Telephotos, is there a middle ground?

Blades Media UK

Blades Media UK

Messages
176
Name
Damian
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening all,

I would consider myself a professional when it comes to my grade as a photographer. I still have a lot of learning to do but I have a good grasp of the craft, hired in professionally and make the correct money for my chosen area. Because of this I feel my equipment needs to reflect my prices and ability, which has put me in a conundrum. I could do with but not need a telephoto lens in my arsenal. I have been looking at 50-200 F/2.8 lenses and they start from £700 and go upwards as you know. For something I will be using very little I consider this a waste. I have been looking at others but there is quite a disparity. You either have cheap and nasty F4-F5.6 or the Sigma, Tamaron and Nikon F2.8 options.

Where is the cheaper professional option? Can anyone recommend a lens which is of professional quality but reasonably priced so if I don't use it I don't feel like I've wasted?

I am looking at the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 currently as that seems like a good middle ground? Are there any other options people can recommend or is it the case there are none and my best option is the expensive one?

Camera: Nikon D500
 
Last edited:
Is this for Nikon?
 
Always best to spend on the glass I say , camera bodies come and go , good high quality Glass is not upgraded that often . If your looking for middle ground professional and price wise I would of said a 70 -200 mm F4 , would be the choice if 200mm is long enough , I would personally stick with the camera makers glass , unless I was very very confident there was a better alternative .
 
Lepus said:
Always best to spend on the glass I say , camera bodies come and go , good high quality Glass is not upgraded that often . If your looking for middle ground professional and price wise I would of said a 70 -200 mm F4 , would be the choice if 200mm is long enough , I would personally stick with the camera makers glass , unless I was very very confident there was a better alternative .
Click to expand...

That is what I was thinking, at the same time £1k on a lens that will hardly be used seems like a waste. At this moment in my career £1k of continuous lighting is more valuable to me. There has been a few occasions where I have need that 70-200 2.8 but not enough to warrant its value.
 
Hard to give you an ideal answer , though I am guessing once you had it , you might use it more . I just had a quick look , yeah the 2nd hand Nikon 2.8 is about a grand , and the F4 is about £250 less , think at that price difference I would wait and save for the 2.8 . If your going to make more money from the lighting set up you mention , get that first and save some profits for the new lens maybe .
 
The Nikon AF-s 70-200 mm f2.8 G11 VR ED lens is a fantastic lens. When fine tuned to the camera I don't think many can match it in that range. Like any lens you only get as good as you pay for
 
Last edited:
If you know when you are going to need one and what you are going to do then do what most pro's do and hire one.
My retired pro buddy always hired lenses as they could not afford to or justify buying infrequently used lenses-think Hassleblad
 
From a 'professional' perspective, the answer is simple:
Do you really need one?
If so; you need to ensure that it's a sound business decision - if you have the money, spend it.
If not; don't buy one.

As for the alternatives; a Tamron or Sigma will be cheaper (with a possible loss in performance), but the best money saving is by buying used. I personally bought a non IS Canon used (it's ancient) and for the times I used it, it comfortably paid for itself.

But I can't leave this without questioning your point about continuous lighting gear - for events flash is simply a much better tool for lots less money. Trendy continuous is underpowered and overpriced.
 
Thanks for all those who have answered. I think the point is clear, there really isn't a middle ground and the best option is the most expensive... 70-200 f2.8

Sorry my original post was a bit vague, but I didn't want to make a brick wall of text for everyone to read through. When I first started I bought the Nikon 85 f1.8. I hardly ever used it and ended up selling it. Found myself sticking to 11-50mm focal length for most of my work. However, I have found myself doing more events where I wish I had that distance. I have been using my original kit lens (18-105) to try and capture that gap but the images aren't great but fill the need. Rather than making do I considered investing in a professional item that would give me that quality but without too much outlay in case I didn't use it for a year. The reality seems though that I will have just to take the hit and if I don't use it that much then I will have to roll with the punches.

I had considered the rental options but I have spare money in my business and wanted to invest back in whilst I can.

Not looking to tote a lens I just want to prepare for the future. Couldn't care less if it cost £100 - £1k as long as the image quality was top notch. If you charge X then your images should reflect that quality. Your prices are based upon everything it has cost you to run your business and a bit of money in your back pocket. However your client doesn't see that, they see an image which may fall short either in tone, clarity or sharpness.

Most of my work is in tight spaces or it may be dark so I think I need the VR and 2.8. As with my 18-105 I feel the VR is the part which has made the images usable.

I already have a flash kit for lighting but I have been doing quite a lot more video and need the continuous lighting setup for that. I am currently quoting for a job which will have that priced in to it so waiting on that before I make the purchase.

Hope that has cleared a few things up.
 
Blades Media UK said:
Thanks for all those who have answered. I think the point is clear, there really isn't a middle ground and the best option is the most expensive... 70-200 f2.8

Sorry my original post was a bit vague, but I didn't want to make a brick wall of text for everyone to read through. When I first started I bought the Nikon 85 f1.8. I hardly ever used it and ended up selling it. Found myself sticking to 11-50mm focal length for most of my work. However, I have found myself doing more events where I wish I had that distance. I have been using my original kit lens (18-105) to try and capture that gap but the images aren't great but fill the need. Rather than making do I considered investing in a professional item that would give me that quality but without too much outlay in case I didn't use it for a year. The reality seems though that I will have just to take the hit and if I don't use it that much then I will have to roll with the punches.

I had considered the rental options but I have spare money in my business and wanted to invest back in whilst I can.

Not looking to tote a lens I just want to prepare for the future. Couldn't care less if it cost £100 - £1k as long as the image quality was top notch. If you charge X then your images should reflect that quality. Your prices are based upon everything it has cost you to run your business and a bit of money in your back pocket. However your client doesn't see that, they see an image which may fall short either in tone, clarity or sharpness.

Most of my work is in tight spaces or it may be dark so I think I need the VR and 2.8. As with my 18-105 I feel the VR is the part which has made the images usable.

I already have a flash kit for lighting but I have been doing quite a lot more video and need the continuous lighting setup for that. I am currently quoting for a job which will have that priced in to it so waiting on that before I make the purchase.

Hope that has cleared a few things up.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you do need f2.8 then.
Most people would suggest the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRii (or the much more expensive 'E' version), however the older VR(i) can be picked up much more cheaply and is well suited to crop cameras like the D500.
 
I would stick to one of the Nikon 70-200's. Even if you dont use that range that often, when you do you would want the best image quality. I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 which worked great on my D300. When I switched to D800 the Sigma couldn't keep up with the higher resolution so I got the Nikon 70-200 2.8 which made a big difference. I use the Nikon 24-70 2.8 or 85 1.4 most of the time but when I need the bigger lens I still want the quality.
 
why not buy a fx body then the lens's will shoot wider than on your dx body !!
 
If you want the best image quality and can do without be, then the old 80-200 is the daddy
It can be found easily on the second hand market a mint example with box can be had for less than£300 some of the slightly shabby ones have gone for just over £100
There was a slight issue with this lens sometimes the ribbon cable that drives the af motor can come loose causing it to loose and, but there is a few videos on YouTube showing how to fix it yourself
Have a look on eBay.com for some of the Japanese camera dealers, this lens can be had quite cheaply from them even with shipping, normally not much more than a week or so from there usually, alsoy I find the Japanese are very. Accurate with their description and good quality pics, if they say like new it usually is
IMHO the 80-200 2.8 is the best of the best bar none ( if you can live without vr) people did before it existed
Thanks
Chris
 
For events, the flexibility of a zoom is pretty useful. I've borrow/hired a 70-200 f2.8 a couple of times for events and it's been worthwhile but not enough to justify buying one myself.
A couple of other thoughts. What about the 24-120 f4 VR? Longer than your kit lens, still got VR and constant f4. At the long end f4 will still give nice background separation.
Alternatively, look at the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC (either G1 or G2). Gives you f2.8 for those darker venues and image stabilisation.
It also depends on what sort of events you're shooting, are people moving around a lot or are they stood still on a stage doing a presentation? If they are moving around you probably want the f2.8 so that you can keep your shutter speed up.

If you are doing video, you'll want lenses with image stabilisation, so you'd probably be better off looking at secondhand lenses so you can find an f2.8 VR lens for an affordable price. The 70-200 f2.8 is a standard lens in the film makers kit for a reason, it's versatile, high quality and gives a great image particularly for a tight shot on a person (MCU/head and shoulders). However a problem with older lenses and video is that they aren't going to be as quick to focus in video/live view mode.
Again it does depend what you're shooting. Is it video at music events, weddings, conferences, interviews? If the camera isn't going to be moving (other than maybe panning on a tripod) then you can get away without VR. If you want to hand hold the camera then VR is needed, if you have a gimbal, then it's debatable as to whether you need it as the gimbal does a lot of the work.
Tamron have recently brought out a 70-210 f4 VC lens. It's of the same series as their G2's so build and image quality wise they're great, but it's a lot cheaper at around £600.
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk...s/Tamron-70-210mm-f4-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-Fit-Lens

That Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is an older EX series lens and got dropped when Sigma introduced the Art and Contemporary series. They can be found cheapish, but once you get the OS version, it's a similar size, weight and price of a 70-200. Also until Sigma brought out the Art/C/S lenses, they didn't have the best reputation for build quality and compatibility.

Do you know anyone you could borrow a 70-200 off? Hiring one would be a good way to try one out for an event, but that would take money out of your potential budget to buy one. On the flipside, you're not likely to lose much if you decide to buy a 70-200 and the sell it if you decide it's not for you.
 
chris marren said:
If you want the best image quality and can do without be, then the old 80-200 is the daddy
It can be found easily on the second hand market a mint example with box can be had for less than£300 some of the slightly shabby ones have gone for just over £100
There was a slight issue with this lens sometimes the ribbon cable that drives the af motor can come loose causing it to loose and, but there is a few videos on YouTube showing how to fix it yourself
Have a look on eBay.com for some of the Japanese camera dealers, this lens can be had quite cheaply from them even with shipping, normally not much more than a week or so from there usually, also I find the Japanese are very. Accurate with their description and good quality pics, if they say like new it usually is
IMHO the 80-200 2.8 is the best of the best bar none ( if you can live without vr) people did before it existed
Thanks
Chris
Click to expand...
The AF-S version is known to suffer motor failure and there are no spare parts available to fix them. I have the older AF-D screw driven version which up until the tail end of summer had been great. They are known for having some focus accuracy issues. The amount of back focus has shot up on mine and gone from needing -20 to be accurate to needing a lot more which is a little depressing as it's one of my favourite lenses.
 
Blades Media UK said:
Evening all,

I would consider myself a professional when it comes to my grade as a photographer. I still have a lot of learning to do but I have a good grasp of the craft, hired in professionally and make the correct money for my chosen area. Because of this I feel my equipment needs to reflect my prices and ability, which has put me in a conundrum. I could do with but not need a telephoto lens in my arsenal. I have been looking at 50-200 F/2.8 lenses and they start from £700 and go upwards as you know. For something I will be using very little I consider this a waste. I have been looking at others but there is quite a disparity. You either have cheap and nasty F4-F5.6 or the Sigma, Tamaron and Nikon F2.8 options.

Where is the cheaper professional option? Can anyone recommend a lens which is of professional quality but reasonably priced so if I don't use it I don't feel like I've wasted?

I am looking at the Sigma 50-150 F2.8 currently as that seems like a good middle ground? Are there any other options people can recommend or is it the case there are none and my best option is the expensive one?

Camera: Nikon D500
Click to expand...

This is a strange post. You want your gear to match your prices. It doesn’t need to, your pictures need to reflect your prices.

Also professional isn’t a measure of skill, it’s about how you make your money.

This makes me feel like you’re buying this lens to fit in/have what the other have rather than a business need. Will your clients see any benefit to a new lens?

As for the gear, I guess the middle ground is the 70-200 F4 from Nikon or an older 70-200 2.8 VRII both fantastic lenses, but you then say you work in tight spaces so surely a 70-200 on a crop body will be a bit too long?

I’m not sure you really know what you want or even need?
 
The 70-200/2.8 is the middle ground. ;)
Above it you have seriously expensive telephoto primes like the 400/2.8 (around £8,000) & the 600/4 (~£10,000).o_O

Third party 70-200/2.8 lenses are available as are f/4 zooms for those who find the Nikon 70-200/2.8 is more than they need.
From the sound of things these lesser lens might be enough for your occasional use, the other option is to hire a lens - that is unless LBA has got you in it's grips.
 
Kei if the AF goes completely then switch to manual mode and just Carry on using it, it will still work in mf, there was a time when all lenses were manual focus and people still got the shots, some would argue that manual focus is better than AF anyway
 
chris marren said:
Kei if the AF goes completely then switch to manual mode and just Carry on using it, it will still work in mf, there was a time when all lenses were manual focus and people still got the shots, some would argue that manual focus is better than AF anyway
Click to expand...

it depends what you are shooting and the camera. The old days cameras have split focus screens, now for a modern DSLR they don’t so it is a lot harder to do.

Old bodies were designed with MF in mind, new DSLR designed with AF in mind.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Old bodies were designed with MF in mind, new DSLR designed with AF in mind.
Click to expand...
That certainly makes a big difference.

Fortunately new Mirrorless bodies have magnified view & focus peaking, which together are better for MF than the old split prism screens, especially for long telephotos.
 
Petrochemist said:
That certainly makes a big difference.

Fortunately new Mirrorless bodies have magnified view & focus peaking, which together are better for MF than the old split prism screens, especially for long telephotos.
Click to expand...

true but OP has a D500 so that doesn’t help him if it happens to him.
 
Thanks all again for the replies. I keep thinking about the rental option but my mind goes back to the 85mm. I found it hard to use but did I find it hard because I didn't try to use it more? If I rent the 70-200 and can't make my style work with it straight away then I am likely to bin the idea or rent for long enough that the rental value is basically a third of the price of buying one.

Regrettably I don't know anyone who has one. I only know Canon or Sony users :ROFLMAO: .
 
I needed a lens with more reach, toyed with the idea of renting, but when adding on insurance, and the risks involved I was left feeling nervous so I decided to buy. As with you, it is not a focal length I thought I would use very often so I toyed with the idea of sigma/tamron etc, but did not want to risk being disappointed with the shots (I have a wider sigma and it is ok, but not wow!).

To edge my bets I bought a second hand 70-200 mk2 f2.8. If it were not being used after that job I could sell it and recoup my money easily rather than taking the hit on brand new. It is in really good nick and has been well looked after.

Since getting it I have used it loads, some jobs I could not have done without it. Pics are amazing and I am very happy!! It is not a take on holiday lens but it gets excellent results. I have found I am now using two cameras, my older backup camera and my main camera at some events with 24-70 and 70-200 for speed. Got shots I would not have if I was changing lenses over.

Good luck with your purchase. T
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top