[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you find the large minimum focusing distance to be a problem? In that same price range you can get the Tamron 90 macro or Sigma 105 macro, which of course are quite a bit bigger, and lose 1.3 steps of light. Every time I look at that 85, the idea of being limited to a yard from my subject seems like it would be an annoyance. Heck, I'm often wishing my 180 could get closer than its' five foot limit. I guess the 35 F2 has spoiled me a bit!

Most of the time I'm using my 85mm for people shots, and so I'm well beyond the minimum focusing distance. For times when I take pictures of my cat, I sometimes have to move back a little. I recently took a few pictures of some cherry blossoms and found the minimum focusing distance unacceptable. It most certainly is not a macro lens.

This was the closest I could get with it:

Same tree, cheap 70-300mm lens:

No cropping on either.

 

[nineohtoo]

So "long exposure NR" was on. I didn't get a manual with my D50, so I don't know of any other way to turn it on/off. In camera adjustments were on normal, then I customized it to my liking and snapped this, with long exposure NR off:

100% crop:

Still no color noise, just grain which doesn't bother me. It's my friends birthday tomorrow, so I'll be able to test its lowlight abilities at BJs. Then Thursday Calvin Harris is playing over here and I'm gonna sneak my camera under my jacket lol.

 

[perplex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nineohtoo /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be honest, I think the D50 is damn good when it comes to ISO noise and grain. I don't even need to bother with any sort of NR so far with ISO 1600. One of the first shots I took with it after I traded for it. Had that been with a prior D70s or D2H, I would have had to run some sort of NR and then lose some sharpness and color. I don't mind fixing CA in CS2. It would be nice to have it in camera though. The viewfinder does suck compared to when I used a D2H, and of course an FX sensor would be nice. uppis, just buy the 85mm 1.8 if the 1.4 is out of your league. It's still an extraordinary lens, regardless of price compared to 85mm 1.4. BTW, anyoen have any broken or dismantled lenses lying around? I want to make a lens bracelet like the one that was on gizmodo.

Not bad but it's web sized and 1/160 shutter. Try again with an exposure around 1/30

 

[skyline889]

nineohtoo, you still have color NR is CS2 set to 25, that's why you're not seeing noise and just grain. It's a default for Camera Raw, along with brightness, contrast, black levels, and sharpening, so I always zero everything out and then work from there.

 

[nickknutson]

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?

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

See ya
Steve

 

[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uppis /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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?

 

[uppis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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..

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Pa /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

 

[perplex]

The 80-200 is actually a pro-model too.

 

[skyline889]

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.

 

[mbriant]

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.

 

[nickknutson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.