Which lenses do I need for aircraft, portrait and general photography?

[miurasv]

I don't have pots of money but I would like to buy some quality used lenses to go with the new D2HS I've just bought. I have lots to learn before getting good results I'm sure but I'd like to know what lenses I should get for general, portrait and taking pics of cars, motorbikes and aircraft at the airport. Thanks in advance for any replies I may receive.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

Welllllll for portrait stuff you probably want a fast prime lens and a focal length any thing from 50mm to 200mm, Motorbikes you ideally want prime lens again or a mid range zoom at least to 400mm but that depends on how close to the action you can get. Have a look through the different forums on here for the areas you have mentioned and check the EXIF info, this will give you a good idea of the most popular focal lengths.

If you can stump up the cash the Nikon 200-400 f/4 zoom is meant to be immense and would be a very good option for Motorsports/Aircraft etc

Andy

 

[Dman]

For portraits I'm currently using a 1.4 30mm and 1.8 50mm, if I need anything more I use my 55-200mm, but bear in mind the 1.5X crop factor. An 85mm 1.8 would also be a good option.

 

[HoppyUK]

I think the lens you want is a Nikon 70-300 VR. It's a very good lens at sensible money, plus it has VR, which will throw a good fist at all the things you mention. It's quite popular so you should be able to pick up a used one.

If you get into portraits, you might want to add a prime with a low f/number like f/1.8 to get really shallow depth of field. If 300mm is not long enough for bike racing, which it might be depending on how close you can get, then anything longer will be big and expensive

 

[miurasv]

Thanks for your replies. Can't afford a Nikon 200-400. The 70-300 Nikon VR is interesting but just read a review by Ken Rockwell that has confused me. He says this is all the lens you need and then goes on to say that its over priced, plasticky and made redundant by the 18-200 VR. Am I missing something here? Read good things about the Pro 70-200 f2.8 VR but its very expensive. Is there much difference between 200 and 300? Will 200 be enough of a zoom? What about the cheaper 18-200VR?

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks for your replies. Can't afford a Nikon 200-400. The 70-300 Nikon VR is interesting but just read a review by Ken Rockwell that has confused me. He says this is all the lens you need and then goes on to say that its over priced, plasticky and made redundant by the Pro 70-200VR f2.8. Am I missing something here? Read good things about the Pro 70-200 f2.8 VR but its very expensive. Is there much difference between 200 and 300? Will 200 be enough of a zoom? What about the cheaper 18-200VR?

Haha! Ken Rockwell confuses a lot of people. I like him, and if you know where he's coming from, he makes perfect sense. If you don't, he can be a bit difficult at times.

There is no way you can compare a 70-300 VR with the 70-200 2.8 VR - it is huge and costs a bomb. What you are paying for, and carting around, is a low f/2.8 aperture which most people really don't need IMHO. And the pro build quality, but the 70-300 can hardly be described as plasticy. And the 70-200 obviously doesn't compare at all at 300mm, with is a 50% increase (which is the way to compare). If you look at pictures taken with the two lenses where they overlap, ie 70-200mm f/4-4.5 or so, they will be pretty much indistinguishable - if there is any difference, 10:1 it will be user error.

The Nikon 18-200 is a different animal. It's an all-in-one lens with an amazing range, but it is compromised in all sorts of small ways. It's also pricey and heavy/bulky and I think suffers from zoom creep (lens extends by itself when pointed down) which has been fixed in a revised version just announced.

Having said that, I think that lenses like it are actually pretty good in the important areas and if you can put up with a bit of colour fringing at the edges (CA), some vignetting and barrel distortion at the wide end (most of these things can either be reduced or eliminated in post processing) then you've got a very potent package. These lenses don't seem very popular on here, and since I don't have one I guess that says where I stand, but I can see the appeal.

You need to get your hands on these lenses. They are very different. Personal choice.

 

[cyclone]

Yep, Ken's pretty good at contradicting himself. The 70-300 VR is on his recommended lens list though, I was confused in the same way by his article about it.
The 70-200 is awsome, and works with 1.4x and 1.7x TC's and you pay a premium to own one, the 70-300 is very good, doesn't work with TC's and doesn't cope as well with movement in low light.

By the sound of it, the 70-300 will do you fine, I can do a quick comparison between 200mm and 300mm if you like?

 

[cyclone]

Well, I've done it anyway and frankly I'm stunned.
It seems the 18-200VR gets nowhere near 200mm!
Ignore the softness in the 70-200, in the interest of accuracy I mounted the D80 on the tripod, not the lens. This meant I had to support the 70-200 with my hand and induced some movement. If my brain was on I'd have used VR, but it wasn't.

BTW. all shot at f/8.

 

[HoppyUK]

Well, I've done it anyway and frankly I'm stunned.
It seems the 18-200VR gets nowhere near 200mm!

That's a bit much isn't it :thumbsdown: That 18-200 is miles out. It seems like they've economised on the spec sheet too.

To be fair, everything that is specced on a lens always refers to focus on infinity and all lenses change focal length when they are focused. Some more than others and zooms are usually worse, and you are quite close in those pics.

It would be interesting to see what you get when framing a distant target. The 18-200 will fall short for sure, but perhaps by a bit less? Maybe.

Since you have such a splendid selection of comparable lenses, it would be interesting to see what the actual transmission is at lowest f/numbers. The teddies test target would be fine, just frame the image exactly the same with each lens, on A at lowest f/number, and see what shutter speed you get. Check the histogram to make sure it's as close too identical as you can get, maybe give it a dab of compensation to get the closest visual match.

My guess is that the 18-200 will need a little more exposure than the other two, and even when you've matched up the LCD images as best you can, the 18-200 will have slightly darker corners, especially at the wide end. Also take a peek at the line of the wall in wide shots - see how curved it gets

 

[cyclone]

Yep, I did consider the focus/zoom issue. I've read before that the 200mm shrinks to 193mm at closest focus distance, but that's still pushing it looking at that.
I'd do some more, but it's raining here now lol.
Tripod to teddy distance was about 15ft, I meant to mention that.

I believe i shot this at 18mm with the 18-200 in Latvia, nice distortion lol.

I'll do a few more tests when the weather improves...

 

[HoppyUK]

...I believe i shot this at 18mm with the 18-200 in Latvia, nice distortion lol...

Splendid distortion. Or is the earth round?

Mega vignetting too That's at least a stop down in the corners, hence my question about transmission.

With many zooms, vignetting cuts in quite soon away from the centre at wide apertures, so in terms of exposure the f/number is only correct in the middle With TTL metering this never gets noticed, unless you do an A vs B comparison with a high-end lens.

If you were to compare it to a prime, we would really see what it should be like

 

[miurasv]

Thanks, chaps. So is the 70-300 Nikon VR a good lens and better than the 18-200 VR which I understand is jack of all trades? Is the 70-200 f2.8 much better and worth the substantial extra cost? How much do the TC's cost and do they compromise the image quality? My brother mentioned a Sigma 150 - 500 lens which costs about £750 new but I've been put off these today a bit by a few people saying to only use Nikon glass on my camera. What do Nikon do in the 150-500 range and how much do they cost? Thanks again for your very helpful advice.

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks, chaps. So is the 70-300 Nikon VR a good lens and better than the 18-200 VR which I understand is jack of all trades?

That's about it.

Is the 70-200 f2.8 much better and worth the substantial extra cost?

If you want f/2.8 and don't want 300mm, it's obviously better. At a price. Otherwise not.

How much do the TC's cost and do they compromise the image quality?

About £300 aren't they, and yes they compromise quality. You also lose light - one stop with 1.4x and 1.5 stops with 1.7x so you will lose a lot of the f/2.8 advantage.

My brother mentioned a Sigma 150 - 500 lens which costs about £750 new but I've been put off these today a bit by a few people saying to only use Nikon glass on my camera. What do Nikon do in the 150-500 range and how much do they cost? Thanks again for your very helpful advice.

Mixed reports on that Sigma, and it is also a monster. Nikon make a superb 200-400 f/4 VR, but that is even bigger and you really don't want to know the price

 

[miurasv]

Nikon 70-300 VR then should be good to start with. I already have a Nikon 18-70 which is the same as the ones you'd get in a kit D200 my brother tells me. Any idea how much a mint used Nikon 70-300 VR goes for? Is this being replaced by Nikon soon as the 18-200 and 70-200 lenses we've discussed are?

 

[foggy4ever]

on here about £300

 

[miurasv]

Went back and read Ken Rockwell's review on the 70-300 VR. He was actually referring to the 18-200 VR making the 70-300 VR redundant and not the 70-200 VR 2.8 as I said above in my post that I've now edited. He does seem to contradict himself a lot though. He talks of the 80-200 f2.8 as a must have too. There's no VR on that one. The lenses without VR seem to be a hell of a lot cheaper? Are these worth getting?

 

[HoppyUK]

Went back and read Ken Rockwell's review on the 70-300 VR. He was actually referring to the 18-200 VR making the 70-300 VR redundant and not the 70-200 VR 2.8 as I said above in my post that I've now edited. He does seem to contradict himself a lot though. He talks of the 80-200 f2.8 as a must have too. There's no VR on that one. The lenses without VR seem to be a hell of a lot cheaper? Are these worth getting?

There is a reason why they are cheaper - people want VR. And the only reason not to get a VR lens is cost, although the 80-200 2.8 is also discontinued I think.

There is debate about whether it is worth it, but where I stand is clear from my own lenses - they all have Canon IS except the super-wide where it is not available. And on the one lens I have where it is an option, I paid a substantial premium to get it - like £400 extra. It is a brilliant invention

 

[miurasv]

Thanks for the excellent advice chaps. Bought the Nikon 70-300 VR. Going to have to learn how to use the camera now. I've been using my Sony DSC 707 for the last 7 years and it's been great. Kept it on Auto and Auto Iso too so don't know much about how cameras work really or the physics of them. Got a lot to learn.

 

[Tractor Boy]

Thanks for the excellent advice chaps. Bought the Nikon 70-300 VR. Going to have to learn how to use the camera now. I've been using my Sony DSC 707 for the last 7 years and it's been great. Kept it on Auto and Auto Iso too so don't know much about how cameras work really or the physics of them. Got a lot to learn.

You won't be disapointed with the 70-300 AF-S VR - it is a cracking lens that punches well above it's price tag

Enjoy the learning process :bang::bang::bang: