nikon 80-200 f2.8

S

smalls

Messages
848
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
looking at hiring this lens for my safari in april, i will be pairing it with my nikon d50, and using a nikon 300 f4 with 1.4x on my d90.

is this a good combination to take or should i look at something like the sigma 120-300 2.8?
 
get a 70-300 imho it'll be a damn sight lighter than an 80-200

at that length you won't really need 2.8 imho and if you're on safari i can't imagine there being a shortage of light
 
alexkidd said:
get a 70-300 imho it'll be a damn sight lighter than an 80-200

at that length you won't really need 2.8 imho and if you're on safari i can't imagine there being a shortage of light
Click to expand...

Sorry but your wrong. There will be plenty of occasions where f2.8 will be required.

I own an 80-200 f/2.8 AFDn (selling it though, but it needs work) and 90 to 95% of my work is done using this lens. From listening to countless safari trip stories from a friend he has had more success with the 80-200 range over anything else. Bear in mind that you will be limited on space and weight too.

The 80-200 and 1.4x will be the best combo.
 
King_Boru said:
Sorry but your wrong. There will be plenty of occasions where f2.8 will be required.

I own an 80-200 f/2.8 AFDn (selling it though, but it needs work) and 90 to 95% of my work is done using this lens. From listening to countless safari trip stories from a friend he has had more success with the 80-200 range over anything else. Bear in mind that you will be limited on space and weight too.

The 80-200 and 1.4x will be the best combo.
Click to expand...

This is a bit harsh, eh? Alex says there won't be a shortage of light (which I agree with), you say he's wrong but offer no evidence. You say you use it most of the time but it's your friend that actually goes on safari. You talk about the range being useful, which is covered (and more) by the 70-300. Then you say you'll be limited with size and weight, which Alex already said, which means the 70-300 is even more useful! Bad day?

I agree with Alex, the 70-300 sounds like just the ticket. Choice of cheapo (but good) AF-D version or pricey (but with VR - very useful) AF-S version. F/2.8 only required in low light conditions. I wouldn't like to be out on safari in low light conditions. The AF-D version would AF on the D50 and make a nice light alternative to the D90 combo.
 
smalls said:
looking at hiring this lens for my safari in april, i will be pairing it with my nikon d50, and using a nikon 300 f4 with 1.4x on my d90.

is this a good combination to take or should i look at something like the sigma 120-300 2.8?
Click to expand...

According to the OP he plans on bringing a 300 f/4. Not a small lens of course. This and an 80-200 will take up a fair bit of weight AND room. A single lens, being the 80-200 with a 1.4x tc would make for a higher quality solution whilst offering near enough 300mm coverage at f/4 if you need it compared to a cheapy 70-300 at f/5.6.

So really, going back to the OP I don't think I am far from the point.
 
Sigma 120-300 with a 1.4 TC and/or a 2x TC would sort a lot of distances for you. I don`t know if they would all autofocus with the D50,i`ve never had one.
 
martsharm said:
This is a bit harsh, eh? Alex says there won't be a shortage of light (which I agree with), you say he's wrong but offer no evidence. You say you use it most of the time but it's your friend that actually goes on safari. You talk about the range being useful, which is covered (and more) by the 70-300. Then you say you'll be limited with size and weight, which Alex already said, which means the 70-300 is even more useful! Bad day?
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant whether or not I was there. The information and statistics come from a reliable source. There are many occasions where f/2.8 coupled with high ISO's have been used to achieve the photograph. I would prefer to sacrifice 100mm in focal length in order to attain a photograph at f/2.8 over pushing the ISO up a stop or even two.
 
King_Boru said:
Its irrelevant whether or not I was there. The information and statistics come from a reliable source. There are many occasions where f/2.8 coupled with high ISO's have been used to achieve the photograph. I would prefer to sacrifice 100mm in focal length in order to attain a photograph at f/2.8 over pushing the ISO up a stop or even two.
Click to expand...

In which case it's irrelevant that you use the lens as well.

You've finally woken up to the fact we're talking about aperture not reach.

King_Boru said:
A single lens, being the 80-200 with a 1.4x tc
Click to expand...

smalls said:
i will be pairing it with my nikon d50, and using a nikon 300 f4 with 1.4x on my d90.
Click to expand...

He wants to use two lenses, with two cameras, not one. That's the whole point of the thread. :bang:
 
Will the 80-200 AFD take a TC?
 
The 80-200 is a bit heavy - I'm using one now while my 70-200 VR gets repaired and it's a bit chunky...
Any chance you could rent a 70-200 f/2.8 instead?

I think that coupled with the other lenses you've mentioned it should do the trick well enough...
 
If you think you could carry a 120-300 without it spoiling your enjoyment of the trip, I'd be tempted.

You'll have more options when the sun is coming up/ going down and it would give you the option of trying a 2x TC now and then.
 
I have the 80-200 f2.8 & a 1.4x TC. I am really looking forward to having a play with them as not really had much chance yet !!!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
But only a third party one, like a Kenko
Click to expand...

Ah, thought the rear element protruded quite a way out.

To the OP.If weight and size is an issue,then surely the 120-300 and 1.4 tc would be the problem solver.
 
i'd echo what a lot of people have said, there are optimal lens choices but when i've been travelling i've found i've enjoyed myself a lot more when i'm not carrying way more than i need

i suppose it's only you who can weigh up the pros and cons
 
To the OP, the 80-200mm is a great lens and for shallow DoF stuff, it's always going to be better than a 70-300mm when used at equivalent focal lengths. I love mine for that reason alone...


...however, it is heavy and that has to be a consideration doesn't it? Mind you, if you're on a safari truck/4x4 thingy then providing you have somewhere to store said lens (and body) then I'd go for the better optical quality any day over a zoom that won't be as good as the 300mm f/4 at its longest. That said, treat yourself and get a 70-200mm VR for the week - you know you want to ;)
 
didnt know my thread would cause such a stir :lol:

my thinking was 80-200 on my d50 and a 300+ 1.4x on the d90. i was going to use the 80-200 for close up shots, dawn and dusk shots and the 300+ 1.4x for other shots, weight shouldnt be a problem as we can carry 25kg on airline and 16kg on safari for 3days, plus the girlfriend can take one of the cameras.

i would need to rent for around 17days and am looking to spend around £200

i already own a kenko 1.4x so thats taken care of

i could hire the 70-200 vr but is this going to give me enough reach?
 
Sam. Keep a wide angle on the D50 for landscape,sunset,sunrise stuff.

Sigma 120-300 on the D90 will give you that range at 2.8,put a 1.4TC on it and you will get up to 420 at F4.

That is my recommendation.
 
if weight isn't going to be an issue and you've got the funds maybe go with your original plan or have the 70-200 on hire with the tc to take advantage of the vr as well
 
If you can live with the weight the Sigma 120-300mm is a one stop shop, does everything you'll need, you won't be disappointed with it , it's sharp throughout the range, works very well with the kenko 1.4x, not so good with the 2x but acceptable,a monopod would come in handy though unless you're into pumping iron :D
 
fracster said:
Sam. Keep a wide angle on the D50 for landscape,sunset,sunrise stuff.

Sigma 120-300 on the D90 will give you that range at 2.8,put a 1.4TC on it and you will get up to 420 at F4.

That is my recommendation.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea - gives you best of both worlds :)

Smalls, you hiring from LFH? Been more than happy with pricing and service when I've used them in the past
 
smalls said:
also how well does the nikon 70-200 take the 1.7x?
Click to expand...

Very well - I've used it with both the TC-17 II and TC-20 II and experienced no problems...
Make sure you have the 'II' versions of Nikon teleconverter - earlier ones don't work at all well with newer lenses...
 
smalls - I see you already ahve the Sigma 70-200/2.8, why aren't you using that? If it's because it's soft at 2.8 (which it may or may not be) - sell it, use the £200 you would ahve spent on renting and get another lens. The 80-200/2.8 AF-D is around £600 used in decent condition and you can use your Kenko 1.4 on that (assuming that metering is correct and AF present). That'll give you 280mm at f/4. OK so it's no 300/4 AFS with a teleconverter which is a nice combo. You can then use your Tamron 11-18 or 18-105 VR on the D50 for landscapes etc

Or you could find a bit more money, grab a used 70-200/2.8VR I with a 1.4 TC (about the £1300 mark used). Now that's the expensive route, the AF-S and VR will come in useful, but would represent no optical improvement over the 80-200/2.8 with TC.
 
i need to update my sig, i no longer have the sigma 70-200, just didnt get used and i needed the cash at the time, il definatly be hiring as im not sure i would have much use for a telephoto after my safari, i think im 80% decided on a 70-200vr with 1.4x and 1.7x
 
smalls said:
ok thanks fot that, is the IQ lose reallt noticable with either converter?
Click to expand...

Not under practical conditions - in a lab on a bench-test, yes - but you'll be worrying more about keeping the camera steady in a moving vehicle and keeping dust off the optics...

If they were no good - people wouldn't use them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top