i am confuse between the 2 lens
70-200 sigma
80-200 nikon , both have f2.8
but VR more important or 2.8 more important ??
70-200 sigma
80-200 nikon , both have f2.8
but VR more important or 2.8 more important ??
f2.8 or VR ??
- Thread starter yumyum
- Start date
- Status
VR is a bonus for your lense.
since both has 2.8, what do you mean by 2.8 more important?
for Nikon system...I dont think you have a choice between f2.8 or VR, but rather, VR or No-VR.
between 70-200Sigma or AF-D80-200, I would go for the Sigma.because of HSM.
between 70-200Sigma or AF-D80-200, I would go for the Sigma.because of HSM.
I'm actually wondering if VR is that important? If we could just take a at faster shutter, why do we still need VR? Or.... VR is more applicable to night photography?:dunno:
You may not be able to preview it on the camera with the button, but you'll still get the same effects....
Get the Nikkor, whether it be the older 80-200mm/f2.8 EDIF AF-D with tripod collar or the 70-200mm/f2.8G EDIF AF-S VR. You won't be disappointed.
f2.8 only give you faster shutter as compared to f2.8 or smaller aperture... but it doesn't assure you to get high shutter speed everytime... there will be alot of times where f2.8 is not even wide enough... so this is when VR kicks in... this is especially true for a tele lens
i just saw someone selling a 80-200mm/f2.8 but it's 7 years old , how ??? should i buy?
The image quality is the same, after doing some research. Just that its pull/push version. Its lighter than the latter models. Pretty value for money. But, with pulling and pushing, it much seems to be like PCC.:bigeyes:
Explorerz and Silentwave, i'm having a hard time choosing which lense to go to. 1 is a multi purpose lense, with a very strong VR incentive, but poor iamge quality. The other is a very heavy lense, with superb sharpness. Yet, i have no idea which 1 suits me, very much for use at night for shooting portraits, buildings and people.:dunno:
Is it the 80-200mm/f2.8 with tripod collar version? If it is and the lens is still in a good condition (optically, mechanically, and if you care...cosmetically) and the price is good/fair, buy it even if it's 7 years old. I've been using my lens for 7-8 years and so far it's been working great. I'd avoid buying the push-pull version (without tripod collar), because the zoom/focus ring on the push-pull version tends to creep when the lens is pointed up or down. This is quite annoying when you use it on a tripod.
If I'm not mistaken, this 80-200mm/f2.8 with tripod collar is still selling at about 1500-1600 SGD new (check the Nikon price list thread in Nikon sub-forum on ClubSnap). A friend of mine recently bought a used one that was in a very good condition (optics & cosmetics are very clean) for approximately 1150-1200 SGD.
Hmmm shooting portraits and buildings at night. :think: Those are two different things. For the first one, VR might be useful because portraits are most convenient to be shot handheld. It is also very helpful to have a faster lens and a cooperative model who can stand still and hold her/his pose. But to shoot buildings at night, it doesn't matter whether a lens has a VR or not. A tripod would be much more useful.
The answer to your question is: it's actually best to have both (a VR lens that is also very sharp).
But I know that sometimes it is not possible (budget constraints, etc.). If I were in your situation, I personally would rather have a lens with superb sharpness (although it doesn't have VR) than a soft lens with VR. The logic behind this is: you can't make a soft lens to produce photographs that are as sharp as those taken with sharper lenses. However, softness in photographs caused by camera movements/shakes can be remedied by improving my shooting techniques. VR isn't going to help with blurs caused by subject movements too. That's my two cents.I second that. The 80-200/f2.8 AFS is another good choice. Unfortunately, it is much harder to find.
AFS 80-200 can be found at alex photo. you gotta open ur mouth to ask. sometimes that piece of glass pops out of no where.
VR is a luxury IMHO, to have it is like a bonus. but it will come in handy in situations where low light is concerned.
but for the almost same price of 70-200 and 80-200 afs, i would rather get the 70-200.
70-200 is gg for around 2.65k from sykestang...
but being a previous owner of a sigma 70-200. for what i can say is that, that lens is good when you are working in a place flooded and filled with light. other than that... the colours i can get out from it, the speed and the etc etc..... not good compared to a 80-200.
80-200 will win the sigma 70-200 in terms of colour contrast / saturation, sharpness, weight for being light.
70-200 will win 80-200nikoor in terms of speed, because its hsm, its heavy.
but problem with sigma lens coating is that over a period of time, the exterior coating will flake off....
so if you wan good quality pics, sharp and colour, but dun mind the noisy lens during afing, and prolly a slow af compared to sigma, take the nikkor... sure will not go wrong.
if u wan fast af. take sigma.
if i were u..... save up and take 70-200 VR. best of the 2 worlds. fast good. everything also have... but too bad dun haf aperture ring..... haha.. i am classic one la.. must have rings... thats why now still saving up.. for the 70-200 vr..
VR is a luxury IMHO, to have it is like a bonus. but it will come in handy in situations where low light is concerned.
but for the almost same price of 70-200 and 80-200 afs, i would rather get the 70-200.
70-200 is gg for around 2.65k from sykestang...
but being a previous owner of a sigma 70-200. for what i can say is that, that lens is good when you are working in a place flooded and filled with light. other than that... the colours i can get out from it, the speed and the etc etc..... not good compared to a 80-200.
80-200 will win the sigma 70-200 in terms of colour contrast / saturation, sharpness, weight for being light.
70-200 will win 80-200nikoor in terms of speed, because its hsm, its heavy.
but problem with sigma lens coating is that over a period of time, the exterior coating will flake off....
so if you wan good quality pics, sharp and colour, but dun mind the noisy lens during afing, and prolly a slow af compared to sigma, take the nikkor... sure will not go wrong.
if u wan fast af. take sigma.
if i were u..... save up and take 70-200 VR. best of the 2 worlds. fast good. everything also have... but too bad dun haf aperture ring..... haha.. i am classic one la.. must have rings... thats why now still saving up.. for the 70-200 vr..
Do you mean to say that the 70-200VR is not a sharp lens?
I assure you the image quality is superb. It take TCs fairly well too.
I occasionally use mine with a 2x TC even.
Try one out and you will understand
2.8 gives you a twice as fast shutter compared to f4. VR can shoot at lower shutter, it compensates your hand movement but cant compensate subj movement.
1/125 f2.8 can freeze motion on stage. ( except fast dancing etc)
1/30/f5.6 even w vr will still be blur if subj moves
1/125 f2.8 can freeze motion on stage. ( except fast dancing etc)
1/30/f5.6 even w vr will still be blur if subj moves
- Status
Similar threads
