85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8

nospam wrote:
>In article , Floyd L. Davidson
> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking at 70-300mm and the 80-400mm lenses and
>> giving that some thought.
>
>the 70-300mm vr is a very good lens and well worth the price. the
>80-400mm vr isn't exactly the fastest focusing lens, and for the extra
>100mm, i don't think it is worth three times the cost and additional
>weight.

My current thinking is just about exactly the same as yours.

I do have some use for 400mm, and would find it useful with the
D2x also, but I haven't really looked into whether the 80-400mm
is good enough at 400mm to be worth it or not. I'm not much
concerned with the speed of AF, so that part doesn't enter into
it much. But what really really does count is that I'm fairly
often shooting people in areas without great lighting, and with
the 80-200mm I have no concerns about using the limits of the
focal range even at f/2.8. That is one Hell of a lense.

It will take some work with the D3 to determine just how much
the higher ISO values help, and how much I miss the high end
of the focal length range too. Could be I'll discover that
the 80-200mm will continue to be first pick, and that I really
don't need to be concerned about it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

> I'm looking at 70-300mm and the 80-400mm lenses and
> giving that some thought.

the 70-300mm vr is a very good lens and well worth the price. the
80-400mm vr isn't exactly the fastest focusing lens, and for the extra
100mm, i don't think it is worth three times the cost and additional
weight.
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

"David J Taylor" wrote:
>nospam wrote:
>> In article , Floyd L. Davidson
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking at 70-300mm and the 80-400mm lenses and
>>> giving that some thought.
>>
>> the 70-300mm vr is a very good lens and well worth the price. the
>> 80-400mm vr isn't exactly the fastest focusing lens, and for the extra
>> 100mm, i don't think it is worth three times the cost and additional
>> weight.
>
>Thanks the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR lens, I take it, or a different
>one?

Everyone is saying the new 70-300mm with VR is much
improved over past versions without VR.

Apparently the going price is about $450 depending on the
phase of the moon.

The older Nikkor 70-300mm, without VR, seems to sell on
eBay at about the same prices as Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm
lenses, below $200 and often even below $100.

I saw a Nikkor 70-300mm yesterday that sold for $70. I
don't know if that is so cheap that you can't lose if you
try it, or if that means its so horrible it isn't worth
anything no matter how little it cost...


--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

On Dec 4, 5:12 pm, "Joseph Meehan" wrote:


> I would suggest that for portraits you would certainly want f1.4. The
> crop factor effectively gives greater DOF for the same aperture.
>

There is most certainly not too much depth of field with a 50mm f/1.8
on a d200 for portraits... Quite the opposite, usually.
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

> It will take some work with the D3 to determine just how much
> the higher ISO values help, and how much I miss the high end
> of the focal length range too. Could be I'll discover that
> the 80-200mm will continue to be first pick, and that I really
> don't need to be concerned about it.

i think you might find that with the d3's high iso performance, fast
f/2.8 zoom lenses and even faster fixed focal length lenses are not as
important as they once were. suddenly, shooting indoors with an f/5.6
zoom is not a big deal.

now if nikon would only make a 70-200vr f/4 that was under $1000...
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

nospam wrote:
>In article , Floyd L. Davidson
> wrote:
>
>> It will take some work with the D3 to determine just how much
>> the higher ISO values help, and how much I miss the high end
>> of the focal length range too. Could be I'll discover that
>> the 80-200mm will continue to be first pick, and that I really
>> don't need to be concerned about it.
>
>i think you might find that with the d3's high iso performance, fast
>f/2.8 zoom lenses and even faster fixed focal length lenses are not as
>important as they once were. suddenly, shooting indoors with an f/5.6
>zoom is not a big deal.

Well, that is certainly what I'm *hoping* to find!!!

I do a lot of stuff locally in school gyms that are very
poorly lit. It really annoys me too, because the grade
school has all of their Christmas programs and the like
in a gym that has the worst lighting of them all. Hot
spots, old yellow bulbs, no light in some places, etc
etc. The Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 is a wonderful lense,
and I can shoot with it wide open, but it is still right
on the border line.

When I saw what the ISO 6400 images from the D3 looked
like, and put in an order.

But yes, the *big* deal is going to be shooting ambient
light in the grade school gym using the 28-105mm
f/3.5-4.5, and stopping it down to f/8.

>now if nikon would only make a 70-200vr f/4 that was under $1000...

I'm addicted to a tripod anyway, so I'm not overly
excited about VR just for the sake of VR, and wouldn't
even begin to consider that kind of money to replace the
80-200mm f/2.8 that I have. But if I dropped that one
in the ocean and lost it, I'd eat beans for 6 months to
replace it if that's what it took.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

M-M wrote:
>In article ,
> floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> The older Nikkor 70-300mm, without VR, seems to sell on
>> eBay at about the same prices as Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm
>> lenses, below $200 and often even below $100.
>
>There are 2 different Nikon 70-300 non-VR. One has ED glass. The other
>is the $100 one and was useless to me at 300mm unless it was on a tripod.
>
>You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.

I own two extremely good tripods.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

Buy_Sell wrote:
> I've been contemplating the purchase of the Nikon 85mm f1.4 prime lens
> and wondered how many people would purchase this lens if they already
> owned the 80-200mm f2.8 lens? I know that the 85mm would do much
> better in low light but how often does f1.4 actually get used on this
> lens? If it frequently gets stopped down, then it would make more
> sense to just use the 80-200mm lens. Any thoughts or suggestions
> would be appreciated. Anyone who owns the 85mm, I'd like to hear what
> you think of this lens and how often do you get to use it?

If you buy an f/1.4 lens and always use it at f/2.8, what's the point?
The 85 f/1.4 lens was great for portraits on a film camera because of its
very limited depth-of-field wide open. For similar usage with digital the
much cheaper 50mm f/1.8 lens would be almost as good. f/1.4 if you must.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message
> Buy_Sell wrote:
>> I've been contemplating the purchase of the Nikon 85mm f1.4 prime lens
>> and wondered how many people would purchase this lens if they already
>> owned the 80-200mm f2.8 lens? I know that the 85mm would do much
>> better in low light but how often does f1.4 actually get used on this
>> lens? If it frequently gets stopped down, then it would make more
>> sense to just use the 80-200mm lens. Any thoughts or suggestions
>> would be appreciated. Anyone who owns the 85mm, I'd like to hear what
>> you think of this lens and how often do you get to use it?
>
> If you buy an f/1.4 lens and always use it at f/2.8, what's the point?



> The 85 f/1.4 lens was great for portraits on a film camera because of its
> very limited depth-of-field wide open. For similar usage with digital the
> much cheaper 50mm f/1.8 lens would be almost as good. f/1.4 if you must.

I would suggest that for portraits you would certainly want f1.4. The
crop factor effectively gives greater DOF for the same aperture.

I wonder how many people know the advantages of limited DOF with
portraits?

>
> Cheers,
> David
>


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

M-M wrote:
> In article ,
> floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> The older Nikkor 70-300mm, without VR, seems to sell on
>> eBay at about the same prices as Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm
>> lenses, below $200 and often even below $100.
>
>
>
> There are 2 different Nikon 70-300 non-VR. One has ED glass. The other
> is the $100 one and was useless to me at 300mm unless it was on a tripod.
>
> You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.
>

You must be really shaky.
I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large

Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
crop camera.

Here is the full size image.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/original

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

"Buy_Sell" wrote in message

> I've been contemplating the purchase of the Nikon 85mm f1.4 prime lens
> and wondered how many people would purchase this lens if they already
> owned the 80-200mm f2.8 lens? I know that the 85mm would do much
> better in low light but how often does f1.4 actually get used on this
> lens? If it frequently gets stopped down, then it would make more
> sense to just use the 80-200mm lens. Any thoughts or suggestions
> would be appreciated. Anyone who owns the 85mm, I'd like to hear what
> you think of this lens and how often do you get to use it?

It has been my experience that very wide aperture lenses generally have
higher quality elements in them but you really need to ask yourself if
having a DOF of a few millimetres at portrait distance is going to help you
in any way.

I currently use a 70~200 F2.8 for this sort of thing and find it can be
tricky getting the ear and nose in perspective at F5.6. It's a heavy lens
too. I think perhaps you need to consider some other aspect of your needs
than just the aperture.

Using a 50mm lens in place of an 80mm lens because of the crop factor with
small sensors ...has it's own problems. You still get the same functionality
and aspect of the picture of a 50mm lens but it's like cropping the picture
to get the subject in the right proportion. DOF becomes an issue if you are
used to a FF sensor or film. You'll find a seemingly greater DOF for the
same image area so perhaps if portraits are your speciality, the 85 should
be your choice.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8 

nospam wrote:
> In article , Floyd L. Davidson
> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking at 70-300mm and the 80-400mm lenses and
>> giving that some thought.
>
> the 70-300mm vr is a very good lens and well worth the price. the
> 80-400mm vr isn't exactly the fastest focusing lens, and for the extra
> 100mm, i don't think it is worth three times the cost and additional
> weight.

Thanks the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR lens, I take it, or a different
one?

David
 >> Stay informed about: 85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8