Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
I'm thinking about buying a telephoto lens and I'm torn between the 70-200mm 2.8VR and the 80-200mm 2.8. Do you guys think it's worth the extra $600-$700 for the VR?
I really like my 70-200/2.8VR. I started out with some Canon 15x50IS binoculars and it was clear that image stablization technology had arrived. The 70-200/2.8VR has a very useful zoom range, internal focusing, great brightness, nice bokah, and the VR buys you two to three stops; very useful if you usually hand hold. It's probably my favorite specialized lense. You should try it out on your camera body, as it has some weight and bulk with which you will have to see if you can deal. I have absolutely no "buyer's remorse" with this lense.
__________________
Doing my duty . . . . the way I see it.
"The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true."
Mark Twain
I'm thinking about buying a telephoto lens and I'm torn between the 70-200mm 2.8VR and the 80-200mm 2.8. Do you guys think it's worth the extra $600-$700 for the VR?
If you plan to shoot out at the 200 end, you will either need a tripod or VR. Take your choice. I would consider the extra money well spent myself.
If you plan to shoot out at the 200 end, you will either need a tripod or VR.
A good working rule of thumb when handholding still cameras (as well as utilizing a good braced arm position) is to take the lens length used (corrected for 35mm equivalence) as the denominator of the shutter speed fraction of a second and use that shutter (or faster). That would make a shutter speed of 1/300 of a second or faster for a 200mm lense length on a digital SLR with a 1.5X 35mm equivalence factor. Sharpness, sharpness, sharpness.
__________________
Doing my duty . . . . the way I see it.
"The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what they know for certain that isn't true."
Mark Twain
Headphoneus Supremus: Videographus Supremus: Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Originally Posted by uppis
Here is few quick macro shots with reversed 50 1.8. Both shot handheld without additional light in greenhouse, uploaded straight from camera.
Interesting. They look a bit soft though. To focus, you have to walk back and forth?
__________________
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2008 "CanJam" High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi Meet 2007.Nov.10 High Definition Videos! are here
lan's Head-Fi International Meet 2006 High Definition Videos! are here
My advice to you:
- Use your own ears as everybody's hearing and preferences are different.
- Try to audition as much equipment as possible to find your sound.
- Buy used to save money.
Interesting. They look a bit soft though. To focus, you have to walk back and forth?
Yep, they are little soft. But handheld with short DOF, not going to be razorsharp with my hands, unfortunately I'm a shaker. And yes, with 50 1.8 you need to, because its not IF, so when you turn the focus ring reversed only the body of the lens moves, not the elements. Also, you need to choose the aperture from the wrong end of the lens, which takes little to get used to..
A good working rule of thumb when handholding still cameras (as well as utilizing a good braced arm position) is to take the lens length used (corrected for 35mm equivalence) as the denominator of the shutter speed fraction of a second and use that shutter (or faster). That would make a shutter speed of 1/300 of a second or faster for a 200mm lense length on a digital SLR with a 1.5X 35mm equivalence factor. Sharpness, sharpness, sharpness.
This is quite true, but I don't see how it relates to the 70-200 vs. 80-200 debate. VR is meant to gain F-Stops by decreasing shutter speed, and a tripod will only be useful (with a moving subject) so long as there remains enough light to maintain high-shutter speeds.
To nickknutson: What would you buy with the $600-$700 saved when purchasing the 80-200? Personally, I see no reason to avoid the pro-model unless you have some other withstanding debt or item on your wish list. Still, from an optical perspective, I think you'd be quite happy with either.
__________________ Main Rig: Kenwood DP-1100II CDP -> Heath AP-2510 Preamplifier -> MAD EAR+ HD -> Grado RS-1's Photo-Fi: Nikon D200 - 35mm f/2D - 85mm f/1.8D - 80mm-200mm f/2.8D
Like perplex said, the 80-200 is a pro lens; it was the pro telephoto that preceded the 70-200 VR. Optically, it's just as good as the 70-200mm and both are great buys. If you don't need the VR, than it's not worth it. I like having VR at the long end but if you have a steady hand, enough light, or will be shooting off a tripod, you technically shouldn't need it.
You have to be careful that using VR doesn't lull you into a false sense of security sometimes. As some have mentioned, it can be very helpful in low-light situations, particularly with longer lenses, because it allows you to either close down the aperture for more depth of field if required, shoot at a lower ISO, or more commonly, slow down the shutter for more light. This is great for a motionless subject. However, if you slow down the shutter too much, a moving subject can introduce blur as well. VR only helps camera shake, it does nothing to help moving subjects ... only shutter speed can do that. Therefore, for action shots (like indoor sports or moving animals/children for example) VR isn't all that helpful.
Still, providing you're comparing two lenses with the same maximum wide aperture ( ie: not a f4 or f5.6 VR vs. a f2.8 non-VR), if you've got the extra cash, ( that $600 could buy you an additional lens ) the added flexibility of VR in certain circumstances is worth it.
__________________
Shopping tip: You can get shoes for a buck at bowling alleys.
You have to be careful that using VR doesn't lull you into a false sense of security sometimes. As some have mentioned, it can be very helpful in low-light situations, particularly with longer lenses, because it allows you to either close down the aperture for more depth of field if required, shoot at a lower ISO, or more commonly, slow down the shutter for more light. This is great for a motionless subject. However, if you slow down the shutter too much, a moving subject can introduce blur as well. VR only helps camera shake, it does nothing to help moving subjects ... only shutter speed can do that. Therefore, for action shots (like indoor sports or moving animals/children for example) VR isn't all that helpful.
Still, providing you're comparing two lenses with the same maximum wide aperture ( ie: not a f4 or f5.6 VR vs. a f2.8 non-VR), if you've got the extra cash, ( that $600 could buy you an additional lens ) the added flexibility of VR in certain circumstances is worth it.
You make very good points. I'm looking at it from a few different ways...swaying me either way. One of my thoughts is that people were able to take great photographs without VR for 50+ years...and without it, maybe it will make me learn my craft better and not have to rely on technology. Another thought is that the extra $600 is an investment because the lens will last me many years. Last thought is that I could buy the 80-200/2.8 and a super-wide zoom (Tonika 12-24/4 or Sigma 10-20) for the same price as a 70-200/2.8VR.
As I appreciate all of your thoughts, I'm still torn...as you can probably tell.
But handheld with short DOF, not going to be razorsharp with my hands, unfortunately I'm a shaker. And yes, with 50 1.8 you need to, because its not IF, so when you turn the focus ring reversed only the body of the lens moves, not the elements. Also, you need to choose the aperture from the wrong end of the lens, which takes little to get used to..
Linear Mode
