Another lens question...

[SuiteFreak]

Hi all,
I'm new to the boards and DSLRs. I have a Nikon D80 w/ the 18-135 kit lens,70-300VR, Sigma 10-20mm wide lens, and 50mm f1.8 (and I love it), and the SB800. I take a lot of low light shots w/ no flash (Concerts, dancers, sports, in addition to landscape photos) so I realized after all this that I needed to upgrade my lenses. Even w/ the VR, in really low light and bumping up the ISO, I still can't get shots without some motion blur. I am strictly a hobbyist, so I can't afford the $1600 70-200VR f2.8 (although it's been on my wish list for a while). Also, I don't know how to edit my photos in software so telling me to use Noise Ninja is useless at this point. After I master the camera, then I can buy the software and learn to edit.
I am debating getting the 85mm f1.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Or, I may get the 85mm f1.8 and the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. (I'm concerned about the crop factor w/ getting a 28-75mm lens -- any comments from users on this? How much difference does the 17-28mm make? How far will I have to step back to get a shot if I got the 28-75mm vs the 17-50mm?)
I also looked at the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 at Amazon and am interested in that. My debate with this lens would be, should I get that lens, or get the older Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 for a couple hundred more? I am concerned as to whether or not a lack of VR will be an issue for me. I do have a tripod and monopod, but don't want to have to lug it everywhere I go. In fact, that's partly why I know I need faster glass, because my low light, handheld shots are not cutting the mustard.
One more thing, are any of the lenses above compatible wih full frame DSLRs? I'm thinking for the future. I wouldn't want to buy a lens that wouldn't be compatible with cameras of the future. Kind of a waste of money...Speaking of that, does anyone have a list of lenses that are compatible with current DSLRs and usable for full frame cameras?
In hindsight (always 20/20), I realize I should have just bought the body and 3rd party f2.8 lenses, but being so new to DSLRs I didn't know what to look for and decided to take the 'safe' route by going with the Nikon entry level zoom lenses. Any ideas or opinions?
Thanks!

[Max@Home]

Hi SuiteFreak,

We recently had a similar question: many of the responses will apply to your situation as well:

This thread will tell you to forget about zooms, and search for (second hand) primes, as they are THE route to successfull lowlight/concert/dancers/sports shots, and tell you why, with examples...

Hope this helps some, *my* (and other's) €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[gaopa2]

SuiteFreak, I use the Nikkor 85/1.8 often with high ISO for low light photos and it is great. If you can, use a monopod to steady the camera.

However, if you really want a super lens the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR is the way to go. If you can't get the 70-200, then the 80-20/2.8 is a great lens. I had one of those before getting my 70-200. I would wait until I can buy Nikkor rather than a third party lens. My 70-200 is probably my favorite lens and I use it often... again, with a monopod. Happy shooting, Bill P.

[SuiteFreak]

Thanks for the link Max@Home. I guess I should look into Nikon Primes before making a decision...

[SuiteFreak]

Originally Posted by gaopa2

SuiteFreak, I use the Nikkor 85/1.8 often with high ISO for low light photos and it is great. If you can, use a monopod to steady the camera.

However, if you really want a super lens the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR is the way to go. If you can't get the 70-200, then the 80-20/2.8 is a great lens. I had one of those before getting my 70-200. I would wait until I can buy Nikkor rather than a third party lens. My 70-200 is probably my favorite lens and I use it often... again, with a monopod. Happy shooting, Bill P.

I really want the 70-200/2.8VR. If I bought one of the aforementioned Tamrons and 85mm/1.8 that's about $800-900 new. If I added the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 to that it would bring me up to about what it would cost me to get the Nikon 70-200/2.8VR...Hmmm...What to do...
I think I'm going to look into a few more Primes and see what the cost is like on those as well. I could just swap out the lenses as needed...
My concern is that in certain situations, the 50mm/1.8 wasn't getting me close enough to the action on stage, hence my desire to buy the 85mm/1.8. However, I am concerned that in other situations either of the 2 lenses would be too close to get a good shot, which was why I thought of getting a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8...
Being strictly a hobbyist there's no way I can afford the 70-200/2.8VR and another lens right now.
A couple of questions:
1)is the 70-200/2.8VR lens compatible w/ full frame cameras like the D3? I would hate to spend that much on something that may become obsolete in the near future.
2) Isn't there something like 4 stops difference between the f2.8 lenses and the f1.8 lenses? I'm thinking that 4 stops in low light makes a big difference. Would that thought be on the right track or am I way off base?
Thanks again!

[SuiteFreak]

Originally Posted by gaopa2

-
However, if you really want a super lens the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR is the way to go. If you can't get the 70-200, then the 80-20/2.8 is a great lens. I had one of those before getting my 70-200. I would wait until I can buy Nikkor rather than a third party lens. My 70-200 is probably my favorite lens and I use it often... again, with a monopod. Happy shooting, Bill P.

Hi, One more questions regarding the 80-200/2.8 lens. Did you have to use a tripod with it for stabilization or were you able to use it handheld? I imagine either of the 2 lenses are pretty heavy and would run the risk of warping the lens mount, but I'm just wondering if the photos were sharp handheld and zoomed in. Thanks!

[cyclohexane]

1)is the 70-200/2.8VR lens compatible w/ full frame cameras like the D3?

Yes, it doesn't say "DX" in the name.

2) Isn't there something like 4 stops difference between the f2.8 lenses and the f1.8 lenses? I'm thinking that 4 stops in low light makes a big difference. Would that thought be on the right track or am I way off base?

It's 1 1/3 stop. f/2.8 to f/2.0 is one full stop, and then f/2.0 to f/1.8 is one-third.

[cyclohexane]

I imagine either of the 2 lenses are pretty heavy and would run the risk of warping the lens mount

You're not going to have issues with the lens mount with the 70/80-200 size lenses; they're only about 3 pounds. I dangle a second body with a 70-200mm f/2.8 off my shoulder all day and have no issues with the lens mount. You should still attach tripods/monopods to the tripod collar on the lens, but you won't have issues handholding.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by SuiteFreak

I really want the 70-200/2.8VR. If I bought one of the aforementioned Tamrons and 85mm/1.8 that's about $800-900 new. If I added the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 to that it would bring me up to about what it would cost me to get the Nikon 70-200/2.8VR...Hmmm...What to do...

...maybe you can rent it for very special concerts, so you can see what the fuss is all about and if you produce the images that it can produce, you might be able to sell some of them, paying for the rent or as a first installment/saving for 'yer own'

I think I'm going to look into a few more Primes and see what the cost is like on those as well. I could just swap out the lenses as needed...
My concern is that in certain situations, the 50mm/1.8 wasn't getting me close enough to the action on stage, hence my desire to buy the 85mm/1.8. However, I am concerned that in other situations either of the 2 lenses would be too close to get a good shot, which was why I thought of getting a Tamron 17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8...

... yeah, it would be nice to have something like a 28F1.8, 50F1.8 and 85F1.8...

Being strictly a hobbyist there's no way I can afford the 70-200/2.8VR and another lens right now.

The 70-200F2.8 IS/VR variants are always expensive, but they keep their value so extremely well, that you might be able to buy one, use it for 3 month, and then Ebay it and suffer less than had you rented it for the same period...

A couple of questions:
1)is the 70-200/2.8VR lens compatible w/ full frame cameras like the D3? I would hate to spend that much on something that may become obsolete in the near future.

...the 70-200VR is a 'fullframe' lens, no worries about that

2) Isn't there something like 4 stops difference between the f2.8 lenses and the f1.8 lenses? I'm thinking that 4 stops in low light makes a big difference. Would that thought be on the right track or am I way off base?

you are way off base: F1.0 - F1.4 - F2.0 - F2.8 - F4.0 - F5.6 - F8.0 - F11.0 - F16 are the full stops, so an F1.8 lens is 'only' one and a third stop faster than a F2.8 lens.

This may not sound as much, but effectively more than doubles your shutter speed in the same light conditions

...I think you are confused with the IS/VR in some lens, that allows you to shoot at 3 to 4 stops lower shutterspeed than without, but during concerts, what good is being able to shoot at 1/8 or 1/15, subject movement will make it a blurry shot... see the post of JFranco in the thread I mentionned: you need a minimum of 1/60 - 1/100 to freeze all but the strongest 'human motion'

...hope this helps some more, another €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[cyclohexane]

I take a lot of low light shots w/ no flash (Concerts, dancers, sports, in addition to landscape photos) so I realized after all this that I needed to upgrade my lenses. Even w/ the VR, in really low light and bumping up the ISO, I still can't get shots without some motion blur.

Going back to your original question...

VR is "Vibration Reduction"; it won't stop motion blur of your subjects. It stops vibrations- your motion. VR basically will get you sharp grass, gym floor, or whatever, at 1/15 second with a telephoto, but it won't stop the people from moving.

Concerts, the 85mm f/1.8 should fit the bill nicely, as you said that you weren't close enough for the 50mm 1/.8. As for wider shots, you could probably get away with your 18-135mm, as it's f/3.5 at 18mm, so you could just leave it at 18mm, and eat a little bit of light. It'd save you money, for one thing. If you're still having issues with wider shots, you can add a 35mm f/2.0 (also inexpensive), which should get the job done.

Sports, you need to specify which ones.

Also, the level of competition affects the shooting position; you'll be closer for stuff like high school. When I was shooting high school basketball, they let us sit on the baseline, and a 50mm f/1.8 was about right for getting the entire player in the frame, and having somewhere close to enough shutter speed to stop the action. Shooting D-I college ball, I need at least an 85mm, and usually am reaching for either a 70-200mm or a 300mm. Of course, D-I college stadiums are better lit, so f/2.8 is okay.

[SuiteFreak]

Originally Posted by Max@Home

...

you are way off base: F1.0 - F1.4 - F2.0 - F2.8 - F4.0 - F5.6 - F8.0 - F11.0 - F16 are the full stops, so an F1.8 lens is 'only' one and a third stop faster than a F2.8 lens.

This may not sound as much, but effectively more than doubles your shutter speed in the same light conditions

...I think you are confused with the IS/VR in some lens, that allows you to shoot at 3 to 4 stops lower shutterspeed than without, but during concerts, what good is being able to shoot at 1/8 or 1/15, subject movement will make it a blurry shot... see the post of JFranco in the thread I mentionned: you need a minimum of 1/60 - 1/100 to freeze all but the strongest 'human motion'

...hope this helps some more, another €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

Hi Max@Home,
I kind of thought I was off base regarding the # of stops but wasn't sure. I do understand about the VR and that it controls my movements, but I still get motion blur from the subject because that's exactly what has been happening with me when I shoot concerts, sports, football, marching bands, you name it. If it moves in low light, I can't get the shot. It's blurred. If I bump my ISO up to 1600 it starts getting really noisy, so I prefer keeping it lower than that. That's why I really thought I should look into faster glass. So now I'm thinking I should probably get a few fast primes and maybe the 70-200vr/2.8. I thought my DH would freak, but he said do what you gotta do...
Thanks again!

[SuiteFreak]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Going back to your original question...

VR is "Vibration Reduction"; it won't stop motion blur of your subjects. It stops vibrations- your motion. VR basically will get you sharp grass, gym floor, or whatever, at 1/15 second with a telephoto, but it won't stop the people from moving.

Concerts, the 85mm f/1.8 should fit the bill nicely, as you said that you weren't close enough for the 50mm 1/.8. As for wider shots, you could probably get away with your 18-135mm, as it's f/3.5 at 18mm, so you could just leave it at 18mm, and eat a little bit of light. It'd save you money, for one thing. If you're still having issues with wider shots, you can add a 35mm f/2.0 (also inexpensive), which should get the job done.

Sports, you need to specify which ones.

Also, the level of competition affects the shooting position; you'll be closer for stuff like high school. When I was shooting high school basketball, they let us sit on the baseline, and a 50mm f/1.8 was about right for getting the entire player in the frame, and having somewhere close to enough shutter speed to stop the action. Shooting D-I college ball, I need at least an 85mm, and usually am reaching for either a 70-200mm or a 300mm. Of course, D-I college stadiums are better lit, so f/2.8 is okay.

Hi,
Yeah I noticed that the w/ the VR & slow lenses (70-300VR) my shutter speed can't go fast enough to freeze the motion in low light high school football games and marching band performances. That's why I think I should upgrade and get faster primes and zoom lenses. Everyone on other boards kept telling me to bump up the ISO, but when I get the ISO up to around 1600, it's pretty noisy. I don't know how to use Photoshop and Noise Ninja, so I was really dissatisfied with the noise and motion blur. Plus, I don't want to have to spend hours tweaking every photo I take. I spend way too much time as it is on my 'hobby'.
Man, seeing the photos posted on the net showing the ISO at 6500 on the D300 and even higher for the D3 was making me drool. They were nice and not noisy as far as I could see even at those high ISOs.
Thanks,
SF

[cyclohexane]

If I bump my ISO up to 1600 it starts getting really noisy, so I prefer keeping it lower than that. That's why I really thought I should look into faster glass.

Well, shooting Division I college hoops, I still need ISO 3200 at f/2.8 in most venues to get action-stopping shutter speeds; I used to squeak by at ISO 1600 but it was hit or miss at 1/400 of a second. I've started using an 85mm f/1.4 for parts of games, which allows me to shoot at ISO 800-1000.

seeing the photos posted on the net showing the ISO at 6500 on the D300 and even higher for the D3 was making me drool. They were nice and not noisy as far as I could see even at those high ISOs

Also, when your images are in print or sized-for-web, the noise disappears, or at least, really isn't that noticeable. This only applies to normal viewing distances, so if you stick your nose onto the print you'll probably see noise still.

My old D2H printed up to 8.5x11" just fine even at ISO 1600, and up to around 5x7" at ISO 3200. If you think your D80 is noisy, wait until you see some high ISO files from this sucker. The D2H, at ISO 1600, looks pretty much worse than anything the D80 can throw at you, up to and including ISO 3200.

By the way, the D300 is ugly at ISO 6400. I can try to find a sample for you sometime later when I'm done doing what I'm doing.

seeing the photos posted on the net showing the ISO at 6500 on the D300 and even higher for the D3 was making me drool. They were nice and not noisy as far as I could see even at those high ISOs

don't know how to use Photoshop and Noise Ninja, so I was really dissatisfied with the noise and motion blur

Photoshop and Noise Ninja can't fix motion blur.

Noise Ninja can fix noise, but really, if you expose correctly you shouldn't have too many issues with noise.

[SuiteFreak]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Well, shooting Division I college hoops, I still need ISO 3200 at f/2.8 in most venues to get action-stopping shutter speeds; I used to squeak by at ISO 1600 but it was hit or miss at 1/400 of a second. I've started using an 85mm f/1.4 for parts of games, which allows me to shoot at ISO 800-1000.

So I should definitely pick up the 85mm. But I'll probably get the 1.8 because the 1.4 is 3x the price!Will the lack of the extra stop make a huge difference? I've read that the 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4, but it's probably very subjective

Also, when your images are in print or sized-for-web, the noise disappears, or at least, really isn't that noticeable. This only applies to normal viewing distances, so if you stick your nose onto the print you'll probably see noise still.

So am I being too picky? I'm sure that'll be a yes.

My old D2H printed up to 8.5x11" just fine even at ISO 1600, and up to around 5x7" at ISO 3200. If you think your D80 is noisy, wait until you see some high ISO files from this sucker. The D2H, at ISO 1600, looks pretty much worse than anything the D80 can throw at you, up to and including ISO 3200.

So I am being too picky...When I look back at my old P&S photos, there was a lot more noise when I zoom in/expanded the photos compared to my D80. I just didn't realize it at the time.

By the way, the D300 is ugly at ISO 6400. I can try to find a sample for you sometime later when I