Need a good telephoto but...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Walter, May 26, 2011.

  1. Walter

    Walter Guest

    Nikon fit.

    Not sure whether to go for the 300mm f/4 prime of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?
    I'd be using both with a teleconverter so.. opinions ? I guess the
    70-200mm would be more versatile but I really want to shoot sports and
    wildlife and so maybe I could do with the range of the 300mm? But then
    in the UK how many shots are unobtainable without fast glass (bad
    light)? But then it's only one stop.. but then the f/2.8 has VR...
    argh.. can't decide. HELP! :) They're both a lot of wonga (for me).
     
    Walter, May 26, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Walter

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 26/05/2011 11:16, Walter wrote:
    > Nikon fit.
    >
    > Not sure whether to go for the 300mm f/4 prime of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?
    > I'd be using both with a teleconverter so.. opinions ?


    What is the longest focal length you are already familiar with using?

    You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the camera
    steady for lenses longer than 300mm. I take it a lens of the required
    target focal length and speed is out of your price range?

    The zoom gives you more flexibility for framing wildlife photos.

    > I guess the
    > 70-200mm would be more versatile but I really want to shoot sports and
    > wildlife and so maybe I could do with the range of the 300mm? But then
    > in the UK how many shots are unobtainable without fast glass (bad
    > light)? But then it's only one stop.. but then the f/2.8 has VR...
    > argh.. can't decide. HELP! :) They're both a lot of wonga (for me).


    Your choice. If the sport you want to shoot is cricket in mid summer or
    football in the depths of winter makes a lot of difference.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 26, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Walter

    Walter Guest

    On 26/05/2011 11:30, Martin Brown wrote:
    > What is the longest focal length you are already familiar with
    > using?


    I own a Tamron 70-300mm. Which I'm quite happy with on a bright day.
    But without any image stabilisation technology, shooting hand held on a
    not-so-great day has so far not yielded great results. Took a cracker
    of a shot of a Robin the other week but had to use a slower shutter
    speed than I'd have liked and it's not as crisp as it could've been.
    With a better lens (or better day) that would've probably been the best
    pic I've taken. At that point I decided I'd invest in a better lens but
    I'm not sure the 70-300mm Nikon VR equivalent is a whole deal better?

    > You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the
    > camera steady for lenses longer than 300mm.


    I have a pan and tilt Tripod that I gifted myself for Xmas. Am thinking
    of getting a monopod though.

    > I take it a lens of the required target focal length and speed is
    > out of your price range?


    Ideally I'd like a 400mm but they're mega expensive. To be honest a
    grand is far more than I thought I'd even consider spending but I've
    been spoilt with the speed of the cheap 35mm Nikon prime. I blame my
    mate that loaned it to me.

    > Your choice. If the sport you want to shoot is cricket in mid summer
    > or football in the depths of winter makes a lot of difference.


    Funny you should mention Cricket since it's one of the things I'll
    be using it for. I had a chat with some photographers when I went to
    watch a match last month. They were all using 400mm. I was using my
    mate's Canon 600D and a 250mm Zoom and the photos, though good, just
    needed too much cropping. Another 100mms would've been ideal.
     
    Walter, May 26, 2011
    #3
  4. Walter

    Walter Guest

    I know it's bad etiquette to follow-up on my own post so I hope you
    forgive me this one time that I do it ;-)

    .... just wanted to add that although I have a 70-300mm zoom, I tend to
    always use it around the 250mm-300mm end.
     
    Walter, May 26, 2011
    #4
  5. Walter

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 26, 11:44 am, Walter <> wrote:

    > Another 100mms would've been ideal.


    That's what they all say luv ;-)
    Well they do to me :(
     
    Whisky-dave, May 26, 2011
    #5
  6. Walter

    RichA Guest

    On May 26, 6:16 am, Walter <> wrote:
    > Nikon fit.
    >
    > Not sure whether to go for the 300mm f/4 prime of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?
    > I'd be using both with a teleconverter so.. opinions ?  I guess the
    > 70-200mm would be more versatile but I really want to shoot sports and
    > wildlife and so maybe I could do with the range of the 300mm? But then
    > in the UK how many shots are unobtainable without fast glass (bad
    > light)? But then it's only one stop.. but then the f/2.8 has VR...
    > argh.. can't decide.  HELP! :)  They're both a lot of wonga (for me)..


    How is it shots are unobtainable now, except with fast glass (f2.8)
    whereas 3-4 years ago when cameras had 1-2 more stops of noise, the
    shots could be obtained at f2.8? Now, people should be able to get
    the same shots (maybe even more easily owing to increased DOF) at f4-
    f5.6 as they did with f2.8 3-4 years ago.
     
    RichA, May 26, 2011
    #6
  7. Walter

    me Guest

    On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:16:09 +0100, Walter <>
    wrote:

    >Nikon fit.
    >
    >Not sure whether to go for the 300mm f/4 prime of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?
    >I'd be using both with a teleconverter so.. opinions ? I guess the
    >70-200mm would be more versatile but I really want to shoot sports and
    >wildlife and so maybe I could do with the range of the 300mm? But then
    >in the UK how many shots are unobtainable without fast glass (bad
    >light)? But then it's only one stop.. but then the f/2.8 has VR...
    >argh.. can't decide. HELP! :) They're both a lot of wonga (for me).



    Let's start at the beginning, what body?
     
    me, May 26, 2011
    #7
  8. Walter

    me Guest

    On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:30:14 +0100, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >
    >
    >You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the camera
    >steady for lenses longer than 300mm.


    With all due respect, baloney!

    Shot last Sat all held, 200-400mm f/4 + TC-14 on a D300.
    http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-21_james_wormley_am/
    Ok there is a handful of P&S shots intermingled.
     
    me, May 26, 2011
    #8
  9. Walter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, me
    <> wrote:

    > >You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the camera
    > >steady for lenses longer than 300mm.

    >
    > With all due respect, baloney!


    baloney right back.

    > Shot last Sat all held, 200-400mm f/4 + TC-14 on a D300.
    > http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-21_james_wormley_am/
    > Ok there is a handful of P&S shots intermingled.


    the nikon 200-400mm lens is a stabilized lens and the exif data for
    that shot confirms that you were using stabilization for that shot.

    in other words, he was correct and your photo proves it.
     
    nospam, May 26, 2011
    #9
  10. Walter

    me Guest

    On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:16:09 +0100, Walter <>
    wrote:

    >Nikon fit.
    >
    >Not sure whether to go for the 300mm f/4 prime of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?
    >I'd be using both with a teleconverter so.. opinions ? I guess the
    >70-200mm would be more versatile but I really want to shoot sports and
    >wildlife and so maybe I could do with the range of the 300mm? But then
    >in the UK how many shots are unobtainable without fast glass (bad
    >light)? But then it's only one stop.. but then the f/2.8 has VR...
    >argh.. can't decide. HELP! :) They're both a lot of wonga (for me).



    It would help a bit more if you explicitly said what TC with what lens
    on what body.

    Given you have a 70-300, you're talking about a 1.7 or 2x TC on the
    70-200 f/2.8, right? I've sot the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR with the
    original TC-20EII on a D70 and D200 for quite a while before moving up
    to the original 200-400 f/4 VR and a TC-14EII. The 70-200 f/2.8 with
    TC-2 can be a fair bit soft and the 2x slows the focus down quite a
    bit, combo is f/5.6.i
     
    me, May 26, 2011
    #10
  11. Walter

    me Guest

    On Thu, 26 May 2011 13:13:40 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, me
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the camera
    >> >steady for lenses longer than 300mm.

    >>
    >> With all due respect, baloney!

    >
    >baloney right back.
    >
    >> Shot last Sat all held, 200-400mm f/4 + TC-14 on a D300.
    >> http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-21_james_wormley_am/
    >> Ok there is a handful of P&S shots intermingled.

    >
    >the nikon 200-400mm lens is a stabilized lens and the exif data for
    >that shot confirms that you were using stabilization for that shot.
    >
    >in other words, he was correct and your photo proves it.


    VR does not hold the camera steady. In fact it does the exact opposite
    for the corrective optics. That said, look further in the exif to find
    the complete answer. VR is not magic. I've found through long use of
    this combo in challenging light conditions that using Aperture
    Priority and Auto-Iso with a min shutter speed of either 1/640sor
    1/800s helps a lot as well.
     
    me, May 26, 2011
    #11
  12. Walter

    Bruce Guest

    Walter <> wrote:
    >Nikon fit.
    >Not sure whether to go for the 300mm f/4 prime of the 70-200mm f/2.8 ?
    >I'd be using both with a teleconverter so.. opinions ? I guess the
    >70-200mm would be more versatile but I really want to shoot sports and
    >wildlife and so maybe I could do with the range of the 300mm? But then
    >in the UK how many shots are unobtainable without fast glass (bad
    >light)? But then it's only one stop.. but then the f/2.8 has VR...
    >argh.. can't decide. HELP! :) They're both a lot of wonga (for me).



    Think about this:

    Imagine you had both lenses side by side, and that you put a 3X
    teleconverter on the 70-200mm (set at 200mm f/2.8) and a 2X converter
    on the 300mm (set at f/4) giving the same 600mm focal length for each
    combination.

    Now ask yourself:

    What would be the difference in the effective apertures of the two
    combinations, expressed in stops?
     
    Bruce, May 26, 2011
    #12
  13. Walter

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, me
    <> wrote:

    > >> Shot last Sat all held, 200-400mm f/4 + TC-14 on a D300.
    > >> http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-21_james_wormley_am/
    > >> Ok there is a handful of P&S shots intermingled.

    > >
    > >the nikon 200-400mm lens is a stabilized lens and the exif data for
    > >that shot confirms that you were using stabilization for that shot.
    > >
    > >in other words, he was correct and your photo proves it.

    >
    > VR does not hold the camera steady. In fact it does the exact opposite
    > for the corrective optics.


    it compensates for a shaky camera.

    > That said, look further in the exif to find
    > the complete answer. VR is not magic. I've found through long use of
    > this combo in challenging light conditions that using Aperture
    > Priority and Auto-Iso with a min shutter speed of either 1/640sor
    > 1/800s helps a lot as well.


    the shot was taken at 550mm, or 825mm effective focal length (including
    the teleconverter). the rule of thumb is you need 1/800th or faster to
    eliminate camera shake. your shot was taken at 1/640th, which is slower
    than what is needed, so the stabilization *did* help, and that's
    exactly the point that he was making and you provided proof.
     
    nospam, May 26, 2011
    #13
  14. Walter

    ASCII Guest

    me wrote:
    >On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:30:14 +0100, Martin Brown
    ><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the camera
    >>steady for lenses longer than 300mm.

    >
    >With all due respect, baloney!
    >
    >Shot last Sat all held, 200-400mm f/4 + TC-14 on a D300.
    >http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-21_james_wormley_am/
    >Ok there is a handful of P&S shots intermingled.


    Would those P&S shots be the ones
    with a long focal length and image stabilization?
     
    ASCII, May 26, 2011
    #14
  15. Walter

    Walter Guest

    On 26/05/2011 20:50, me wrote:
    > Let's start at the beginning, what body?


    D90
     
    Walter, May 27, 2011
    #15
  16. Walter

    Walter Guest

    On 26/05/2011 21:17, me wrote:
    > It would help a bit more if you explicitly said what TC with what lens
    > on what body.


    Was thinking of using my D90 with the 300mm prime using a 1.4 TC.
     
    Walter, May 27, 2011
    #16
  17. Walter

    me Guest

    On Fri, 27 May 2011 08:26:36 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 26 May 2011 15:58:52 -0400, me <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 26 May 2011 11:30:14 +0100, Martin Brown
    >><|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>You really need a tripod or some other mechanism for holding the camera
    >>>steady for lenses longer than 300mm.

    >>
    >>With all due respect, baloney!
    >>
    >>Shot last Sat all held, 200-400mm f/4 + TC-14 on a D300.
    >>http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-21_james_wormley_am/
    >>Ok there is a handful of P&S shots intermingled.

    >
    >Some very nice shots but, with respect, the fact that on a bright day
    >you don't need a mechanism for holding the camera steady doesn't mean
    >that someone in the English climate does not either. I used to be able
    >to get away with all sorts of things but taking long-focus photographs
    >without a steady is not one of them.


    http://edwardgruf.com/2011-05-06 /_DSC7623.jpg
    1600 ISO, 1/80s, Same combo.
     
    me, May 28, 2011
    #17
  18. nospam <> wrote:

    > the shot was taken at 550mm, or 825mm effective focal length (including
    > the teleconverter). the rule of thumb is you need 1/800th or faster to
    > eliminate camera shake.


    +/1 one stop, (or even more), depending on the photographer
    and day form.

    > your shot was taken at 1/640th, which is slower
    > than what is needed,


    by, what, less than 1/2 of a stop ...

    > so the stabilization *did* help,


    Not necessarily. To prove it helped, use 1/200s or slower.

    > and that's
    > exactly the point that he was making and you provided proof.


    You'd accept as 'proof' that a coin was 'loaded' if it fell 6
    times on one side in 10 tries.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 2, 2011
    #18
  19. Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:

    > One astonishing thing I've done with a 70-200mm f/2.8G
    > was to stack a Kenko 1.4x TC and a Nikkor TC20EIII. It
    > isn't perhaps as sharp as one might like, but it didn't
    > have excessive color fringing or the other common
    > aberrations that usually result from such absurd abuse!


    It probably depends on the order of the TCs. It does with
    the Canon 70-200 and Kenko TCs.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jun 3, 2011
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bmV0bnV0?=

    Signs are good, but WAN no good

    =?Utf-8?B?bmV0bnV0?=, Aug 15, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,234
    =?Utf-8?B?THVjYSBGLg==?=
    Aug 21, 2004
  2. Satish K

    Sony F717 telephoto and wide angle lenses

    Satish K, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,173
    Godfrey DiGiorgi
    Jul 11, 2003
  3. EugeneN

    Telephoto Converter Lens for Oly5050

    EugeneN, Jul 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,065
    Charlie D
    Jul 13, 2003
  4. Sebastien Gandolphe

    Need advice on Telephoto Zoom for Nikon

    Sebastien Gandolphe, Apr 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    386
  5. Jimmy Smith

    100mm telephoto vs telephoto macro

    Jimmy Smith, Jun 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,167
    Bill Hilton
    Jun 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page