Scott Murray
Senior Member
Feel free to share some photos using the 2.0TC please, I am keen to see the quality and if its worth going that route or wait for my 150-600mm Tamron.
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8
- Thread starter Scott Murray
- Start date
Feel free to share some photos using the 2.0TC please, I am keen to see the quality and if its worth going that route or wait for my 150-600mm Tamron.
singlerosa_RIP
Senior Member
I had the 80-200 D ED (2 ring) for a few years prior to getting the 70-200. I didn't do any side by side comparos, but the big difference I notice is focus speed and (when I need it) VR. I was content with the 80-200, but stole the 70-200 off Craigslist for $1400 in mind condition.
80-200 .............................................70-200 same eagle; too bad they're not the exact same shot....
Mfrankfort
Senior Member
Nice! That's the next lens on my list. One day... one day...
80-200 is still respectable, Thanks Jim. I want the 70-200 and think oh well I will just get the 80-200 but I know I won't be happy till I get what I want. Just need the sign off from the boss first.
Scott
Here are some with the 70-200 bare and with the 2X. I haven't posted any with the Kenko yet but it looks promising.
Dunham Deer-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
400mm at zoo - a set on Flickr
300s @400mm - a set on Flickr
Squirrel test shots - a set on Flickr
I think my assessment of the the lens is as follows. If you take bad (Not sharp) pictures with the bare 70-200 you should get a different hobby as you're putting a lot of effort into getting it wrong. With the 2X TC you can get good or even great pictures but you need to put the effort in. Our logic was that we don't spend our weekends at 400mm shooting birds so this combo gives a fantastic 70-200 and a pretty good 400mm. If you do just shoot birds maybe the 80-400G is a better bet, but I've not had chance to compare. Be careful not to see reviews of the VRI with the TCII as it was rubbish by comparison from what I've read. As I mentioned before, check the AF if you plan to shoot wide open a lot, which is the main reason for getting this lens as it's sharp at 2.8.
Here are some with the 70-200 bare and with the 2X. I haven't posted any with the Kenko yet but it looks promising.
Dunham Deer-1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
400mm at zoo - a set on Flickr
300s @400mm - a set on Flickr
Squirrel test shots - a set on Flickr
I think my assessment of the the lens is as follows. If you take bad (Not sharp) pictures with the bare 70-200 you should get a different hobby as you're putting a lot of effort into getting it wrong. With the 2X TC you can get good or even great pictures but you need to put the effort in. Our logic was that we don't spend our weekends at 400mm shooting birds so this combo gives a fantastic 70-200 and a pretty good 400mm. If you do just shoot birds maybe the 80-400G is a better bet, but I've not had chance to compare. Be careful not to see reviews of the VRI with the TCII as it was rubbish by comparison from what I've read. As I mentioned before, check the AF if you plan to shoot wide open a lot, which is the main reason for getting this lens as it's sharp at 2.8.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
OK thank you for that, they do look nice and sharp hmmm.
rocketman122
Senior Member
Scott Murray
Senior Member
what comparison?the 80-400 is decent but the 2.8 VRII will spank it.
Yeah I have already noticed that it doesn't sound like a whole heap of hamsters are running back and forth trying to get focus, its whisper quiet.
rocketman122
Senior Member
I fight with myself not to get the VRII. the focus breathing is such a fail on the lens. very sharp but its such a huge minus for me. I need to be able to shoot very close at times and whipping out the 105VR is just inconvenient at times. same with the 85 1.8G. I want to get it but it has such a flaw that it makes the lens not useful. people talk of the VR1 vignetting, but I havent seen anything weird about it. the sharpness of the VRII is nice. not $2400 nice though. enjoy your lens. surprised you invested in the 70-200 and not a midrange lens?
Scott Murray
Senior Member
I am considering a mid range aswell lol
rocketman122
Senior Member
24-70 AFS? I see you have time and money on your hands haha! why not, live it up.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Yeah that one is a consideration, but will wait and see. I think I will be able to manage the wedding now with the 16-35 f/4, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8 and Tamron 90mm f/2.8 with Raynox DCR-250. Not sure if I will even need my 80 f/1.4.
rocketman122
Senior Member
I would have no issue using an 80-200 for weddings. would love the AFS. even the AFD. not the push pull though. thats my first true love for nikon lenses. I gave up mine only because I needed VR. although today VR isnt necessary with FF sensors and high ISO. all these 80-200/70-200 are VERY sharp lenses as they are. there is minute differences between them. its not like youre going to be so WOWED byt getting a 70-200. they are all fantastic lenses.
rocketman122
Senior Member
hard to use the 70-200 on the dance floor, so it pretty much sits in the bag. but other than that its very versatile. nice compressed shots at the dance floor. on the dance floor, I have a WA zoom on one camera, the other with the 28-75, a fisheye in my pouch and once in a while when im hunting, I take the 85 1.8 out for a few shots. but youre going to be smack dab in the middle of the dance floor. you wont have the space to use it. a midrange was what your lineup was missing. look at pics and youll see that pros go for the midrange zoom more so than the 70-200 as it does a good 60% of the bulk work. 70-200 is great for BG portrait session, makeup/hair (if you have the space), family formals, nice for catching candid guest shots, nice to get ceremony shots but for the dance floor, its ok, but you have to be out of the traffic to use it. youre making a huge mistake by not using the 85 1.4 lens. the quality of its bokeh can not be done with any other lens. Scott, you have caviar in your hands and are using sardines instead. nothing wrong with sardines, but youre shooting portraits, the glass was created with that purpose in mind. you will wow them with amazing images using the 85. just do a few. I always try to offfer the BG different perspectives from different lenses. from fisheye to 200mm. so they have a variety.
you have great lenses but also knowing when to switch or to anticipate is the hardest part. thats why the bulk of amateur or semi advanced photogs will just have the 70-200 on one camera, and the other a midrange 28/24-70 lens. they dont take chances. you are creative so you know specific lenses will give unique images. the 50 1.4 will give images no midrange can touch. the 85 is amazing for unique one of a kind bokeh, no other lens can create. you should really have 4 lenses with you. 16-35 for the wide, the 50 and 85 for midrange and the 70-200. juggling them is the hardest part and most dont want to so like I said, they leave the midrange on one, the tele zoom on the other and on the dance floor whip out the WA for a different "get it all in" dance shots.
when the wedding btw?
Last edited:
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Wedding is in 2 weeks. One benefit I have is that they do not want many dance shots/reception shots so that should not be too difficult. I could probably manage with the 16-35 and as you say the 85. I will be using the 70-200 for the ceremony and maybe for the getting ready, but have already been told that they will be happy taking their own photos so no hassle and thats their choice.
rocketman122
Senior Member
good luck buddy. Im sure your mind is racing thinking about all the small things. only thing I will say, dont be shy with the shutter button. youd be surprised how some situations you think you got the pic you wanted then chimp through & realize even after multiple shots, you dont even have one useable one! and its not because you arent talented. there are so many factors to calculate. shoot like crazy. better get more than less. you can also get quantity and quality. use that 85 for a few pictures. its just an amazing lens. the 70-200 is hard to work with if you have no space-minimum 4.5'
as far as dance shots go, getting good shots is very hard. a lot of anticipating, a lot of missed shots. high shutter speed, not enough light. I would say its one of the hardest to do well. speed with low light. doesnt go well. just be prepared, if they lift the BG on chairs or even they throw the groom in the air. many weddings, they take a huge tablecloth and use the firefighter circle and throw him in the air. you have to be lightning quick and anticipate. not sure how crazy it gets in oz but over here, they get CRAZY. its hilarious and tests your reflexes. I love being in all the middle of the hassle. people dancing and elbowing you every so often haha. we have wedding with 400 guests.
just put your camera on silent so you wont be bothered with calls during shooting haha!
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Just ben playing with this lens handheld and slow shutter speeds, I was shooting a magnet on a fridge at 200mm f/2.8 ISO 100 night time no flash at 1/13th sec, the writing is nice and clear (you cannot see it unless you zoom in) this is handheld standing up. Its one of my tests that I do, see how slow I can get the shutter speed with correct technique, then I know what I can do in a pinch. I doubt if I would ever need to go this low due to the D800E's nice high ISO and the SB-910 but its nice to know.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
My dogs both with the 70-200.
