Trying to talk myself out of a 70-200

B

bildo

Messages
606
Name
Bill
Edit My Images
Yes
I've only been doing photography for several months now, but I've got into it far more than I thought I would and the main interest for me is capturing motion.

I've always loved drifting in particular, as well as most other motorsports but since doing photography I've wanted to get to absolutely anything I can.

I've recently been doing wakeboarding as we have a wake park nearby so it's great to be able to pop along take some snaps and pack up when I'm ready.

I'm currently using a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR. Whilst I do really like the lens I just feel I want something sharper that just has that extra clarity.

How much am I going to benefit if I was to move from this lens to the 70-200 f2.8 VRII? Since the price is a HUGE gap I'm assuming the hike is justified?

Advice would be greatly appreciated, especially from users of both lenses.
 
Last edited:
What settings do you normally find you are shooting with?

That is the first step in understanding if you would really benefit from a 70-200mm F2.8

There is more to it than purely the lens sharpness...
 
The wider aperture will allow you to shoot at higher shutter speeds without losing light. Your current zoom is probably stopped down to about f/5 at 200mm? To use very fast shutter speeds at that you're probably getting a lot of under exposed images. The 70-200 focuses faster, gives you over a stop of extra light allowing those higher speeds, better exposed, and it will be a bit sharper too.
 
RichardtheSane said:
What settings do you normally find you are shooting with?

That is the first step in understanding if you would really benefit from a 70-200mm F2.8

There is more to it than purely the lens sharpness...
Click to expand...

If I'm shooting drifting I normally use shutter priority and generally use around F22 a lot of the time. However, if I'm shooting wakeboarding I am normally on manual with it as wide open as I can manage.

Cagey75 said:
The wider aperture will allow you to shoot at higher shutter speeds without losing light. Your current zoom is probably stopped down to about f/5 at 200mm? To use very fast shutter speeds at that you're probably getting a lot of under exposed images. The 70-200 focuses faster, gives you over a stop of extra light allowing those higher speeds, better exposed, and it will be a bit sharper too.
Click to expand...

In all fairness I've not really struggled for the shutter speeds I require yet. It's more to do with the fact the wakepark is really cluttered and it'd be nice to be able to single out the rider a little more with a lower DOF.

It's around about f5 at 200mm, yup, however since I'm normally there when it's really quite light (around 5-6pm) I've not REALLY struggled to get the speeds I need.

The faster focus, DOF, better exposure and increased sharpness are the main temptations.
 
Think ahead though. On Autumn and winter evenings it's going to be a lot darker, you might need that 2.8.

But ... we're supposed to be helping talk you OUT of it, not into :D

What about an 80-200 2.8? Much cheaper, and the same quality output almost. I've had both, and tbh, end results, couldn't tell the difference. It doesn't have VR, but at very high speed shooting, VR is useless anyhow. You probably turn it off mostly
 
Cagey75 said:
Think ahead though. On Autumn and winter evenings it's going to be a lot darker, you might need that 2.8.

But ... we're supposed to be helping talk you OUT of it, not into :D

What about an 80-200 2.8? Much cheaper, and the same quality output almost. I've had both, and tbh, end results, couldn't tell the difference. It doesn't have VR, but at very high speed shooting, VR is useless anyhow. You probably turn it off mostly
Click to expand...

I was thinking that when I was saying how much light I had actually! :lol:

Hadn't considered the 80-200 2.8, I'm unsure how much I rely around the VR to be honest, I know that like you say when I'm shooting at about 1/1500 or so it's pointless but when I do the drifting I'm sometimes at 1/30 or lower, would I be using the VR then? I do normally have VR turned on but I've not really experimented with it off.

I just hear SO much how the 70-200 is the 'must have' for motorsport, and my 70-300 has had so much use already that I feel if I'm going to chuck a load of money into something I enjoy right now then a good lens seems like the best bet.

Is the 80-200 as quick with focusing and everything else? Any downsides at all other than the lack of VR?
 
If you want better sharpness, don't go near f/22 - diffraction will be severe at that aperture. Try f/8, with an ND filter if needs be.

For drifting at longer shutter speeds, a monopod will help smooth things out a lot - works better than VR when panning etc.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the 80-200 f2.8 is body AF motor driven? If i remember correctly the D5100 might not have a body AF motor. Check first before you buy.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want better sharpness, don't go near f/22 - diffraction will be severe at that aperture. Try f/8.
Click to expand...

The issues I'm having are more with the wakeboarding at the higher end of the focal range, I'm really not getting much clarity in the faces even when shooting at around 1/1500 or even higher. Is this down to something I'm doing wrong or is it the lens? I know it's a hard thing to get a lot of detail from but I just feel like something is missing a bit.

If I'm at drifting, when I try to use somewhere around f8 I normally suffer really badly with highlights since it's quite often a bright day. Is there a way around this? I have to stick with a shutter speed I can pan with and having it more open just lets more light in which just makes it highlightastic! :lol:

badboy1984 said:
The problem with the 80-200 f2.8 is body AF motor driven? If i remember correctly the D5100 might not have a body AF motor. Check first before you buy.
Click to expand...

Did look it up and there does appear to be an AF-S version, the D5100 doesn't have internal AF. I'm also hoping to upgrade to the D7000 at around the same time. Moving from one hobby (expensive cars that always go wrong) so I'll have a fair bit of money to play with for a change! :clap:
 
You're not being clear Bill. One minute you're at f/22, and nothing will be very sharp at that aperture with any lens (diffraction) - need ND filter in bright light. Then you're at 1/30sec and longer, with obvious potential for motion blur, and if cars are coming towards you, focus issues too. None of this has got anything to do with lens quality.
 
Yes the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 do have a AF-S version but is quite hard to get hold of a one. If you can and the price is right then go for it otherwise look at the 70-200 f2.8 VR1.

If you decent to get a D7000 then the normal 80-200 f2.8 will work and it will give good result. I'm lucky to bought a VR1 version in here for a good price.
 
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is an awesome lens. Go for the AF-S if you are looking for one as the focus motor is in the lens and it's ultrasonic. I bought one based on recommendations from some Premiere league football photographers who insisted that the AF-S was the pick of the bunch, they are quite hard to come by though.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're not being clear Bill. One minute you're at f/22, and nothing will be very sharp at that aperture with any lens (diffraction) - need ND filter in bright light. Then you're at 1/30sec and longer, with obvious potential for motion blur, and if cars are coming towards you, focus issues too. None of this has got anything to do with lens quality.
Click to expand...

I was told that an ND filter would make it harder to focus at high speeds, is this wrong? Thanks for the advice regarding the f22-area though.

1/30th is used for panning, not for any other shots, I'd be much higher than that for a head on/rear shot.

For instance here is one of my shots at 1/30th f/32:

Southwall Smokers - Lydden Hill 27/04/13 by fresheyedea, on Flickr

badboy1984 said:
Yes the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 do have a AF-S version but is quite hard to get hold of a one. If you can and the price is right then go for it otherwise look at the 70-200 f2.8 VR1.

If you decent to get a D7000 then the normal 80-200 f2.8 will work and it will give good result. I'm lucky to bought a VR1 version in here for a good price.
Click to expand...

How different are the VR1 and VR2? My main concern is the fact it's quite an old lens now and I'd like to have the warranty in case things went wrong. Also the obvious issues that can come with older lenses. VR1's still seem to go for around the £900-1000 mark on here used. VRII's seem to be around £1580 brand new, which is still quite a jump, admittedly. Just find it hard to justify £1k on a lens that could be several years old with a younger improved sibling!
 
Your apertures are crazy small and that will have a massive effect on your pictures. As someone's already said. Use f8/f11 and an nd filter to slow things down. F16 is probably about as small as you could go without any noticeable degradation on your pictures. Dial in some negative comp if your images are overexposed :-)
 
nickjohnwatson said:
Your apertures are crazy small and that will have a massive effect on your pictures. As someone's already said. Use f8/f11 and an nd filter to slow things down. F16 is probably about as small as you could go without any noticeable degradation on your pictures. Dial in some negative comp if your images are overexposed :-)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, I've done 2 drift events now and posted them both on here and noone's said a word! :lol:

I'll get myself an ND filter, definitely sounds like a promising idea and if it works how I'm expecting I'll be more than up for that.

I think the EXIF on the image I posted shows that I was at -1 on the exposure compensation, I had been playing around with that to make it more bareable. I guess there was just way too much light and the camera had reached it's limit and then I was pushing it beyond that with the compensation.

Oh well, live and learn. I've not been able to do drifting for a couple of months and I've learnt a lot in that time and this is just another one to add to it so thanks for informing me chaps.
 
nickjohnwatson said:
Your apertures are crazy small and that will have a massive effect on your pictures. As someone's already said. Use f8/f11 and an nd filter to slow things down. F16 is probably about as small as you could go without any noticeable degradation on your pictures. Dial in some negative comp if your images are overexposed :-)
Click to expand...

^^^This.

If you need longer shutter speeds in bright light, then drop the ISO as low as possible, don't go higher than f/11 for decent sharpness, and make up anything more with an ND filter. There is no alternative.

Focus must be right, and your panning technique perfect (monopod?) before you're in any position to assess lens quality.

Edit: nice shot BTW :)
 
Last edited:
bildo said:
How different are the VR1 and VR2? My main concern is the fact it's quite an old lens now and I'd like to have the warranty in case things went wrong. Also the obvious issues that can come with older lenses. VR1's still seem to go for around the £900-1000 mark on here used. VRII's seem to be around £1580 brand new, which is still quite a jump, admittedly. Just find it hard to justify £1k on a lens that could be several years old with a younger improved sibling!
Click to expand...

Depend on your budget ...... the VR1 is still a fantastic lens and someone also mention the 80-200 f2.8 is also still a fantastic lens.

Having expensive gear you should invest on insurance as well .......
 
Curious question from an outsider - would a cir-pl be a good substitute for an ND filter?

Would reduce reflections on the car, and usually reduce light by 2 stops too.
 
if your using f22 or 32, and auto iso, camera could be whacking the iso up causing noise too.
other thing is at web resolution being fairly low vs orignal, it tends to sharpen things up abit.

even if a nd filter effects autofocus, you could prefocus, set it to manual and then put filter on
 
Durbs said:
Curious question from an outsider - would a cir-pl be a good substitute for an ND filter?

Would reduce reflections on the car, and usually reduce light by 2 stops too.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion, that would help in terms of exposure. At certain angles, ie between 30-40 degrees to the surface, it would also reduced reflections. That angle often falls nicely for the windscreen, so you can see the driver better.

In this situation, an ND filter or CPL would not affect AF.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is an awesome lens. Go for the AF-S if you are looking for one as the focus motor is in the lens and it's ultrasonic. I bought one based on recommendations from some Premiere league football photographers who insisted that the AF-S was the pick of the bunch, they are quite hard to come by though.
Click to expand...

Grays currently have a mint copy for just over £1000
 
I think I am first to ask, but are you doing any editing to your shots? I see you mention contrast being an issue, a lot of time it could just require a little editing to turn the shot around.
If you have not done any editing yet, I'd suggest to start there, as it's a hell a lot cheaper than £1000 lens only to find contrast not to change by much(not saying that will happen)
 
MPB had the 80-200 AF-S last month 2nd hand for £699 by the way... it got snapped up quickly
 
Gary Coyle said:
Thats a stupid price and i dont know how they keep going
Click to expand...

Agree. I had a 70-200, got a 80-200 and am now back onto the 70-200 (VR1). Awesome lens and much better than the 80-200 IMO due to VR, far more keepers with the 70-200. £900 will get you nice 2nd hand one.
 
What a lot of people dont realise or dont mention is I find I get a much brighter view finder with a 2.8 or 1.8 lens which also helps ;) or maybe its just me and im talking rubbish (which is possible lol)
 
you will, I don't think it matters much on a sony with evf, but for you mirror flappers it will make a difference :-)
 
AdamSi said:
What a lot of people dont realise or dont mention is I find I get a much brighter view finder with a 2.8 or 1.8 lens which also helps ;) or maybe its just me and im talking rubbish (which is possible lol)
Click to expand...

Probably half true, but not usually wholly true ;)

The standard focusing screen in most DSLRs will show increased brightness down to about f/2.8-ish, but thereafter won't show any more brightness (or reduced depth of field) even with a faster lens fitted. It's because of the optical characteristics of the focusing screen.

Some cameras can be fitted with a different focusing screen that will show more brightness at lower f/numbers and also the true DoF effect, generally recommended for manual focusing, but they're not so good for general use with higher f/number lenses - bizarrely they're actually not as bright, and metering needs to be adjusted.
 
cambsno said:
Agree. I had a 70-200, got a 80-200 and am now back onto the 70-200 (VR1). Awesome lens and much better than the 80-200 IMO due to VR, far more keepers with the 70-200. £900 will get you nice 2nd hand one.
Click to expand...

I don't think your 80-200mm was the AF-S version though?
 
If you are looking at spending 900-1000 quid on a lens, also consider the newer nikon 70-200 F4 VR lens. Its sharpness and light transmission are better than the VRII F2.8 lens and it leaves the older VR1 in the dust. Its also nice and light and has the best VR out of all lenses mentioned.
 
James J said:
If you are looking at spending 900-1000 quid on a lens, also consider the newer nikon 70-200 F4 VR lens. Its sharpness and light transmission are better than the VRII F2.8 lens and it leaves the older VR1 in the dust. Its also nice and light and has the best VR out of all lenses mentioned.
Click to expand...

Thats if he don't need f2.8. Agree the f4 version is nice and sharpness and is a great lens, but he need f2.8 to shoot low light then the f4 version is no good for him.

80-200 f2.8 AFS is nice lens and optic is not much different then the VR1, but is the VR that makes the different to me so i gone for that instead.
 
HoppyUK said:
Probably half true, but not usually wholly true ;)

The standard focusing screen in most DSLRs will show increased brightness down to about f/2.8-ish, but thereafter won't show any more brightness (or reduced depth of field) even with a faster lens fitted. It's because of the optical characteristics of the focusing screen.

Some cameras can be fitted with a different focusing screen that will show more brightness at lower f/numbers and also the true DoF effect, generally recommended for manual focusing, but they're not so good for general use with higher f/number lenses - bizarrely they're actually not as bright, and metering needs to be adjusted.
Click to expand...

I probably did not explain too well I mean if I put a consumer lens say f3.5-5.6 the is a visible difference than when my 2.8 or 1.8 is on (probably no difference between 2.8 and 1.8 but these two seem much brighter and in turn a cleaner image to my eye when focusing etc)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top