70-300 or 70-200
My friend is trying to buy a new lense. He has Nikon D90 + 18-105mm Vr kit lense.
Actualy he is choosing between
1. Nikkor 70-300mm F4,5-5,6 VR
2. Tamron 70-200mm F2,8
3. Sigma 70-200mm F2,8
All these lenses are in same price range, but are diferent in light capabilities.
I dont know them all and I do not have experiance with F2,8 lenses so I have no idea how diferent are those two from nikkor 70-300.
He's most importaint fact is that the lense must give him top quallity picture and sharpnes.
He's going to use the lense most the time for his kids. Some even from kindergarden when kids are having some shows and etc. I think kids can be really fast so I think that maybe F2,8 lense is beter choice . But I dont know how much vibrate reduction can help him in low light conditions, because most shots are going to be taken free handed to...
So can somebody help him with that choice and maybe tell more about those lenses.
Nikkor has better reach with 300mm and has vibration reduction. It is more compact and light lense but i dont know if it gives beter pictures.
Tamron and sigma have beter F2,8, but dont have vibration reduction and max reachnes is 200mm...
For the similar price I have no idea witc lense is beter ...
Every tip can be very helpful for him so please help.
My experience is this:
Nikon 200mm f4 AIS - excellent IQ
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 IS - nowhere near as good as the Nikon.
I'd recommend the 70-200 over a 70-300 even with IS.
They are no where near the same price range in the US...that'd odd.
70-300 VR $479
Tamron 70-200 $699
Sigma 70-200 $759
Tamron for the best IQ but slow/inaccurate focus
Sigma for focus speed & accuracy but lower IQ
Nikkor 70-300 VR for the best of both, with a much slower aperture
The 70-300 VR will be almost useless indoors unless you have a large house, and will only work for kids in bright outdoor conditions. This is not an indoor lens.
The 70-200 f/2.8 lenses will work much better for indoor sports / concerts / stage performances where the 70-300 is just too slow with its small aperture. In that case I'd have to recommend the Sigma but hope you get a good copy.
I just find even with stabilisation that 300 is just too dark at f5.6. Plus there's not an awful lot of difference between 200 and 300. Personally, I'd go for the 70-200 and then if I needed longer and was willing to sacrifice a stop or two then I'd get a 2x teleconverter and have 140-400mm for not much extra cash.
It is not the same price, but it is very similar price and If you are buying it is good to buy beter for some time...
So you all recomend the F2,8 lense.
At good light conditions I think it is not much diference betwen them . But in low light conditions F2,8 lenses can be much more useful. Yust as I thought.
Teleconverter can get you some distance, but i thnink in that ocasions you have to use a tripod for sharp photos witch I think is beter to have VR.
But as I said lens is going to be used indor and outdor and some low light conditions witch I think those F2,8 are importaint.
It's yust one thing. I know that F2,8 is beter than F4,5-5,6 ... But is it so much a difference in lowlight shuter speed that is worth buying.
If you wana shoot some picture on 200mm, than the shutter speed must be at least 1/200 sek for hand hold . Is it possible to get such a speed from low light conditions ? That is the question how much problems you can get with reaching such shuter speed.
Maybe I should recomend him that he gets nikkor 70-300mm Vr + flash SB600 for the money than F2,8 lense. I dont know...
It is really hard to decide...
The difference is, you half your shutter speed every stop.
From f/2.8 to f/4 you half your speed. Half it again at f/5.6. So basically say for example the best you can manage is 1/200 at f/2.8 (say an auditorium, stage performance). In the same situation, the f/5.6 lens has you at 1/50s. You either need to take your ISO x4 to get 1/200 or not get the shot at all.
Flash is almost never possible in these situations.
Thank you for that info . Helps to understand the difference.
I'm wondering if you get any advantages from 2,8 lense in situation when flash is used ? Do you get more details from background or something ?
As said by others, f2.8 for your friend's needs trumps the Nikkor overall quality of build and operation. Indoors, speed is everything. OS/IS/VR/OIS or whatever won't help unless your subject is static, which it hardly ever is with kids.
With that said, an in-focus shot that is not technically perfect trumps an out of focus shot. Everytime. That narrows it down to the Sigma, or start saving for the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8. It's a bit more than the than the others, but it trumps them all. It's f2.8 and it's fast and accurate. It's also got outstanding Nikkor color. $900 at B&H, but there might be some seasonal discounts, which will get it closer to $800. You can go wrong bying a Nikkor, but not this one.
What Erics says... When you're paying that much for a lens then it has to be the right lens or you've paid a lot for a lens that's always going to frustrate. Thus I suggest the genuine Nikon every time. When I used Nikon, I found non-Nikon generally disappointing.
If I were to buy the Canon version then I would buy the Canon 70-200 f4 L. I have an injured wrist which makes the 70-200 f2.8 a bit awkward.
Take it from someone who owns and LOVES his Nikkor 70-300 VR, if you are shooting indoors, do yourself a favor and get a faster lens. But of you are shooting in an already well-lit environment (ie., sunny day outside), the Nikkor really shines!