do believe they've improved some of the lens coatings to reduce flare. I've seen test shots between the two and it's slightly better but again, not something that justifies spending an incremental $900 on.

    Last difference is the field of view. I guess the new lens has a slightly wider field of view than the older one. I don't know quite yet how I feel about this. After all, the reason for getting this lens is for tight shots so I don't know if it matters.

    All that said, I'm still on the fence. One thing that keeps going through my mind is resale ability. There will be a higher demand for the newer and I will be able to get higher price. BUT... I will be spending a lot more to get it and I don't know that I will ever sell this lens.
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    zoomer wrote: »
    Get the old one and explain to your wife how thrifty you are being :).

    Zoom... do you have the VRI or the VRII?
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
  • Options
    zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    I have the VRI.
    Don't lose any sleep over it but the VRI is all the lens you will ever need.

    I shoot kayakers and flying birds with it autofocus has no problem.
    I shoot portraits with it....seems to work pretty well.
    Flare is not a problem...field of view is not a problem.
    Vignetting is not a problem.

    I use mine with the d700 and the d3.

    I am not saying it is equal to the new one, the new one may be "better"...I don't need it to be better.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
    http://500px.com/Shockey
    alloutdoor.smugmug.com
    http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
  • Options
    divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    I will probably use it mostly for outdoor portrait work since my studio space is somewhat small. That's OK because I'm really not wanting this lens for studio work. I'm always wanting more length when shooting outdoors and all your posts reminded me of this.

    The perfect reasons to go with the long zoom thumb.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • Options
    D3SshooterD3Sshooter Registered Users Posts: 1,187 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    divamum wrote: »
    The perfect reasons to go with the long zoom thumb.gif

    If you don't wurry about the vignetting of the VR-I on a D700 (@f2.8). Then it will do just great..
    A photographer without a style, is like a pub without beer
  • Options
    divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    PS If you're saving $900, that's just about the price of the Sigma 85 1.4.... naughty.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • Options
    HackboneHackbone Registered Users Posts: 4,027 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    Wasn't refering to the Nikon lens but other brands. I've been there believe me. I don' t have a vr lens. Been very happy with the normal 70/200 but I shoot on a tripod with that lens.
    Charles
    www.cameraone.biz
  • Options
    anonymouscubananonymouscuban Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 4,586 Major grins
    edited January 22, 2012
    zoomer wrote: »
    Get the old one and explain to your wife how thrifty you are being :).
    zoomer wrote: »
    I am not saying it is equal to the new one, the new one may be "better"...I don't need it to be better.

    This!!!

    I've read so many people say that their VRI was the best lens they ever shot with... that's until they got the VRII. I think the VRII is "better" in some respects, but like you said, does it really have to be better?

    I don't think it does for me.
    "I'm not yelling. I'm Cuban. That's how we talk."

    Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums

    My Smug Site
Sign In or Register to comment.