toying with the idea of a 70-200mm nikon lens. show me what your 200mm (any make) lens are capable off cheers
Though I guess this is not what you had in mind! Which lens are you looking at? (I've been hanging my nose over the F2.8 VR one, but at 1200, it's a bit out of my budget!)
hi stella nice shot yes 1200 is just a little bit out of my reach right now more realistically looking at one of these..... Nikon 55-200mm F4-5.6G VR AF-S DX IF-ED good wright up on the Ken Rockwell site.
if you can stretch to it id get the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR nikon lens, the extra bit of reach is well worth it, plus the lens will still be in the sweet spot at 200mm and not maxed out, so less distortion than the 55-200. this was handheld at about 280mm:
That's very impressive for a handheld shot - if you saw some of mine, you'd think I'd got an advanced case of St Vitus Dance! Seriously, how much difference does VR make in practice? The lens you recommend may well be the one I end up with. I have a similar spec 70-200mm, whihc is not VR and I don't think I've ever had a really satisfactory handheld shot, except when panning.
nice seaguls head matt .... hand held too really cant stretch to the 300mm at the moment so iv just ordered one of these... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm not bad for 129
stella read the review at ken rockwell's site, he compares the non VR with the newer VR 70-200mm lens. extract... VR: Vibration Reduction (VR) will lead to substantially sharper images compared to ordinary lenses without VR. I hand held a prototype at 1/20 second; I'm unsure how much better the production model will work and what I'll see when viewed at 100% vs. what I saw with in-camera playback. See Everything else without VR just went obsolete. Obsolete doesn't mean discontinued; obsolete means that other products just became irrelevant or uncompetitive. Lots of good info on here too. does come across as a bit self opinionated but i like his too the poibnt no bull**** reviews here... http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm
Ive been seriously impressed with the VR system, its quite a weird sensation at first as the image in the veiwfinder stays still as you move the camera, almost like its got suspension but the pictures just come out so much sharper. I thought the 18-70mm kit lens that came with the d70s was quite sharp, but the 70-300vr just blows it away- some of the pics ive taken you really wouldnt belive were on a 6 mp camera. another example (sorry its a bit off-topic but havent got many pics on my new laptop) - this was taken handheld from a moving train carriage on bumpy narrow guage tracks in wales, according to the EXIF data on the pic it was at: 300mm (450mm equivalent!), 1/320 sec, F8. ISO200: whole pic: 100% zoomed in crop )ie actual pixels: i think the VR did its job pretty well!
TBH, I've always thought the 28-80 kit lens that came with my D70 was a good, versatile lens, but rather soft, so anything sharp attracts my attention, as I'm considering upgrading. I have read reviews of the various lenses I like the looks of, but I can never be quite sure how truly independant the reviews are, or whether they're put up by the manufacturers. But that looks impressive! The one I was looking at (the expensive one) was F2.8 all along the zoom, and this 130 one has more or less the same spec as my 80-200 zoom which is F4.5 to 5.6. Do you think the VR makes up for the smaller aperture range? When I get back later tonight, I'm going to do some serious research on the VR lenses. I'd promised I'd treat myself to a new lens for my birthday next month, but at this rate, I may even get myself a D300 body as well, if I just up my budget a bit.
all hand held, no VR, although for that one i think i was sat down and resting by elbow on the armco.
also, if you can i would try to avoid the DX digital-only lenses, they are designed for the smaller frame size of a digital sensor vs a 35mm film slide- so with a lens designed for a full frame youre only looking through the middle bit with the digital sensor, so you get a lot less distortion at the extreme ranges of the zoom. DX lenses are designed using smaller lens elements so usually have more distortion, as the sensor is looking the the whole of the lens not just the centre where the distorion is minimal. downside is the non-DX lenses are slightly bigger, heavier and more expensive, but i think theyre worth it.
