Glass Envy...what about this one?

Phyxius

Since joining this forum not to long ago I've been lusting over some nice glass. Before buying the Nikon D50 I had been using an ancient Canon T50 with equally ancient lenses. So, when I went digital I kinda went mid-range with price/quality. (okay, so closer to low range.)

I got the AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 D ED lens. It does an okay job in optimal conditions but does pretty darn poor in low light and extremly bright light. (Tends to get blue halos (CA) and blown out whites.)

So, to get to my point I'm looking for a fast lens that I can use for equestrian sports photography. (Like dressage and jumping and cross country) Usually I can get pretty close, but I can't always garuntee that my press pass get's me in the RIGHT close spot.

So, after searching and searching and finding lens that I'd :lust but can NOT afford at thousands and thousands each I found this...the 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor. Which sells around $800. The reviews seem good, what do you guys think?????

Harryb

It is an excellent piece of glass and a good buy.

Phyxius

Harryb wrote:

It is an excellent piece of glass and a good buy.

Thanks Harry! Seems you're the only Nikonian up this early Have you used this lens before? I was really hoping to stay at 300mm or upgrade to 400mm, but I just don't see that happening any time in the very near future. I want to get 2-3 new lenses before the GNP shoot out and if I spend well over a thousand on each I certainly won't be able to afford them, so I'm hunting for some good deals that are still good lenses.

I am totally unfamiliar with teleconverters, but apparently the Nikon AF-S teleconverters don't work with this lens? True? Also, having never used a teleconverter how much do they mess with the image quality/focusing? Can you suggest any?

Thanks again!!
-Christina

Harryb

Phyxius wrote:

Thanks Harry! Seems you're the only Nikonian up this early Have you used this lens before? I was really hoping to stay at 300mm or upgrade to 400mm, but I just don't see that happening any time in the very near future. I want to get 2-3 new lenses before the GNP shoot out and if I spend well over a thousand on each I certainly won't be able to afford them, so I'm hunting for some good deals that are still good lenses.

I am totally unfamiliar with teleconverters, but apparently the Nikon AF-S teleconverters don't work with this lens? True? Also, having never used a teleconverter how much do they mess with the image quality/focusing? Can you suggest any?

Thanks again!!
-Christina

As far as I know the current TCs won't work with it. The older TC-14b &
TC-201 TCs will work but you lose AF. I have not noticed any appreciable loss of IQ with the 1.4 TC. I used a Sigma 2.0 TC on my old Sigma 70-200 and there was some IQ loss. My biggest complaint with the 1.7 and 2.0 TCs were the loss of focusing speed.

DoctorIt

the 80-200 AF-D is a great lens, yes... BUT:

(a) it's outdated. save up for the 70-200VR, one can be had new for only a couple hundred dollars more. At that point what's $800 v. $1000ish??

(b) sounds like you already feel it won't be long enough. that's a bad recipe for something that will only temporarily make you happy.

Might I suggest an alternative? You're shooting horses, which should be outside in good light? So maybe you could do without f/2.8? In which case, there's an alternative at the $800 price point: Sigma EX 100-300 f/4. This is an awesome lens, I owned one when in Canon-land, and wish I had one now for my Nikon. If I had your needs for shooting, I'd go this way. And, you can put a Sigma 1.4x TC on it and have a 420/5.6 and NOT lose autofocus.

Phyxius

DoctorIt wrote:

the 80-200 AF-D is a great lens, yes... BUT:

(a) it's outdated. save up for the 70-200VR, one can be had new for only a couple hundred dollars more. At that point what's $800 v. $1000ish??

(b) sounds like you already feel it won't be long enough. that's a bad recipe for something that will only temporarily make you happy.

Might I suggest an alternative? You're shooting horses, which should be outside in good light? So maybe you could do without f/2.8? In which case, there's an alternative at the $800 price point: Sigma EX 100-300 f/4. This is an awesome lens, I owned one when in Canon-land, and wish I had one now for my Nikon. If I had your needs for shooting, I'd go this way. And, you can put a Sigma 1.4x TC on it and have a 420/5.6 and NOT lose autofocus.

I'll look more into the 70-200VR, you're right that at that much a couple hundred isn't a big difference.

Unforunately I do take indoor shots (indoor arenas are really the only place to show in the winter around here). The lighting is absolutely HORRIBLE and a high ISO on the D50 = WAY more noise than the image is worth. Performance at 800 is pretty horrible too. The 70-300 F4 that I have now is definatly NOT fast enough. Also, in low light conditions like rain or even cloudy skies do not allow fast enough shutter speeds for the bigger events.

Some examples -

Not at all impressed with that...
It's 1/1000 at F5. EXIF says WB was manual, but I didn't set it (oops, explains the yellow tinge). That's at 165mm which with the D50 is 247mm equi.

Same day/place but a few minutes after heavy rain and with still occasional sprinkles I got this:

1/1000 F 5.6 270mm (405mm equiv) Pretty dark.

So, besides horrible WB the above is OKAY. But on a day that was slightly more overcast I got this:

Focus is a little off here, but I chose this one since the shutter, aperature, and focal length are the same as above, 1/1000 f5.6 and 270mm. I don't remember ISO but it was probably 400 or 600. The sun kept coming and going and I was playing with settings during rides.

This one was taken in an arena and while I was just a spectator here even the event photogs couldn't get closer than I was so flash obviously isn't an option. I was using the Nikon SB 800.

Shutter priority, 1/400 F 4.5, 155mm (232mm equiv).

Then, I used to work with the horses at Medieval Times and I recently went up to deliver some pictures to the horse trainer from when he was doing an off site exhibition. While there I was invited to stay for dinner. Then some of the people asked me to take pictures of them and well since the camera was there I said, "Sure!". Ugh.

1/160 F5.6 and focal of 300mm (450mm equiv) Dark and RED.

Sometimes dramatic lighting is not horrible...

1/125 F4.8 190mm (285mm equiv). Lacks pop though no PP done.
Used SB-800 here too.

However, eww is about all you can say about his one.

1/400 f4.5 155mm (232mm equiv) SB 800 again.:cry

For the sports I can't say that I NEEEED the 300mm+. However if I wanted to do some wildlife shooting I'll need it. But, that's me being frugal and hoping I can use one lens for two different types of shooting. So, do I need the teleconverters? Well, I can't loose the AF for sports. So, that's probably a no.

Also, I didn't dismiss the Sigma because it's a sigma but I'm hesitant with the low end focal length of 100. In a perfect world there would be a wide angle to super telephoto 2.8 for $1000. But this world is far from perfect. I miss some things with the 70mm, so I was a tad hesitant with going to 80mm and I can't imagine moving back to 100mm.

Harryb

A couple of things you might want to consider. The first if you're shooting in-doors and flash is allowed a speedlight might be a bug help (the SB600 or SB800). If you're shooting longer than 300mm a Better Beamer would be a good add-on.

If you can afford it the 70-200 VR is a tremendous lens and it works well with TCs. I normally use it with a 1.4 w/o any noticeable loss of IQ or focusing speed.

Also you need to see what focal lengths are necessary to get the shots you want. The 70-200 with TCs seems to be able to handle your stated need for your sporting shots.

If you want to do wildlife shooting the 70-200 is too short. A good "bargain" lens is the Nikon 300mm F/4. Its one of my favorites and works well with TCs. Its not a 2.8 but for wildlife shooting its fast enough.

Phyxius

So...70-200mm F/2.8 VR w/1.4TC
Well, it seems like the 70-200mm F/2.8 VR is a much better choice than the 80-200mm F/2.8. (Thank you DoctorIT!)

The only 2 negatives I've seen posted about the 70-200 VR is the possibility of ghosting in direct sunlight (pretty much avoidable when using the lens hood) and the size/weight. The size and weight aren't really a problem for me either, I'm a strong girl .

I know NOTHING about teleconverters though. Would they only increase the high end? So, with a 1.4x TC the 70-200 would be a 70-280mm? Or would it change the low end also, so 98-280mm?

Looking at Amazon for a quick pricing idea the Nikon TC-14A (1.4x) Teleconverter AI-S is about $150 Why did I think it was around $400? And the Nikon TC-201 (2.0x) Teleconverter AI-S is LESS at $140 (Because of loss of focusing speed?)

Also, don't teleconverters effect lens speed, so the 2.8 won't be a 2.8 with the TC or have the lens wizards "fixed" that?

HarryB, I do have the SB-800 and it was used in last 4 shots posted in my previous post. I'll look into the Better Beamer, thanks for the recommendation.

Harryb

The 14A is an earlier version of Nikon's TC. The latest version is the 14E and that costs close to $400. here's a link with reviews of Nikon's TCs
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_converter.html You'll see that the 14A is not highly rated hence the lower price (you get what you pay for). Also I'm pretty sure you will lose AF with the 14A.

The 70-200 becomes a 98-280mm F4 lens with the TC (you lose a full stop).