I have been strugling with shooting some indoor and low light shots with my 70-300 VR and my SB600 flash. These are shots made inside churches, and gyms where there is not much light. I currently shoot a D90 and i usually shoot with the 70-300 VR for daytime outdoor use. I currently have the 70-300 VR, 50 1.8. and I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 on the way. I know the 70-300 is not a low light lens, should i invest in a low light lens for these shots. I dont want to spend 1K+dollars on a Nikon 70-200 2.8. What are your opinions.
Here is what i was thinking:
Sigma or Tamron 70-200 2.8
Nikon 85mm 1.8
Tokina 50-135 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
Used Nikon 80-200 2.8
if you can get a Nikon 70-200 2.8 for $1000 buy it...lol.
For shooting sports the only options I could see as having a useful range are the Sig or Tam 70-200 2.8 both of which are decently reviewed, and while rated down the spectrum from the nikon, if you're working on a budget it is what it is. The nikon 80-200 is a very decent lens...it would be my choice of this lot for sure.
I purchased a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for my D90 right here on FM. Cost was $1K. I didn't get VR for that price, but the lens is still awesome.
I wouldn't go buying a pro-grade f/2.8 lens expecting miracles, but I'd say the glass is worth the investment. Better colors, contrast and higher shutter speeds in low light DO make a difference.
I agree with the above--an older Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFD lens is your best bet if your budget is around $500. You can pick up a used 80-200 2.8 push-pull version for less than $500 and the image quality is fantastic. If you need faster auto focus, you'll need to spend a bit more ($200-300) for the two-ring version of the lens.
I'd take the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S if given the choice as it pretty much blows away the other zooms you're considering. But don't discount the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 either. I own that lens as well and have zero complaints on it. Just make sure you get the MKII version.
Maybe I have a bad copy, but I've noticed that at 200mm - my shots from the 18-200VR are better exposed and sharper than those from my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II.
Perhaps it is because for my church, VR is better than f2.8 at 200mm?
The Nikon 85mm f1.8 is good for portraits, but I had a ton of problems when I tried to use it as a general purpose low light lens. Worst lens I've ever owned for flare. Of the other lenses, there are two options that stand out. The first is the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 This is a nicely compact lens and delivers pro results. It's not as bulky as the 80-200mm type lenses. Second option is the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFD (two ring). It's not AFS, but image quality is obviously pro level. And another thing to consider. I've been finding that when I buy Nikon pro lenses used, I can almost always resell them later and get more than I paid for them. I would rule out the Tokina 50-135mm, only because it's likely too short and I think the Sigma 50-150mm is a better lens. The Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AFS will almost certainly go for more than $1,000.
kaybeejay wrote:
Maybe I have a bad copy, but I've noticed that at 200mm - my shots from the 18-200VR are better exposed and sharper than those from my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II.
Perhaps it is because for my church, VR is better than f2.8 at 200mm?
(I'm also using a D90)
I will comment on this specifically, because I think it will also help the OP:
VR only makes up about 2 stops, so the 18-200 and 70-200 are about even on hand held ability wide open. The 70-200 at f4 or f2.8 will do a better job of stopping subject motion and getting sharp results IF 1) You keep the camera and lens steady AND 2) Focus is accurate.
For all intents and purposes, I can't handhold my 70-200 indoors. I need about 1/400 to keep it steady. F2.8 is also very unforgiving on focus accuracy, especially so at 200mm.
My Sigma 70-200 HSM II is great on a tripod, or handheld for short periods outdoors in good light. You may want to test yours on a tripod with sufficient shutter speed and/or exposure delay. First check with AF, then check with magnified live focuses manually. If the 70-200 gives you good results on a tripod with AF, then you simply need to give it faster shutter speeds when shooting handheld. If it gives good results only when manually focused, then it may need to be focus adjusted by Sigma. If it doesn't give good results even when live view focused manually on a tripod, then it needs calibration from Sigma.
Bringing this back to the OP, a 70-200 or 80-200 is a pretty significant acquisition. Using one requires good technique on support, lighting, and focusing to achieve good results. The Sigma 50-150 is noticeably lighter and makes handholding somewhat easier. I wouldn't fool with the Tokina 50-135. While it is good optically, it focuses too slowly to fulfill the telezoom role IMO. Same for the Tamron 70-200.
My Nikkor 85 1.8 is one of my least used lenses. I'm strongly considering selling it for a Rokinon 85 1.4 for the portrait work and giving the general purpose telephoto duties to my 70-200.
Thanks for all the replies. I have narrowed it down to the 80-200 or 50-150 Sigma.
I have a friend that just bought a used 80-200 that I'm going to use tomorrow.
Again, thanks for you comments. This forum always gives a bunch of good info.
I take a lot of photos in concerts, jazz clubs that are dimly lit, except for the stage sometimes. I use a D90 and usually use the 35mm/2.0 or the 50mm/1.4. I sometimes use my Tamron 17-50mm/2.8 zoom if I need the wide end. For bigger venues I have used with quite good results my Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 zoom. I must say that even I am surprised but I do not miss having VR. You can see some of my Sigma photos at http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=9506&id=100000109917879&l=8fdfe35aad
