 Julie M. Cwik |
Crystal Clear Telephoto lens? Ideas? Hi Guys, I'm currently selling my Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 nikon mount lens and was looking for a different one. The sigma wasn't as clear as I thought it could be, don't get me wrong, it's a great lens..just not what I need. I got it for Wedding Photography, but I barely use it as most my shooting is up close and not at the back of the church ;-) I mostly use it for outdoor wildlife shooting, but I don't need the fixed 2.8 for that. So what do you suggest that would be automatic focus (that can be turned off) internal zoom/focus would be a BIG plus, and crystal clear images... Please advise... Thanks, Julie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
Hands down the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. Absolutely one of the sharpest (if not the sharpest) zoom Nikon has made to date. Has everything you're looking for plus VR to boot.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
[Re: Sigma 70-200 f/2.8] "... it's a great lens..just not what I need. I got it for Wedding Photography, but I barely use it as most my shooting is up close and not at the back of the church ;-)" I think what would serve your purpose would be either the Nikon AF-S 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED DX, or AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 G ED. Neither is internal zoom like the 70-200, but they don't extend much and both are internal focus.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Julie M. Cwik |
Hi Jon, not exactly what I was asking sorry. I was looking for a crystal clear telephoto lens not a wide angle. I have a perfect wide angle that I love (Nikkor DX 12-24mm f/4). But I appreciate the quick response! Raymond, do you own this lens? What is VR?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
Yes I do. The VR is Vibration Reduction (Nikon's terminology - Canon's is IS). A technology that allows slower shutter speeds while handholding the lens that will help correct slight camera shake during exposures. Look on my gallery and you will see a Fire example (should be the first image) that was taken with this lens. Check out the reviews of this lens which will speak highly of its quality and performance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Julie M. Cwik |
I actually remember seeing that photo before on better photo, looks amazing! I checked out reviews and now I want it... but no one seems to carry it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Raymond H. Kemp |
It's a grab it when you can lens for sure! Put your name on your dealers list to be contacted when one comes in. Here's a tip for phone or online orders. Some places prioritize shipments for back orders based on shipping method. That is if the order calls for overnight shipping, they will ship the overnights first then what is left over will go other means such as ground.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Julie M. Cwik |
Great idea Raymond! Thanks I'll do that. When your spending that much on a lens what is an extra $50 for shipping? LoL
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Gosh, my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX is one of my sharpest lens, and I have some VERY sharp lenses (both fixed focal length and zooms). If I were looking for a good short telephoto zoom lens, I'd look at something in the 24-70 or 28-70 range... on an APS sensor-equipped dSLR that would be roughly equivalent to a 40-100mm lens on a 35mm SLR. Great for candids and portraits at weddings and gatherings. I have the Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX and find it be an incredibly sharp lens, especially at f/4 to f/8. I also have a Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DG Macro which is extremely sharp. It makes a good all-around lens (28-85 equivalent on my SD14), and would be good for crowd/group shots plus candids (a good lens for the reception).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
John C. and I both use the same camera, and apparently the same lenses. Have to agree that the Sigmas he mentioned are pretty sharp. Be sure you are not hoping for something that doesn't exist and that you are working the lens to its optical best (stopped down to optimal sharpness and not shooting wide open or hand-held). John, I also like the 18-200 OS lens for walking around, casual shooting, in those times where I don't want to carry more than one lens. I admit to some issue with chromatic aberration near some image edges depending on conditions when shooting wide, but quite convenient. Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
I haven't played with the 18-200 OS (or the non-OS version), but experience has taught me to not have a lot of faith in the one-lens-fits-all lens if I'm looking for image quality. My problem is that I'm spoiled by how good images look with those cheap M42 lenses (and those middling-expensive EX lenses). If I don't want to hassle with lens changes, I deliberately use my Fuji F30... so I don't get upset with lack of image quality. However, I will agree that on 8x10s and below it's going to be hard, if not impossible, to see the difference in many situations between the 18-200 and something more expensive. Certainly for 5x7s and smaller (web images) the F30 is more than enough camera for most situations. My dSLR compromise was to pick up the 18-50 and 50-150 EX lenses. The former is very sharp, the latter slightly less so (but still very good), and with the 1.4x TC and my SD14 in a small camera bag I've got what I need for walking around.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
You hit the nail on the head: Image quality is what is important. I don't and didn't expect so much from such a long-range zoom. I had all the other lenses I wanted when it came time to get the SD14, and I found a package that virtually threw in the 18-200 OS with the body (both, new, $600). I didn't expect much from it. I 'walk around' with the 18-200, meaning to me it is casual shooting when I don't expect to carry a bag and change lenses, and I'd likely not make more than a 5x7 out of anything. The OS has allowed me to take images that were surprisingly sharp hand-held, even in some pretty bad conditions (near blizzard off the side of the road on the way to work where I pass every day and never intended to take a shot). I've blown some up and have been pretty surprised at the clarity. Worth it if you can get it for free or really cheap -- especially if you already have all those others. I just got the 1.4, and indeed it is small, and works with my 70-200, but still I need that other lens for wide angle. I've got both the 24-70 and 18-50 to work with (and talked my wife into using the same camera, so it is easier to overlap without guilt ;-). I tend to like the 18-50, and gave it to her...so I can sneak by with the 70-200 and trade off to the 18-50 carrying only one lens ;-) Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||