Lens choice

Hi Jun:


Jun Liu wrote:
Hi everyone,

I'm considering buying a mid-range telephoto lens for my Nikon D70s. I have
already had the kit lens (18-70mm f/3.5-4.5) and a normal prime (50mm
f/1.8). The lenses I'm considering a

AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8
AF 85mm f/1.8

I have used all these 3 lenses and still own them and here are my
thoughts. I am also assuming that the 80-200 you mention here is the
non-AFS ED version and not the AFS version that is discontinued.

I've heard that the optical performance of 70-200 and 80-200 are quite
similar, so I'm just wondering whether it is worthwhile spending a lot more
on the 70-200 for the VR feature. I also consider 85mm because I'm much
into portrait photography and the lens is sharp and light-weight. So here
are my several questions:

On the optical performance front, the 70-200 is a little better than
the 80-200. To be more precise, in my opinion sharpness is the same
but the 70-200 bokeh is better. The operations of the 70-200 is also
better thanks to the AFS (giving you faster AF). The 70-200 AFS also
feels faster and quieter than the AFS of the 80-200AFS lens. Having
said that, the 80-200 is still a top performer for me, especially
considering it is half the price of the 70-200.

1. Is it unnecessary to own a 85mm f/1.8 if I want to have a 70-200 or
80-200? How's the optical performance of the prime vs. the zoom?

There is no optical difference between the 85/1.8 and the 80-200.
Again, the 70-200 has a better bokeh. As people have already
mentioned, the lens with a better bokeh is the 85/1.4.

2. Is 70-200 or 80-200 not suitable for people who travel a lot? I heard
that both are built like a tank and weighed like a tank too!

The 70-200 and the 80-200 are almost of the same size and weight (give
or take 10%). Yes, they are built like a tank but I never mind taking
them with me. I used to think that taking the lighter and smaller
70-300ED with me to travel was a better choice (also because I get more
range), but once I tried the 80-200 and saw the differences in the
resulting photographs, I felt like beating myself for being so foolish
about a few ounces of weight savings.

3. Choice between 70-200 and 80-200?

simple: if you want to save money, you will be so happy with the
80-200... if you can afford the 70-200, you will feel so good for
spending that extra money! I used the 80-200 for years. One day, I
went to the store and the owner told me I could try out the 70-200 and
return it with a full refund within 2 weeks or trade in my 80-200
within 2 weeks. Well, I kept both. I travel with the 80-200 (it's
just a little bit more compact and looks less like a weapon so it's my
preferred lens to carry around with my D100) ... I use the 70-200 for
more serious shots (sports and portraits) with my D2H.

this also applies to the 85mm: I am very happy with my 85/1.8 ... if
money is not a problem, go with the 85/1.4 (I have both:
http://www.pbase.com/cvanlang/photo_gears )

here is my recommendation: buy the 80-200 and get yourself comfortable
with this optical range... as the 80-200 holds its value quite well,
when you think you need the AFS speed and the VR feature of the 70-200,
upgrade it... Be careful, you may end up keeping both like me !

4. As I'm based in UK, any idea where is the best place to buy the lenses?
Is it sensible to buy them through online dealer based on US, such as
Adorama and B&H?

I cant help you here because I am in the US.


Any opinion would be very much appreciated! Thanks!

Jun


--
Jun Liu
Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester
United Kingdom

ps. I come to Manchester once a while.... may be you can tell me where
to hile for nice nature photography.