D90 + 70-200mm 2.8 = Sex

[BenWall]

I was talking to the salesman in Jessops for ages today, originally I wanted to compare the Cannon 50D to the D90, but soon realised the Cannon isn't for me and we started talking Nikon. The D90 is a beast of a camera, I was trying lots of different lenses, then the bloke whipped out a 70-200 Nikkor 2.8 VR. Omg, I want it! Stepped outside the shop, by this time it was dark, and with this lens and a ISO of 1200 (or there about) it was so fast! Crystal clear images. Wish I had put my memory card in to show you guys.

I really want it, but it's big and wouldn't feel comfortable walking about town with it, and £1200 is a lot.

Anyone on here got the 70-200VR? Think I'll be happy with a Sigma 50-150 though.

 

[ukaskew]

I really want it, but it's big and wouldn't feel comfortable walking about town with it, and £1200 is a lot.

Anyone on here got the 70-200VR? Think I'll be happy with a Sigma 50-150 though.

As you probably know I had the 80-200 2.8 AF-S (which is slightly heavier than the new 70-200 VR iirc, same optics though), seriously epic piece of glass with unbelievable AF speed, but I only really used it for motorsport as it was too big/heavy as a walkaround lens.

The 50-150 2.8 isn't quite in the same league (I'm unlikely to use it much for motorsport), but it's not too far behind and certainly one of the best reasonably compact 'street' lens I've seen (it's small because it's specifically built for cropped digital sensors, the focal length is the same as what the 70-200 was originally built for). Personally I was of the thinking that in the long run my 50-150 will benefit me more because I will actually use it in more day to day situations.

Pleased you enjoyed D90 + fast glass though, it's like night vision

 

[powey]

how can you tell the speed of a lens?

 

[ukaskew]

how can you tell the speed of a lens?

AF speed or Lens speed? If you're asking about AF speed, not easily. Just need to check out the reviews really. It's the one thing I can actually detect subtle differences in (probably due to shooting 150mph cars all the time), the Nikon 70-200 / 80-200 lens are pretty much as fast as it's possible to be, really needs to be seen to be believed. My Sigma 120-300 is silly fast but still not quite as quick as my old 80-200.

As for lens speed, see Ben's post below

 

[BenWall]

how can you tell the speed of a lens?

By the aperture. 2.8/5.6 etc etc

bigger the number, slower the lens.

As you probably know I had the 80-200 2.8 AF-S (which is slightly heavier than the new 70-200 VR iirc, same optics though), seriously epic piece of glass with unbelievable AF speed, but I only really used it for motorsport as it was too big/heavy as a walkaround lens.

The 50-150 2.8 isn't quite in the same league (I'm unlikely to use it much for motorsport), but it's not too far behind and certainly one of the best reasonably compact 'street' lens I've seen (it's small because it's specifically built for cropped digital sensors, the focal length is the same as what the 70-200 was originally built for). Personally I was of the thinking that in the long run my 50-150 will benefit me more because I will actually use it in more day to day situations.

Pleased you enjoyed D90 + fast glass though, it's like night vision

Yeah, that's why I think the 50-150 will suite me more. As most of my shooting takes place when walking around. But it really is a super piece of glass.

And yes, the D90 really is an amazing piece of kit! Cannon 50D is also very nice, but the guy in the shop said the D90 is much better for low light photography, mainly because Cannon have crammed 15MP onto the sensor, so isn't as good at high ISO. I do like the build of the 50D though, feels much more like a pro body.

 

[GaryS]

Anyone on here got the 70-200VR? Think I'll be happy with a Sigma 50-150 though.

Yes and it's the most unreliable piece of crap I've ever owned. Excellent pics when it actually works... which isn't very often.

So far it's been back to Nikon for a broken aperture control, corrosion on a supposedly sealed component inside the lens and AF problems. Used it for 2 months after the last repair and now there's something up with the metering, around 4 in 5 pics are overexposed

I know I used my camera gear more than most but you'd expect an £1,100 lens to be slightly more reliable...

Have you sold your 80-200 Chris?

 

[ukaskew]

Yes and it's the most unreliable piece of crap I've ever owned. Excellent pics when it actually works... which isn't very often.

So far it's been back to Nikon for a broken aperture control, corrosion on a supposedly sealed component inside the lens and AF problems. Used it for 2 months after the last repair and now there's something up with the metering, around 4 in 5 pics are overexposed

I know I used my camera gear more than most but you'd expect an £1,100 lens to be slightly more reliable...

Have you sold your 80-200 Chris?

Yes I have sadly, loved it but the opportunity to essentially swap it for a £2k bit of glass was too tempting. Did quite well really, the guy who sold it to me couldn't have realised it was the rare AF-S version, I got it for £490, bargain.

No issues with build for me, it was built like a tank and never missed focus once. Possible you've just ended up with a lemon? Surprised they keep repairing it if it's needed that much work.

 

[ukaskew]

And yes, the D90 really is an amazing piece of kit! Cannon 50D is also very nice, but the guy in the shop said the D90 is much better for low light photography, mainly because Cannon have crammed 15MP onto the sensor, so isn't as good at high ISO. I do like the build of the 50D though, feels much more like a pro body.

I hope dk doesn't see this

I don't think there is that much difference in reality, but I agree that 15mp seems overkill, I imagine at 12mp it could have been class leading. Isn't it more of a rival to the D300 though, in terms of price? That would even things up as obviously the D300 is weatherproofed (and metal)

 

[Clart]

I certainly wouldn't want to carry a 70-200mm round all day - the sigma is certainly going to be more useable. Here a pic of my sigma 70-200 f2.8 - makes the d90 look tiny

 

[Revels]

I just saw that on flickr, I wondered what lens it was. Its huuuuge!

I want something for motorsport for next year. Is 200mm enough or is 300mm needed?

 

[BenWall]

I hope dk doesn't see this

I don't think there is that much difference in reality, but I agree that 15mp seems overkill, I imagine at 12mp it could have been class leading. Isn't it more of a rival to the D300 though, in terms of price? That would even things up as obviously the D300 is weatherproofed (and metal)

Yeah it's around £850 for the body only. Yeah, your right in that it's more on the level of the D300, but thought I'd see what it's like before jumping in with the D90.

 

[Nigel]

I have a Nikon 80-200, I think, it's the one lense i'll never part with. As Ukaskew said it focuses extremely quickly.

 

[drhowser]

almost on topic, what does the "s" signify? i bought a nikon af-s lens this summer.

 

[Clart]

built in motor

 

[drhowser]

cheers, thats what i thought,
just for a moment chris had me thinking i'd got lucky.

 

[Soph]

Fella has a sigma 55-200 f5.6, really likes it.

 

[dk]

I hope dk doesn't see this

I don't think there is that much difference in reality, but I agree that 15mp seems overkill, I imagine at 12mp it could have been class leading. Isn't it more of a rival to the D300 though, in terms of price? That would even things up as obviously the D300 is weatherproofed (and metal)

LOL, I have now

It's difficult for me to comment really as I haven't used the D90 but I am also super impressed with my 50d in low light coming from a 350d, I can take clear pictures at iso1600 with no real noise in very dark scenarios.

I STILL haven't even popped my flash up yet, I really must get around to doing it, even if its to check it works but so far, around 3000 shots, some indoors, some outside at 7:30am and 6pm darkness but the camera had no issue, its weird as people looking at the pics think its actually a shot from the middle of the afternoon and its hard to convey the conditions the shots are taken in its so good.

So if the D90 is as good or better then it will be amazing as I am amazed at how good mine is.

For the price the D90 is a great bit of kit though, if i wasn't so in love with canon L glass I would probably have got one.

 

[GaryS]

Yes I have sadly, loved it but the opportunity to essentially swap it for a £2k bit of glass was too tempting. Did quite well really, the guy who sold it to me couldn't have realised it was the rare AF-S version, I got it for £490, bargain.

No issues with build for me, it was built like a tank and never missed focus once. Possible you've just ended up with a lemon? Surprised they keep repairing it if it's needed that much work.

The 80-200 is built a lot better than the 70-200 from what I've seen. I'm not the only one who's had problems with the 70-200, at least three other rally phots have had to send them back for various repairs. It seems they're not built for frequent use. I have suggested to Nikon that they replace it but all I get is "there are no problems with our quality control, failures can happen...". They tried charging me £800 for the repair last time... told 'em where to go :evil:

 

[ukaskew]

I just saw that on flickr, I wondered what lens it was. Its huuuuge!

I want something for motorsport for next year. Is 200mm enough or is 300mm needed?

300mm to be on the safe side, if you're buying something fast like a 80-200 2.8 you can add a 1.4x Teleconverter which will take it up to a 120-280mm f4, I used that length for ages and never had any real problems. Expensive set up though!

 

[Clart]

I've got my eye on a Sigma 100-300mm f4 - looks like a right beast!

 

[JJ!]

almost on topic, what does the "s" signify? i bought a nikon af-s lens this summer.

AF-S Motors are usually pretty quick too.

 

[Revels]

300mm to be on the safe side, if you're buying something fast like a 80-200 2.8 you can add a 1.4x Teleconverter which will take it up to a 120-280mm f4, I used that length for ages and never had any real problems. Expensive set up though!

That sounds a bit expensive for me..

Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - £87.10

Seems too cheap, the VR version is £275 or maybe the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 as thats only £150ish.

 

[ukaskew]

That sounds a bit expensive for me..

Nikon AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G - £87.10

Seems too cheap, the VR version is £275 or maybe the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 as thats only £150ish.

Go for the Sigma, cracking piece of kit for the money. I had the cheap version (about £90) and still loved it. Bang for buck I don't think you will find better.

 

[Revels]

Whats the difference between them? Is it just focus motor?

Thats not essential then as I have a D50, so I can get the cheaper one!

 

[ukaskew]

Whats the difference between them? Is it just focus motor?

Thats not essential then as I have a D50, so I can get the cheaper one!

No the "APO" is the difference, essentially better coating on the glass of the expensive one which minimizes purple fringing. Wouldn't worry about it too much, depends on how rich you are feeling

 

[Revels]

If it didnt bother you or effect your pics then I dont have anything to worry about..

 

[Clart]

if you've got the d50 just get the 70-300mm sigma DG APO macro. Great lens for the money.

 

[rich-6]

I've got my eye on a Sigma 100-300mm f4 - looks like a right beast!

I've got one and you are right its a fooking monster, Ive took some fantastic shots with it but have none to hand :dapprove:

 

[Clart]

nikon fit? wanna sell it?

 

[Rasclart]

I have had the pleasure of using both an older 80-200 and the latest version for a fair amount of time and they are fantastic but bloody massive lenses.

Need to take some photos tbh Just so many other things to do

 

[rich-6]

nikon fit? wanna sell it?

Nope and no lol, I was going to sell it but couldnt see much improvement on it over other lenses so its staying