Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 24, 2006, 6:25 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3
Default

I am tired of waiting for the 18-200. I am considering an 80-200 2.8 AF-D model instead. I was hoping that the VR would get me the ability to take decent pictures at horse shows inside indoor riding arenas by allowing a slower shutter. First question does the VR make up the difference that the 2.8 would?

Currently I am using a Tamron 18-200 and like the range, but it isn't bright enough even at 1600. Overall, I think the 2.8 will be better for that application, but won't give me the versatility that the 18-200 does as a walk around lens.

So I'm looking for suggestions as to a second lens if I go with the 80-200.Keep the Tamron 18-200? Or would there be something better? I like to take horse portaits, some sports, and nature scenery and wildlife. Or is the 18-200 the answer to all my needs and I should just wait?
st_pinetree is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 24, 2006, 7:38 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 198
Default

Well, certainly the 18-70 would make a reasonable compliment to the 80-200.

Or, you could go for the new 18-135, which tests show to really be as long as 145 at the tele end. That might well be all that you needed.

But frankly, if you do any serious sports work, I would think that the 80-200 f2.8 VR lens would be MUCH better for you than the 18-200, and the 18-70 would make a very nice compliment for general purpose shooting.
DougJGreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2006, 7:44 PM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

st_pinetree wrote:
Quote:
I am tired of waiting for the 18-200. I am considering an 80-200 2.8 AF-D model instead. I was hoping that the VR would get me the ability to take decent pictures at horse shows inside indoor riding arenas by allowing a slower shutter. First question does the VR make up the difference that the 2.8 would?
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask and what you mean by VR "allowing a slower shutter".

Vibration Reduction can help reduce blur from camera shake. So, if that is a problem for you, it can allow you to use slower shutter speeds without blur from camera shake (to a point).

But, VR is not going to reduce blur from subject movement. So, if you are trying to take photos of non-stationary subjects (i.e., moving horses), you will still have motion blur from subject movement if shutter speeds are not fast enough.

Your shutter speeds would probably be roughly the same with the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens as you're getting with your Tamron. So, you're not really gaining anything in that area with one.

What kind of shutter speeds are you getting with your existing Tamron 18-200mm?

If you're getting blur from camera shake, then shutter speeds are probably slow enough that you're also getting some motion blur from the horses movement.

If you stay on the long end of the lens much, the 80-200mm f/2.8 would allow shutter speeds approximately 4 times as fast for the same ISO speed and lighting as the 18-200mm VR lens (since f/2.8 is 4 times as bright as f/5.6, which is where you'd be at on the long end of the 18-200mm lens).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2006, 11:23 PM   #4
rey
Senior Member
 
rey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 949
Default

I don't know if you're in the US, but I saw this from another forum, kenmore camera, located in washington state have the 18-200VR all week for $700. I've never used them and I already have an 18-200VR, but you may wanna give them a try. Maybe someone here from WA can tell us if this store is legit.

rey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2006, 11:32 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks, as a clarification the horse shots I am most interesed in getting are of still horses, so the VR would help some, but I don't think enough. The non-VR 80-200 sounds like it is really what I need for those types of shots, then the 18-200 VR later as it becomes available as a walk around. Or maybe the 18-135. Thanks for your help, this is good info for me as a Newb.
st_pinetree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2006, 12:03 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

You are on the right track given the objective in mind. The 18/200 is at f5.6 at 200mm whereas the 80/200 is of course still at f2.8. This will allow for a far faster speed.Heavier, but a great lens I have had for more than 10 years now and still a favorite. And the 18/70 is a steal of a lens and gives great results.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:59 PM.