Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon 28-200mm f3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF and 70-300 f4-5.6D ED - ..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:22:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've finally broken the 35mm habit (same Ricoh Pentax K fit for 20 years)
and bought a D70 18-70 DX kit, and I'm very pleased with it. As an aside; I
wouldn't recommend dropping a 2 week old D70 onto a stone wall - the camera
will survive (two scuffs on the hand grip) - but your heart might not - mine
nearly didn't!

There now comes the tricky question of a telephoto zoom. I mostly shoot
landscape but also some sport (mainly equestrian and motorsport). I don't
have a fortune to dip into, so the options are limited. I've put the
assorted Tamron's and Sigma's to one side for now, even if they are (as many
say) as good as the Nikon's, I'd rather stick with Nikon. Having failed to
find one of the 'must have' 70-210 f4's or 'D' 4.5-5.6 second hand at a
reasonable price I thought I had narrowed the choice down to the 70-300 ED,
even though it seems to get mixed reviews. However the 28-200G, despite
being one of the supposedly dreaded 'G's seems to get very good reviews.

I managed quite happily with nothing above 210mm on the Ricoh, so allowing
for the 1.5x crop factor, 200mm (ie. 300mm in 35mm terms) would actually
still be much more than I had at my disposal before. Also with an effective
42-300mm it strikes me that this would be a good all round lens - I've
missed plenty of shots in the last 20 years from either being too close or
in the middle of changing lenses! It's also slightly faster than the 70-300.
I would keep the 18-70 for landscapes, portraits and events like weddings,
and use the 28-200 for sporting events and as a general "walking around with
a camera" lens.

Has anyone got any experience, good or bad, of either the 28-200G or the
70-300ED? Mainly regarding picture quality, but also any wear and tear
issues, especially with regard to the plastic mount on the 28-200G.

TIA.

More about : nikon 200mm 300

Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock <gizzajob@anywhere.co.uk> wrote:

> Having failed to find one of the 'must have' 70-210 f4's

Why is that a "must have"? I have one. It's a decent lens, but it's not a
great lens. I haven't spent the money to replace it because I don't use that
length very much, but it's still the weakest quality lens I have. Still, I
guess it's fine for a consumer-level zoom. They pop up on eBay pretty
regularly. If I ever decide to drop the cash on the 70-200 VR, mine will
probably pop up there too. :) 

> However the 28-200G, despite being one of the supposedly dreaded 'G's
> seems to get very good reviews.

Being a "G" doesn't mean anything in terms of quality. But with that wide
a zoom range, nothing is going to do very well. And I understand that
particular lens is really built to be low-end.

> I managed quite happily with nothing above 210mm on the Ricoh, so allowing
> for the 1.5x crop factor, 200mm (ie. 300mm in 35mm terms) would actually
> still be much more than I had at my disposal before.

With the 1.5x crop, 200mm is about as long as you can "casually" hand-hold
and get consistent results (except maybe at the beach on a sunny day with
the lens wide open).

> Also with an effective 42-300mm it strikes me that this would be a good
> all round lens

Not wide enough, I would think. You will have essentially no wide-angle.

> Has anyone got any experience, good or bad, of either the 28-200G or the
> 70-300ED?

I'd go with the 70-300. It'll be a much better lens.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 1:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock wrote:
> I've finally broken the 35mm habit (same Ricoh Pentax K fit for 20 years)
> and bought a D70 18-70 DX kit, and I'm very pleased with it. As an aside; I
> wouldn't recommend dropping a 2 week old D70 onto a stone wall - the camera
> will survive (two scuffs on the hand grip) - but your heart might not - mine
> nearly didn't!

Scary. I've recently picked up a D70 also (and love it). I learned very
quickly to keep the strap around my neck. I'm much too clumsy,
especially fumbling at unfamiliar controls.

I do regret getting the kit lens. I was too ignorant and inexperienced
to look at other options or to know what to look for. It's a great lens;
no complaints on quality, but it doesn't seem to fit my usage. Taking
candids and for a general walk-around lens, I find I want to get a
little closer, and I'm not too concerned about the wide end (the lens,
not mine). For example, during inside gatherings, I want to reach across
the room unobtrusively and grab a close-up. I'm eyeing the 24-120mm
f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor as a replacement, which I'd
supplement with good wide-angle and telephoto zooms.

> There now comes the tricky question of a telephoto zoom. I mostly shoot
> landscape but also some sport (mainly equestrian and motorsport). I don't
> have a fortune to dip into, so the options are limited. I've put the
> assorted Tamron's and Sigma's to one side for now, even if they are (as many
> say) as good as the Nikon's, I'd rather stick with Nikon. Having failed to
> find one of the 'must have' 70-210 f4's or 'D' 4.5-5.6 second hand at a
> reasonable price I thought I had narrowed the choice down to the 70-300 ED,
> even though it seems to get mixed reviews. However the 28-200G, despite
> being one of the supposedly dreaded 'G's seems to get very good reviews.

I've been looking that 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor for this type
of usage. But it's a bit more pricey. :( 

> I managed quite happily with nothing above 210mm on the Ricoh, so allowing
> for the 1.5x crop factor, 200mm (ie. 300mm in 35mm terms) would actually
> still be much more than I had at my disposal before. Also with an effective
> 42-300mm it strikes me that this would be a good all round lens - I've
> missed plenty of shots in the last 20 years from either being too close or
> in the middle of changing lenses! It's also slightly faster than the 70-300.
> I would keep the 18-70 for landscapes, portraits and events like weddings,
> and use the 28-200 for sporting events and as a general "walking around with
> a camera" lens.

IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is all still new to me.

> Has anyone got any experience, good or bad, of either the 28-200G or the
> 70-300ED? Mainly regarding picture quality, but also any wear and tear
> issues, especially with regard to the plastic mount on the 28-200G.
>
> TIA.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:34:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <G5CdnTHrraUJVsTfRVn_vg@giganews.com>,
Randy W. Sims <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:
>onthechoppingblock wrote:

[ ... ]

>> wouldn't recommend dropping a 2 week old D70 onto a stone wall - the camera
>> will survive (two scuffs on the hand grip) - but your heart might not - mine
>> nearly didn't!
>
>Scary. I've recently picked up a D70 also (and love it). I learned very
>quickly to keep the strap around my neck. I'm much too clumsy,
>especially fumbling at unfamiliar controls.

I've *always* made a practice of having the strap around my
neck, unless the camera is on a very sturdy and safe tripod. As a
result, I've never dropped one, and hope never to do so.

>I do regret getting the kit lens. I was too ignorant and inexperienced
>to look at other options or to know what to look for. It's a great lens;
>no complaints on quality, but it doesn't seem to fit my usage. Taking
>candids and for a general walk-around lens, I find I want to get a
>little closer, and I'm not too concerned about the wide end (the lens,
>not mine). For example, during inside gatherings, I want to reach across
>the room unobtrusively and grab a close-up. I'm eyeing the 24-120mm
>f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor as a replacement, which I'd
>supplement with good wide-angle and telephoto zooms.

Hmm ... does anyone have a feel for what the VR lens might do to
battery life? It might be a good idea to pick up a spare battery for
when you're using that, just in case.

AS I like to shoot fairly tight when photographing people (or
critters), I would not have been happy with the kit lens, but as it
turned out, I already had a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D lens which has been a
very comfortable lens for a lot of use. For low light, I'be picked up a
used 50mm f1.4 AF, and I also have a 180mm f2.8 which has been converted
by adding a "chip", so the auto-exposure works when I want that, even
though it does not do autofocus.

>> There now comes the tricky question of a telephoto zoom. I mostly shoot
>> landscape but also some sport (mainly equestrian and motorsport). I don't
>> have a fortune to dip into, so the options are limited. I've put the

[ ... ]

>> say) as good as the Nikon's, I'd rather stick with Nikon. Having failed to
>> find one of the 'must have' 70-210 f4's or 'D' 4.5-5.6 second hand at a
>> reasonable price I thought I had narrowed the choice down to the 70-300 ED,
>> even though it seems to get mixed reviews. However the 28-200G, despite
>> being one of the supposedly dreaded 'G's seems to get very good reviews.
>
>I've been looking that 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor for this type
>of usage. But it's a bit more pricey. :( 

I think that I would prefer the f2.8 lens to the slower lenses
mentioned above -- that extra stop or two above the 28-105mm's f3.5-4.5
is quite nice at times (and is what reminded me what a 50mm f1.4 was
like.)

[ ... ]

>> I would keep the 18-70 for landscapes, portraits and events like weddings,
>> and use the 28-200 for sporting events and as a general "walking around with
>> a camera" lens.

Hmm ... I think that the 28-200 range would be better for
weddings most of the time -- unless you get into a situation where you
need to pose a bunch of people where you don't have room to back up for
coverage. Remember -- the wider the lens, the more perspective
distortion.

>IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
>objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
>traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
>difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
>the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
>matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
>the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
>would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.
>
>Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This is all still new to me.

It depends on what you are interested in about the focal length.
The lens on the D70 will have less coverage, equivalent to a lens with
1.5x the real focal length. But you get the same coverage from cropping
the image from the negative from the film camera, and the image will
look the same -- modulo any artifacts of film or digital creeping into
the image.

Depth of field may actually appear similar at a standard sized
print viewed at a standard distance. But sensitivity to vibration at
the camera would be greater in the digital -- a greater percentage of
the image's dimensions moved through while the shutter is open.

>> Has anyone got any experience, good or bad, of either the 28-200G or the
>> 70-300ED?

Neither of those -- but I am quite pleased with the 28-105mm
f3.5-4.5 D.

>> Mainly regarding picture quality, but also any wear and tear
>> issues, especially with regard to the plastic mount on the 28-200G.

No experience with that. The mount on the lens which I
mentioned is proper metal. The longer the lens, the less happy I would
be with a lens which truly had plastic on the wear surfaces of the
mount, as there is more weight hung out there to play games with any
slop from wear. Do either of these lenses actually have plastic in that
duty?

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 3:44:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:

> I've been looking that 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor for this type
> of usage. But it's a bit more pricey. :( 

Compared to either the 28-200mm or 70-300, it may seem pricey, but
given the optical quality and current U.S. rebates, I consider it
a bargain.

I own both a 70-300mm ED as well as an 80-200mm. The 70-300mm is
a reasonable compromise between weight, performance and price. But it
performs its best between 70mm and about 225mm, and between about f/9
and f/16. Outside of those bounds the quality deteriorates noticeably.

The 80-200mm is a much heavier piece of gear, but delivers professional
quality over its entire zoom range from f/4, and is quite usable at
f/2.8. It's my second favorite lens for a huge variety of shots.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:23:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:115j58s82n8178b@corp.supernews.com...
> onthechoppingblock <gizzajob@anywhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
> With the 1.5x crop, 200mm is about as long as you can "casually" hand-hold
> and get consistent results (except maybe at the beach on a sunny day with
> the lens wide open).

This raises another question that I've been contemplating:- on 35mm I always
tried to work on the adage that for a hand held shot the shutter speed
should at least be equal to the focal length, and that seemed to work OK.
Any idea how that translates to digital?

> Not wide enough, I would think. You will have essentially no wide-angle.

Agreed, but I'll still have the 18-70, I'm not suggesting getting rid of
that, and will always take both lenses with me, it's just a question of each
being the default lens in a given situation, and only swap if really
necessary.

> I'd go with the 70-300. It'll be a much better lens.

That's what I originally thought, as I said I thought I had narrowed it down
to just the 70-300, but the balance of the reviews don't seem to agree with
that opinion, and this appears to be backed up by Michael's comments below.

Thanks for the advice.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:31:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote in message
news:G5CdnTHrraUJVsTfRVn_vg@giganews.com...
> onthechoppingblock wrote:
> Scary. I've recently picked up a D70 also (and love it). I learned very
> quickly to keep the strap around my neck. I'm much too clumsy,
> especially fumbling at unfamiliar controls.

Luckily I DID have the strap around my neck, otherwise the camera would have
bounced off the top of the wall and onto the floor!

> I do regret getting the kit lens. I was too ignorant and inexperienced
> to look at other options or to know what to look for. It's a great lens;
> no complaints on quality, but it doesn't seem to fit my usage.

I certainly don't regret getting the 18-70, and this proposed new lens is
not a replacement, just an addition. The obvious next route (for me) was to
get a standard telephoto zoom say 70-210/300 but given the reviews I've seen
the possibility of getting the 28-200 has now appeared, and seems to be a
better bet, even seemingly if I only used it 70-200, the 28-70 'bit' is just
an added bonus of flexibility really. You're correct that we each do
different things with our camera's and therefore the de facto lens will be
different for each.

> IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
> objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
> traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
> difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
> the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
> matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
> the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
> would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.

I'm not sure I understand that, surely the angle of view and the 'closeness'
are effectively the same thing?
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:31:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock wrote:
>>IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
>>objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
>>traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
>>difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
>>the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
>>matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
>>the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
>>would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand that, surely the angle of view and the 'closeness'
> are effectively the same thing?

Because the sensor size on the D70 is smaller than the full frame
opening on a film SLR, you see less of the image given the same lens. It
is exactly the same image, just less of it. If you take a picture from a
film SLR and trim off a little from all sides, you'd get the same image.
You don't get more zoom by moving a lens from a film camera to a dSLR,
you lose on the amount of a scene you can see at one time. Say, for
example (picking numbers out of thin air), that a particular lens gives
you a 90 degree field of view from a SLR film camera. That same lens on
a digital may only give you a 85 degree view. It doesn't affect zoom,
only the field of view. I.E. if you put a 200mm lens on a digital, you
will not magically get the same magnification you would get from a 300mm
lens despite what the equivelancy rating might lead people to believe.

What you do get (except for DX lenses) is less abaration and distortion,
because that tends to happen closer to the edge of the lenses, and the
smaller opening for the sensor in digital cameras doesn't see as much of
the outer edge.

I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job of describing this, as I'm new to
photography in general. I'm not sure I'm using correct or meaningful
terminology. Some books disagree on this. Some say you get more
magnification because of the equivalency factor while other say you
don't. The terminology, in this case, is misleading.

Randy.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:36:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> That's what I originally thought, as I said I thought I had narrowed it
down
> to just the 70-300, but the balance of the reviews don't seem to agree
with
> that opinion, and this appears to be backed up by Michael's comments
below.

Sorry, having re-read, Michael is not very complementary about the 70-300,
but the lens he prefers is the 80-200, NOT the 28-200 !

....... and I can't remember why I changed my usenet user name to
onthechoppingblock, I'd better change it back when this thread is closed. My
'proper' name is Stephen !
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:36:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock <gizzajob@anywhere.co.uk> wrote:

> This raises another question that I've been contemplating:- on 35mm I always
> tried to work on the adage that for a hand held shot the shutter speed
> should at least be equal to the focal length, and that seemed to work OK.
> Any idea how that translates to digital?

In theory, that rule of thumb should still work using the *equivalent* 35mm
focal length; even though the magnification is the same at the same focal
length, you are enlarging the picture more and thus any motion blur will
be more visible, so a higher shutter speed is called for. (In college I
had a teacher who insisted that all photos submitted be printed at 11x14
minimum for this reason; he would say, "8x10 hides many sins".)

On top of that, with the newest digitals we're starting to deal with more
resolution than we had with standard 35mm film, which will also expose
mistakes with less forgiveness. So I would err on the side of the higher
shutter speed and use the 35mm equivalent for the quick rule of thumb.

Of course, it will always be of benefit to use a tripod or at least some
support where possible, even if you're "technically" within that rule.

> Sorry, having re-read, Michael is not very complementary about the 70-300,
> but the lens he prefers is the 80-200, NOT the 28-200 !

It's a certainty that the 80-200 will be a better lens than the 70-300.
I've never used the 70-300, myself, so I can't speak from personal
experience with it, but it sounded like you wanted the reach of the 300.
If you don't need it, definitely go for something like the 80-200.

But I've never seen success trying to get from wide to long telephoto
in the same lens. There's just too much compromise. (On the other
hand, I just use the things, I'm no expert in lens design.)

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:39:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb-offer@clearether.com> wrote in message
news:3bua5oF6hvgrqU1@individual.net...
> "Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote:
>
> > I've been looking that 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor for this type
> > of usage. But it's a bit more pricey. :( 
>
> Compared to either the 28-200mm or 70-300, it may seem pricey, but
> given the optical quality and current U.S. rebates, I consider it
> a bargain.
>
> I own both a 70-300mm ED as well as an 80-200mm. The 70-300mm is
> a reasonable compromise between weight, performance and price. But it
> performs its best between 70mm and about 225mm, and between about f/9
> and f/16. Outside of those bounds the quality deteriorates noticeably.
>
> The 80-200mm is a much heavier piece of gear, but delivers professional
> quality over its entire zoom range from f/4, and is quite usable at
> f/2.8. It's my second favorite lens for a huge variety of shots.

I'm sure this is true, and the weight/size doesn't bother me, but
unfortunately the price does! And I don't think there are any UK rebates on
this at the moment, although I might be wrong - the price has scared me off
enough to not even bother investigating this lens further!
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:44:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D 3cr7e$mu1$1@fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <G5CdnTHrraUJVsTfRVn_vg@giganews.com>,

> >> Mainly regarding picture quality, but also any wear and tear
> >> issues, especially with regard to the plastic mount on the 28-200G.
>
> No experience with that. The mount on the lens which I
> mentioned is proper metal. The longer the lens, the less happy I would
> be with a lens which truly had plastic on the wear surfaces of the
> mount, as there is more weight hung out there to play games with any
> slop from wear. Do either of these lenses actually have plastic in that
> duty?

As far as I can tell the 28-200G has the plastic mount, whereas the 70-300D
is a metal mount. But they're both pretty small lenses really, so I think
the weight carrying side will be OK, it's more wear and tear taking the
lenses on and off which I think is the concern.
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:53:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock wrote:


>
> This raises another question that I've been contemplating:- on 35mm I always
> tried to work on the adage that for a hand held shot the shutter speed
> should at least be equal to the focal length, and that seemed to work OK.
> Any idea how that translates to digital?

The adage is fine for small prints, say no larger than 5x7.

Use the crop factor. As the rule-of-thumb you speak of is really
related to the print. So for a 200mm you want at least 1/300s shutter
speed for handheld according to the rule-of-thumb.

I would only attempt a 300mm lens at 1/500 handheld and I'd prefer
1/1000. Using a mono or tripod is much easier.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 11, 2005 1:17:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock wrote:
> ...
> There now comes the tricky question of a telephoto zoom. I mostly shoot
> landscape but also some sport (mainly equestrian and motorsport). I don't
> have a fortune to dip into, so the options are limited...
>
> I managed quite happily with nothing above 210mm on the Ricoh, so allowing
> for the 1.5x crop factor, 200mm (ie. 300mm in 35mm terms) would actually
> still be much more than I had at my disposal before. Also with an effective
> 42-300mm it strikes me that this would be a good all round lens - I've
> missed plenty of shots in the last 20 years from either being too close or
> in the middle of changing lenses! It's also slightly faster than the 70-300.
> I would keep the 18-70 for landscapes, portraits and events like weddings,
> and use the 28-200 for sporting events and as a general "walking around with
> a camera" lens...


I got the 28-200 as my 'kit lens'. It is not very sharp at 200. It is
very small so is great for a walkaround, that's it's most valuable
quality. I recently got a 70-200 VR & it is definitely an akward lens
for normal shooting I often find myself needing to switch back to
something wider. I think the image quality is fine on the 28-200 on the
wide end & the 200 is more like a bonus but not great. The autofocus is
not great either & it's not super fast & the blur quality is not real
good either (donut rings). It is small, cheap, flexible and takes nice
pics in the wide end of it's abilities.
April 11, 2005 2:42:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I recently had the chance to try the 80-200 F2.8, 70-300 and the 70-200 VR,
obviously both £1,000+ lenses are professional quality though I have to say
in terms of autofocus speed, on the D70, the 80-200 was too sluggish,
significantly slower than than the 70-300, due to the far greater mass and
inertia. The 70-200 was however a class apart. (I understand the 80-200 is
now end-of-life).

IMHO if you can spare £1,100 then the VR is a great lens, if you only want
to spend £300 then go the 70-300 ED route, but I couldn't advocate using the
80-200 on a D70 and the 28-200 is a child's toy.

"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote in message
news:Y6adnWwNE9WHu8ffRVn_vg@giganews.com...
> onthechoppingblock wrote:
>>>IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
>>>objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
>>>traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
>>>difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
>>>the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
>>>matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
>>>the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
>>>would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand that, surely the angle of view and the
>> 'closeness'
>> are effectively the same thing?
>
> Because the sensor size on the D70 is smaller than the full frame opening
> on a film SLR, you see less of the image given the same lens. It is
> exactly the same image, just less of it. If you take a picture from a film
> SLR and trim off a little from all sides, you'd get the same image. You
> don't get more zoom by moving a lens from a film camera to a dSLR, you
> lose on the amount of a scene you can see at one time. Say, for example
> (picking numbers out of thin air), that a particular lens gives you a 90
> degree field of view from a SLR film camera. That same lens on a digital
> may only give you a 85 degree view. It doesn't affect zoom, only the field
> of view. I.E. if you put a 200mm lens on a digital, you will not magically
> get the same magnification you would get from a 300mm lens despite what
> the equivelancy rating might lead people to believe.
>
> What you do get (except for DX lenses) is less abaration and distortion,
> because that tends to happen closer to the edge of the lenses, and the
> smaller opening for the sensor in digital cameras doesn't see as much of
> the outer edge.
>
> I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job of describing this, as I'm new to
> photography in general. I'm not sure I'm using correct or meaningful
> terminology. Some books disagree on this. Some say you get more
> magnification because of the equivalency factor while other say you don't.
> The terminology, in this case, is misleading.
>
> Randy.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:09:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:115k9rm1spo4p01@corp.supernews.com...
> onthechoppingblock <gizzajob@anywhere.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This raises another question that I've been contemplating:- on 35mm I
always
> > tried to work on the adage that for a hand held shot the shutter speed
> > should at least be equal to the focal length, and that seemed to work
OK.
> > Any idea how that translates to digital?
>
> In theory, that rule of thumb should still work using the *equivalent*
35mm
> focal length; even though the magnification is the same at the same focal
> length, you are enlarging the picture more and thus any motion blur will
> be more visible, so a higher shutter speed is called for. (In college I
> had a teacher who insisted that all photos submitted be printed at 11x14
> minimum for this reason; he would say, "8x10 hides many sins".)
>
> On top of that, with the newest digitals we're starting to deal with more
> resolution than we had with standard 35mm film, which will also expose
> mistakes with less forgiveness. So I would err on the side of the higher
> shutter speed and use the 35mm equivalent for the quick rule of thumb.
>
> Of course, it will always be of benefit to use a tripod or at least some
> support where possible, even if you're "technically" within that rule.
>
> > Sorry, having re-read, Michael is not very complementary about the
70-300,
> > but the lens he prefers is the 80-200, NOT the 28-200 !
>
> It's a certainty that the 80-200 will be a better lens than the 70-300.
> I've never used the 70-300, myself, so I can't speak from personal
> experience with it, but it sounded like you wanted the reach of the 300.
> If you don't need it, definitely go for something like the 80-200.
>
> But I've never seen success trying to get from wide to long telephoto
> in the same lens. There's just too much compromise. (On the other
> hand, I just use the things, I'm no expert in lens design.)

Thanks for the tip on the focal length v shutter speed, logically that makes
perfect sense.

I would be happy with a 'upto' 200mm, that's why I thought the 28-200 might
be a compromise, with an added, if unexpected, bonus of also going down to
28mm. I also thought, as you are saying, that a lens with that reach
(28-200, not 70-300) must be compromised in some way, but some of the
reviews seem to differ.

One thing I've always found odd about photography is that in just about any
other sphere that I have more than a passing interest in there is usually a
stand out product in a given price range (+/- 15%). OK so some people will
prefer, say, a Marantz Amplifier over a NAD or Sony or whatever, but there
is usually some common ground where 75% of people will say at this price
point if you want these features you should either go for (a) or (b). But
this doesn't seem to be the case in lenses (although it does in bodies!).
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock - Stephen P. <stephen@nospamtla-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I would be happy with a 'upto' 200mm, that's why I thought the 28-200 might
> be a compromise, with an added, if unexpected, bonus of also going down to
> 28mm. I also thought, as you are saying, that a lens with that reach
> (28-200, not 70-300) must be compromised in some way, but some of the
> reviews seem to differ.

Lens reviews should be taken with some skepticism. A lens is a very
difficult thing to review; I probably wouldn't consider myself qualified
to do it, for example, though I could review a camera. So you really need
to consider who is doing the review as much as what it says.

The first two places I go to find out about lenses:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

> One thing I've always found odd about photography is that in just about any
> other sphere that I have more than a passing interest in there is usually a
> stand out product in a given price range (+/- 15%). OK so some people will
> prefer, say, a Marantz Amplifier over a NAD or Sony or whatever, but there
> is usually some common ground where 75% of people will say at this price
> point if you want these features you should either go for (a) or (b). But
> this doesn't seem to be the case in lenses (although it does in bodies!).

The stand-out lenses are very expensive. If you asked, "I want the best
lens in such-and-such a focal length range, or for such-and-such a purpose",
there would be good answers. But they would cost you a lot of money. The
problem with cheaper lenses is that most of the people who really know
what they're talking about aren't using them, so those people don't have
anything to say about them except general feelings.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:09:27 +0100, "onthechoppingblock - Stephen P."
<stephen@nospamtla-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Thanks for the tip on the focal length v shutter speed, logically that makes
>perfect sense.
>
>I would be happy with a 'upto' 200mm, that's why I thought the 28-200 might
>be a compromise, with an added, if unexpected, bonus of also going down to
>28mm. I also thought, as you are saying, that a lens with that reach
>(28-200, not 70-300) must be compromised in some way, but some of the
>reviews seem to differ.
>
>One thing I've always found odd about photography is that in just about any
>other sphere that I have more than a passing interest in there is usually a
>stand out product in a given price range (+/- 15%). OK so some people will
>prefer, say, a Marantz Amplifier over a NAD or Sony or whatever, but there
>is usually some common ground where 75% of people will say at this price
>point if you want these features you should either go for (a) or (b). But
>this doesn't seem to be the case in lenses (although it does in bodies!).


If I had the money, it would be the 70-200 VR for me. It is an
awesome lens from what I've seen and the f2.8 and VR would make it an
outstanding hand held lens.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:10:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanx for the advice, that backs up what others in the group have been
saying.

I like a good concensus!

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 3ds0g$or2$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> onthechoppingblock wrote:
>
>
> >
> > This raises another question that I've been contemplating:- on 35mm I
always
> > tried to work on the adage that for a hand held shot the shutter speed
> > should at least be equal to the focal length, and that seemed to work
OK.
> > Any idea how that translates to digital?
>
> The adage is fine for small prints, say no larger than 5x7.
>
> Use the crop factor. As the rule-of-thumb you speak of is really
> related to the print. So for a 200mm you want at least 1/300s shutter
> speed for handheld according to the rule-of-thumb.
>
> I would only attempt a 300mm lens at 1/500 handheld and I'd prefer
> 1/1000. Using a mono or tripod is much easier.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:20:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote in message
news:Y6adnWwNE9WHu8ffRVn_vg@giganews.com...
> onthechoppingblock wrote:
> >>IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
> >>objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
> >>traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
> >>difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
> >>the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
> >>matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
> >>the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
> >>would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand that, surely the angle of view and the
'closeness'
> > are effectively the same thing?
>
> Because the sensor size on the D70 is smaller than the full frame
> opening on a film SLR, you see less of the image given the same lens. It
> is exactly the same image, just less of it. If you take a picture from a
> film SLR and trim off a little from all sides, you'd get the same image.
> You don't get more zoom by moving a lens from a film camera to a dSLR,
> you lose on the amount of a scene you can see at one time. Say, for
> example (picking numbers out of thin air), that a particular lens gives
> you a 90 degree field of view from a SLR film camera. That same lens on
> a digital may only give you a 85 degree view. It doesn't affect zoom,
> only the field of view. I.E. if you put a 200mm lens on a digital, you
> will not magically get the same magnification you would get from a 300mm
> lens despite what the equivelancy rating might lead people to believe.
>
> What you do get (except for DX lenses) is less abaration and distortion,
> because that tends to happen closer to the edge of the lenses, and the
> smaller opening for the sensor in digital cameras doesn't see as much of
> the outer edge.
>
> I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job of describing this, as I'm new to
> photography in general. I'm not sure I'm using correct or meaningful
> terminology. Some books disagree on this. Some say you get more
> magnification because of the equivalency factor while other say you
> don't. The terminology, in this case, is misleading.

Randy, no that's a good explanation, it makes perfect sense now. To
paraphrase; just 'cos I happen put a given lens on, say, a D70, it is still
optically doing exactly the same thing as if I'd put it on an FE2, or
whatever. The crop factor only exists because the sensor (CCD instead of
film) is smaller, so the camera is picking up less of the image that the
lens is (still) projecting. In many ways therefore the effect is the same as
taking a 35mm neg (shot on the same FE2 for example) into the darkroom (that
I no longer have space for!) and only selectively enlarging it.

I'm sure it made perfect sense the first time round as well. All I can say
in my defense is that I did read it at 6:45 am!
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:27:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:46SdncKLhZSbPsffRVn-jw@speakeasy.net...
> onthechoppingblock wrote:
> > ...
> > There now comes the tricky question of a telephoto zoom. I mostly shoot
> > landscape but also some sport (mainly equestrian and motorsport). I
don't
> > have a fortune to dip into, so the options are limited...
> >
> > I managed quite happily with nothing above 210mm on the Ricoh, so
allowing
> > for the 1.5x crop factor, 200mm (ie. 300mm in 35mm terms) would actually
> > still be much more than I had at my disposal before. Also with an
effective
> > 42-300mm it strikes me that this would be a good all round lens - I've
> > missed plenty of shots in the last 20 years from either being too close
or
> > in the middle of changing lenses! It's also slightly faster than the
70-300.
> > I would keep the 18-70 for landscapes, portraits and events like
weddings,
> > and use the 28-200 for sporting events and as a general "walking around
with
> > a camera" lens...
>
>
> I got the 28-200 as my 'kit lens'. It is not very sharp at 200. It is
> very small so is great for a walkaround, that's it's most valuable
> quality. I recently got a 70-200 VR & it is definitely an akward lens
> for normal shooting I often find myself needing to switch back to
> something wider. I think the image quality is fine on the 28-200 on the
> wide end & the 200 is more like a bonus but not great. The autofocus is
> not great either & it's not super fast & the blur quality is not real
> good either (donut rings). It is small, cheap, flexible and takes nice
> pics in the wide end of it's abilities.

Thanks for the opinion Paul. That sort of, but not quite, matches this
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm review. He quite likes it, with
the given caveat that it's a cheap 'fun' lens. Have you tried using the
focus limiter to help mitigate the focusing problems, or are your problems
more accuracy than speed?

As I sort of eluded to in an earlier post this evening it would be nice is
there was one stand-out lens in the GP£200-300 range for something in the
rough area of 70-210mm (or 80-200, or 75-250 or 70-300 etc etc). But it
seems that no 3 people can quite agree, although the broad comments seem
similar. I guess I'll have to pop down to my 'local' (ha ha) dealer and see
if I can try a couple out.
April 12, 2005 12:27:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

onthechoppingblock - Stephen P. wrote:
> "paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
> news:46SdncKLhZSbPsffRVn-jw@speakeasy.net...
>
> Have you tried using the focus limiter
> to help mitigate the focusing problems, or are your problems
> more accuracy than speed?


I never tried the focus limiter and am not sure what it limits the range
to. I think it tends to not go that far out, just doesn't know where to
settle. My 70-200 goes way to the other end pretty quickly if I'm doing
macro or with the teleconverter which is very annoying but I don't
believe the 28-200 does that so much.

I just played with the two & I guess the most obvious difference is the
loud motor noise the 28-200 makes & it's 5.6 at 200 means it gives up in
low light quicker than the 2.8.

The 28-200 will 'fall out' when you tilt it down. It zooms itself out
with gravity.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 3:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d3eilu$59j$1$830fa79f@news.demon.co.uk>, stephen@nospamtla-
net.demon.co.uk says...
>
> "Randy W. Sims" <RandyS@ThePierianSpring.org> wrote in message
> news:Y6adnWwNE9WHu8ffRVn_vg@giganews.com...
> > onthechoppingblock wrote:
> > >>IIUC, the effective focal length has nothing to do with how close the
> > >>objects in the photo appear. If you use the same lens on the D70 and a
> > >>traditional 35mm, the image will appear at the same distance. The
> > >>difference is in the angle of view. With the D70 you will see less of
> > >>the image; i.e. it's the same as if the 35mm photo where cropped or
> > >>matted so you only see part of it. Throughout the full range, you get
> > >>the same "distance", but the angle of view is reduced to what a 35mm
> > >>would see at the effective focal length derived from the crop factor.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I understand that, surely the angle of view and the
> 'closeness'
> > > are effectively the same thing?
> >
> > Because the sensor size on the D70 is smaller than the full frame
> > opening on a film SLR, you see less of the image given the same lens. It
> > is exactly the same image, just less of it. If you take a picture from a
> > film SLR and trim off a little from all sides, you'd get the same image.
> > You don't get more zoom by moving a lens from a film camera to a dSLR,
> > you lose on the amount of a scene you can see at one time. Say, for
> > example (picking numbers out of thin air), that a particular lens gives
> > you a 90 degree field of view from a SLR film camera. That same lens on
> > a digital may only give you a 85 degree view. It doesn't affect zoom,
> > only the field of view. I.E. if you put a 200mm lens on a digital, you
> > will not magically get the same magnification you would get from a 300mm
> > lens despite what the equivelancy rating might lead people to believe.
> >
> > What you do get (except for DX lenses) is less abaration and distortion,
> > because that tends to happen closer to the edge of the lenses, and the
> > smaller opening for the sensor in digital cameras doesn't see as much of
> > the outer edge.
> >
> > I'm sure I'm doing a terrible job of describing this, as I'm new to
> > photography in general. I'm not sure I'm using correct or meaningful
> > terminology. Some books disagree on this. Some say you get more
> > magnification because of the equivalency factor while other say you
> > don't. The terminology, in this case, is misleading.
>
> Randy, no that's a good explanation, it makes perfect sense now. To
> paraphrase; just 'cos I happen put a given lens on, say, a D70, it is still
> optically doing exactly the same thing as if I'd put it on an FE2, or
> whatever. The crop factor only exists because the sensor (CCD instead of
> film) is smaller, so the camera is picking up less of the image that the
> lens is (still) projecting. In many ways therefore the effect is the same as
> taking a 35mm neg (shot on the same FE2 for example) into the darkroom (that
> I no longer have space for!) and only selectively enlarging it.
>
> I'm sure it made perfect sense the first time round as well. All I can say
> in my defense is that I did read it at 6:45 am!

The only exception I would take to that explanation is that the only
DX lens which would be at high risk for showing aberation around the
corners and edges would be the 12-24 zoom; it's the only one that's
specifically cropped for dSLR image size. The other DX lenses work
perfectly well on film cameras, and their aberations will be similar
to other lenses designed for 35mm format.

Diane
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:35:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:53:48 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>I would only attempt a 300mm lens at 1/500 handheld and I'd prefer
>1/1000. Using a mono or tripod is much easier.

Why, what's the harm with digital? If it comes down to breaking the rule to
take a shot or no shot, I'll opt for taking it. You have nothing to lose.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:25:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:53:48 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I would only attempt a 300mm lens at 1/500 handheld and I'd prefer
>>1/1000. Using a mono or tripod is much easier.
>
>
> Why, what's the harm with digital? If it comes down to breaking the rule to
> take a shot or no shot, I'll opt for taking it. You have nothing to lose.


As chance favours the prepared, use a support.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:36:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:25:36 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Ed Ruf wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:53:48 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
>> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>I would only attempt a 300mm lens at 1/500 handheld and I'd prefer
>>>1/1000. Using a mono or tripod is much easier.
>>
>> Why, what's the harm with digital? If it comes down to breaking the rule to
>> take a shot or no shot, I'll opt for taking it. You have nothing to lose.
>
>
>As chance favours the prepared, use a support.

Even if you may have it with you, time and nature are fleeting. If you
can't imagine any situation where it's just not possible, my condolences.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:51:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:25:36 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
> Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Ed Ruf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 08:53:48 -0400, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Alan
>>>Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would only attempt a 300mm lens at 1/500 handheld and I'd prefer
>>>>1/1000. Using a mono or tripod is much easier.
>>>
>>>Why, what's the harm with digital? If it comes down to breaking the rule to
>>>take a shot or no shot, I'll opt for taking it. You have nothing to lose.
>>
>>
>>As chance favours the prepared, use a support.
>
>
> Even if you may have it with you, time and nature are fleeting. If you
> can't imagine any situation where it's just not possible, my condolences.

If you can't imagine photography as a deliberately planned process to
get specific results, my condolences.

While I have *gasp* taken shots off the cuff because time and events
were unexpected and fleeting, that represents so little of the whole as
not to be bothered mentioning. The results are rarely very good in any
case.

Being at an event with equipment prepared for what may occur is another
matter and is really what photography requires for any useful result.
Even the most spontaneous looking shots in a magazine or newspaper were
most likely done by somebody waiting for something to happen. And (she
is prepared for it. That is why chance favours the prepared.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 12, 2005 9:51:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> chance favours the prepared.
>


Chance favors the fast changing 28-200 equipped also <grin>.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:54:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> >
>
>> chance favours the prepared.
>>
>
>
> Chance favors the fast changing 28-200 equipped also <grin>.

Guilty. Although, except for volleyball and soccer, I'm a pretty
dodderng photog with the 80-200. Shooting some recent student political
activity (read: strike) the 28-70 /2.8 on the 7D allowed a lot of
versatility and fast shooting. And chimping!

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!