Options
Bit of a quandry...
I'm planning a trip to OshKosh in 2010 for the airshow. I have a D90 with the Nikon 18-200VR that does fairly well for most shots after a little post-processing.
I'm looking at the Nikon 70-200VR f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-300VR f/4.5. Huge price difference, but from what I gather, the quality of shots from the 70-200 will blow anything out of the water. Yet I'm thinking for an airshow I'll want a bit more 'reach'. The f/4.5 of the 70-300 doesn't scare me as this will be a daylight/sky pointed lens.
Thoughts?
I'm looking at the Nikon 70-200VR f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-300VR f/4.5. Huge price difference, but from what I gather, the quality of shots from the 70-200 will blow anything out of the water. Yet I'm thinking for an airshow I'll want a bit more 'reach'. The f/4.5 of the 70-300 doesn't scare me as this will be a daylight/sky pointed lens.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
so you are in a pickle about these two lens? For the air show teh 70-300mm might suit you better but if you were considering the 70-200mm then pony up a bit more for the 1.4TC.
Then after the airshow enjoy the 70-200mm for all other shooting. imo these 2 lens are not even in the same category that you should be any debate. If you can afford the 70-200mm then get it.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
These are 2 completely different type of lenses.
The constant large aperture of the 70-200mm, f2.8 means that AF will be faster and more accurate. It also potentially allows more DOF control, which could be very useful for any ground based images in separating the subject from foreground/background. The larger aperture would also allow better operation indoors and at night, in case you want to capture any of the social part of the fly-in.
The Nikkor 70-300mm, f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR is 2 stops slower by 200mm, meaning slower AF performance as well. It is a much lighter lens, and much easier to carry through a whole day of shooting. The 300mm is OK but not great wide open. It really needs f8 and f11 to be sharp across the image plane.
The 70-200mm with a 1.4x Nikon teleconverter at 280mm effective should beat the 70-300mm at 300mm in most respects.
If you truly only need the lens for Oshkosh it would seem prudent to rent rather than purchase.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I've had my eye on the 70-200VR for a while to shoot wildlife and landscapes. That coupled with the 1.4 TC is tugging at me for a solution. I'm a casual shooter, this isn't my profession but I like nice captures.
I hadn't considered the TC route, so that helps a lot. Seems like it could work well for the 70-200 f/2.8, but I see it won't work on the 70-300. I can't find any information which tells me it would/wouldn't work with the new 70-200 f/2.8 VRII version. Anybody care to chime in on this one?
Also, I appreciate the explaination on the 70-300 being slower and the downstream effects such as focus time etc. My 18-200VR has a sweet spot of f/8ish as well and I've been compensating by shutterspeed or ISO with acceptable results. Again, if I was just pointing at the sky for most of the day with this lens, at it's price point with bright sky (or even cloudy) and a decent ISO (maybe 800 at it's highest) I think this might be a solution for sky shots. But the slow focus time concerns me with aircraft.
And the real krinkie-dink in this is the rental aspect, again of which I hadn't considered. I'm not opposed to a rental, and in some respects think it's probably a good use of funds. Yet at the same time I can't help but think it's just that - a rental and those funds for a weeks rental could go towards the purchase cost.
Thanks!
.
A teleconverter will work just fine with the new VRII lens. Nikon's teleconverters are 'keyed' so that you can't mount a lens with a maximum aperture smaller than f/2.8 on them, though I think Sigma/Kenko TCs lack this feature. If I ever win the lotto, I'll augment the 70-300mm VR with the 70-200mm VRII and a 1.4x or 1.7x TC, though I'd probably still keep the 70-300mm to carry around day-to-day.
I kind of agree on renting, especially since the 70-200mm runs almost $100 a week (before adding the TC) from BorrowLenses. For that much, I'd almost rather buy a used one and sell it afterwards... might be cheaper.
A lens with a larger aperture allows more light to fall on the AF sensor, which is just a light sensitive sensor with a specialized purpose and construction and it's own set of lenses with which to sample the image as it forms from an image splitter. (It is an electronic rangefinder.)
More light means that the available sensitivity of the AF sensor is more optimized versus lesser light. It provides a higher image signal to noise ratio as well. This is especially important to identify edges of the subject, which is how focus is defined (sharpest edges).
A larger aperture also provides a narrower DOF, so that once the subject is selected, it is more easily discriminated from the foreground and background. If you still set a small aperture for the exposure, you will gain a greater margin for error, in effect attaining a higher degree of success.
The particular lens in question, actually either the original or the new Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8VR II, also has a very robust AF-S motor compared to the 70-300mm zoom. This allows slightly faster AF operation by itself.
Could the 70-300mm keep accurate focus? More than likely you could use it and get many keepers. It's just that the 70-200mm will achieve a higher rate of success under any situation and the image quality will be better as well, from a number of different aspects of image quality measurement.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Here is a link if you care to look.
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/Military/Beale-AFB-Airshow-2009/7942891_AknAf/1/517495112_JVQnz
You might want to even consider a nikon 80-400mm or Sigma 50-500mm
VR is nice but but really would nt add anything in good bright light. All depends on what you shoot when you are not shooting airshows.
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/
Nice shots....
This airshow thing is an infrequent shoot for me. I might do one or two a year so that's a factor for me. But here in Tejas, we've got lots of wide open spaces and plenty of wildlife to keep me busy shooting for quite some time.
I went to the 2008 show. It's a good time, and there is a ton see. I hope you have a good time.
Here are some of the pictures I took while there (all straight out of the camera - I had yet to get into PP at that point)... EEA Airventure 2008
I shot those with an Olympus E-500. The "air" shots are taken with an Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 70-300mm F4.0-5.6.
I have recently switched that lens out for a Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD. With the two lenses you are looking at, I couldn't help but notice the similarities. For what it's worth, although the 50-200 is much more expensive, I could not be happier having upgraded. As others have stated here, if you need a little extra reach, adding a TC is a good option. If cost is not an issue, get the better glass and I'll bet you won't regret it.
http://wolftep.smugmug.com/
Two lenses I have used at airshows are the Sigma 150-500, and the Tamron 200-500. Neither is image stabilized, but since you will be panning with the planes that is not too big an issue. Do not expect to shoot them wide open and get the best image, but stopped down they will do fine.
I find a 200 or 300 too short too much of the time. Maybe you can get closer than I seem to be able.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sigma now stabilizes the 150-500 ..............
I think I'll wait a few more weeks to see what "santa" has in store for me before making any purchases.
I'm leaning towards something more than 200mm being required so that still leaves me in the 70-200VR with the 1.4TC or the slower 70-300 with elevated ISO as my saving grace with pan shots to negate the IS features.
I suppose the next question is actually it's own thread, but I don't have to drink the Nikon kool-aid. Are there alternatives that provide the same or better quality results at a different/lower price point?
.
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR F4.0-5.6G IF ED - $400
Thoughts?
.
I was able to attend my first EAA AirVenture show for two days last week with my Dad. We've both wanted to go, so we just booked it and I have to say, that was a great little get away.
I didn't purchase any new glass. Rather I just used my little Nikon 18-200VR on the D90 to grab some shots that I'm pleased with. The whole gallery is HERE if you're interested.
Here's a few I liked with the D90/18-200VR
Not once have I read that price is really an issue. You like the 2.8, you have wide open spaces in Tecas for wildlife so go for it.
As an alternative, find a local source near the airshow to rent and see if they will refund any of the rental costs if you buy that lens after the show.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
You could take another route in the future.....the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 which from all I hear is a great lens, fast AF, and closer to the 70-300 price than the 70-200.
And this those photos bring back some major nostalgia, the air show used to be all of 1/2 mile from my house.....one time the thunder birds came so low on full burner it felt like a major earthquake and we had to reinforce the deck, as a 12 year old kid I was going
They would get much closer to the residential houses than when I saw them at the air show.
My personal favorite was the A-10 though that is one beautiful aircraft......sorry about the slight hijack I just miss all that stuff.
Does the Sigma have VR? Don't think so. Is that a deal breaker? Was for me. YMMV. I'm an old geezer, so my steadiness ain't what it never was.
I like my Nikkor 70-200 & 70-300. Would I have bought the 70-300 if I already had a 70-200. No, but I'm not considering selling it..
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I was about to say Sigma has a OS version coming out but looking at their site I got major sticker shock:
$2,470.00 MSRP
:eek1
Their MSRP for the non-OS 70-200 is 1/3 over the actual cost most places but that still would be over 1,600 dollars for the OS version.
Second the 70-200 as a heavy beast. As for, a TC though, I've got the TC-2Eii and find it to be a bit dissappointing. The latest version might be ok, but I hear the 1.4 or 1.7 are better options for the 70-200.
Whoaa! I don't get it. Why would anyone buy that when the Nikkor is available for a roughly similar price? No telling what the street price will be for the Sigma, but that MSRP is MORE than the Nikkor sells for now.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
That is a bit odd. I'm curious if Sigma has corrected their "A/M" setting to function on Nikon bodies? On my 10-20, rotating the focus ring does NOT override the camera's own focusing as it does on nikon's lenses. I read somewhere that this is a known problem for sigma lenses.
If Sigma lenses still do this, then it seems a bit strange to pay more for a less functional product.
The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II has a MSRP (Nikon calls it an "ESP") of $$2,399.95USD. No one normally pays that except from some sucker price vendors. Likewise for the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2185/AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f%252F2.8G-ED-VR-II.html
Part of Marketing 101 regarding pricing strategy is that you can always reduce the price if something new doesn't sell at a high introductory price. It's much more difficult to raise prices if initially set too low. There are almost always people who will buy new just based on "newness". I suspect that as the supply/demand levels off the prices will drop to sustainable levels too.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Despite Sigma's listed MSRP, Adorama offers the 70-200 non-OS at $799, and the OS version at $1699. They offer the Nikkor 70-200 VRII, US version at $2179. So one can decide if the Nikkor is worth the extra $480. I think the street price of the Sigma is near what the Nikkor VRI version was selling for.
Personally, I think when (if) I can afford to upgrade my telezoom, I will go with the non-OS version, as most of my use for that lens will either be for action shots requiring a high shutter speed or I'll be using a tripod. That's unless I happen to try out the Nikkor version at some point and realize that it's probably worth selling internal organs for.
My site 365 Project
.