Choice of Medium-Long Tele Zoom

[ColColt]

I'm attempting to choose between the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 or perhaps even the Sigma 150 f/2.8 macro and need some advise. I will be going to an event in two weeks where there will be people from all over the country with their Corgi breed of dog and would like to get some good shots. some of these I know will be in excess of 25 yards and would like to use the lens wide open at f2.8-f4 to help isolate the subject from the background.

I currently have the Nikon 55-200 but it's mostly an f8 lens and while it's a great copy and is sharp, there's little I've done with it that will indeed blur the background other than use it wide open and get close which you can't always do. I've discovered a lot of my style of shooting requires about 85-150mm and shots as close as ten feet to extend to maybe 75 feet. With that in mind I lean toward either the 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor or the 50-150
sigma but I'm not 100% sure about the Sigma's quality wide open from what I've seen on the Internet. Any suggestions? Also, it's a shame the tripod ring on the Nikkor isn't removable...looks like it would be cumbersome to hold.

[jcon]

Have you thought of renting? There are several places online that will rent gear for a week or for however long you need it. This will also allow you to test out a lens in the field and get a feel for what you would prefer.

My suggestion, the Nikon 70-200 F2.8VR.

[K1W1]

The Nikon 80-200 is not VR and fairly heavy. The words "built like a tank" often appear in user reviews. It gets excellent reviews for image quality and colour rendition. I also understand that it can be used with 1.4 an 2 TC's which gives it plenty of flexibility.
For high speed 1/500 sec and faster shots the lack of VR won't be an issue but it may be hard to manage towards the end of the day without some practice and weight training exercises.
The 70-200VR is regarded as maybe the best tele zoom Nikon have ever made but it does come at a considerable price.
My suggestion is a modification of Jasons. Buy yourself a monopod and rent a 80-200 for the weekend. If it works out that's great if not you still have the monopod and a large amount of cash in your bank account to look at something else.

[shshsh]

I think the Nikon 70-300 VR might be another contender: It would give you more reach (300*1.5=450mm equiv. on your D80), more flexibility (starting from 70, i.e. 105mm equiv. on your D80), VR, and a lot less weight (745 g). And it's a lot less expensive, too.

Yes, it's only f/4.5-5.6, but at the ranges you plan to shoot (25+ ft), the background will be blurred out anyway, even at f/5.6.

Sample:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/huha/27...7606676411291/

Most of that set is shot with the 70-300 VR. IMHO this lens is largely underrated.

I have the Sigma 150 Macro, and I wouldn't really recommend it for what you have in mind. If you are a regular visitor on that show and can't freely move forward or backwards (with people voluntarily going out of the way), you'll have to do a lot of cropping afterwards, giving up precious image pixels.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Another great shot Stefan.
Love my 70-300VR but if he really wants F/2.8 it doesn't help. It's also the same price new as a 2nd hand 80-200 F/2.8 Nikkor.

[ColColt]

Having to wait for a rental lens to get her, test it and then send it back and then make a decision on which one to order will put me in an out of time stage. So, that's not a viable option at this point.

That's a super great shot of the owl Stefan but, I don't think I'd gain much in going to the 70-300 since I already have the 55-200 and seldom use the 200mm length in most shots.

As for budget-somewhere between $500-1000 plus or minus a few bucks.

[XaiLo]

80-200 f2.8 Nikkor + Monopod... it's image quality and aperature should make it a no contest.

[ColColt]

That's exactly the lens I've been looking at more intently. I've hesitated due to some focus problems I've read about(up close focus-far end focusing) and the fact I don't know if I could get use to holding it with the tripod ring since it's not removable. Maybe rotate it to the 10 o'cock position?

[esp]

I am looking to pickup a simaler lens within the next month and have a simaler budget. I have narrowed my search down to the sigma 70-200 2.8 and the nikkor 80-200 2.8. I have read great things about both and think you would be happy with either one. At the moment I am leaning towards the Sigma due to the price and the smaller size and lighter weight.

(And I rented the Nikon and got some great shots with it but it is a big heavy lens.)

[ColColt]

(And I rented the Nikon and got some great shots with it but it is a big heavy lens.)

I've never handled one but it's rated at 2 lb 14 oz. which doesn't sound too bad to me. I've lugged the Pentax 6x7 with a 165 f 2.8 lens around the '82 Worlds Fair for half a day and talk about heavy!! I think that combo was about 5 1/2-6 pounds. I dont' think three pounds of lens would bother me too much for a few hours. Then again, I haven't seen or handled one.