help me decide..

[robbins.photo]

You talking the Nikon 70-200 f/4? Same price as a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, just sayin. Reports are the Tamron is sharper, but the AF is better in the Nikons. I'm pretty sure I'm about to pick up the Tamron. The guy I was supposed to buy a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 from got cold feet, so that's the next best thing for the price I guess.

I thought about the Nikon 70-200 F/4, but at least for me I don't think it would really do much for me that my Tamron 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 won't. If I were shooting APS-C that might change the equation a bit but on the full frame that extra stop really isn't as crucial in most cases.

 

[gckless]

You talking the Nikon 70-200 f/4? Same price as a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, just sayin. Reports are the Tamron is sharper, but the AF is better in the Nikons. I'm pretty sure I'm about to pick up the Tamron. The guy I was supposed to buy a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 from got cold feet, so that's the next best thing for the price I guess.

I thought about the Nikon 70-200 F/4, but at least for me I don't think it would really do much for me that my Tamron 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 won't. If I were shooting APS-C that might change the equation a bit but on the full frame that extra stop really isn't as crucial in most cases.

That's why I'm suggesting the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8

 

[Emanuel M]

I have a Nikon 70-200mm f/4 and it is very good indeed.
Not so heavy and ultra sharp, fast and with amazing VR (the VR on the 70-200 f4 is the best VR i've ever used)

But if you need the extra stop go for the tamron 2.8...

Cheers

 

[dannylightning]

you know its funny.. f/2.8 and f/4 there is definitely a difference but neither one was able to give me a good exposure of the stuff in my closet..

a little later in the day i decided to try a shot that shot at 1.8 to see how different 1.8 was from 2.8. it actually over exposed that image at f 1.8 and i had to lower the ISO to get a good exposure...

so yeah 1.8 is a low light monster. 2.8 and 4.0 are only descent

i will be interested to see how that sigma 50-100 1.8 ends up being.. i mean the 18-35 1.8 is pretty amazing, no chromatic aberration, nice and sharp wide open, great colors, there is really nothing to complain about with that lens.. except if you have a full frame its a DX lens only.. so is the new 50-100 1.8 coming out.

so the lens i get is definitely going to be the sigma 50-100 1.8, the sigma 24-105 f/4 or a 70-200 of some sort lol...

that nikon 70-200 f/4 does look awesome.. a little more than i want to spend though.. not really wanting to buy a used lens. i dont know i bought a used one once and got a bad lens, had to send it back.. i have always had this phobia of buying used camera gear or electronics unless i get it for super cheap or from someone i know took care of it..... lol...

 

[dannylightning]

i decided to do a test. nikon 18-200mm with the IS turned on.. and the sigma 18-35mm 1.8 that does not have IS

one photo is taken at F/4, 1/20, 4000 ISO and IS turned on.. the other photo is f/1.8, 1/100, iso 4000 and the lens does not have IS.

if your subject were moving this would not work out well but for a stationary object looks like IS can give you about as good of results as a 1.8 lens.. here are the 2 photos..

 

[Watchful]

I would keep the zoom you have for a while and add a macro and a fisheye, then later swap the zoom.

 

[dannylightning]

I would keep the zoom you have for a while and add a macro and a fisheye, then later swap the zoom.

i have some extension tubes and i get great results with them for macro, not really into macro.... i have no interest in a fish eye lens.. i had a 10-20mm lens at one point.. not really my thing either.. more of a general shooting lens is what i am looking for. something that will be descent in low light thew out the whole focal range so something in 2.8 or f/4 is kind of ideal that is if F/4 would be a good choice i do not know.

i have some friends that play in bands. i would like to be able to get some good photos of them playing. there usually in some dark dingy bar.. not sure how well f/4 and my d7200 would do in that situation.. i have photographed them a time or two in the past quite a while ago but i used a flash.. more than likely the flash is not always gonna work. ill have to go out and shoot them with my lens set to 35mm ish where i can use it at f/4 some time and see how that works out.. that way ill know if a f/4 lens will do the trick or not..

 

[table1349]

I would keep the zoom you have for a while and add a macro and a fisheye, then later swap the zoom.

i have some extension tubes and i get great results with them for macro, not really into macro.... i have no interest in a fish eye lens.. i had a 10-20mm lens at one point.. not really my thing either.. more of a general shooting lens is what i am looking for. something that will be descent in low light thew out the whole focal range so something in 2.8 or f/4 is kind of ideal that is if F/4 would be a good choice i do not know.

i have some friends that play in bands. i would like to be able to get some good photos of them playing. there usually in some dark dingy bar.. not sure how well f/4 and my d7200 would do in that situation.. i have photographed them a time or two in the past quite a while ago but i used a flash.. more than likely the flash is not always gonna work. ill have to go out and shoot them with my lens set to 35mm ish where i can use it at f/4 some time and see how that works out.. that way ill know if a f/4 lens will do the trick or not..

What??????? Wait................................... your not following the Watchful Way of Photography, but doing your own thing???

If you are looking at dark indoor type things like bands in clubs etc., then an f2.8 would be the route I would go. Yes they are #1 expensive and #2 heavy, but they are also built like a tank, usually have the best optical quality and something that might mean something to you later on, they hold their resale value. 24-70 or 70-200 would be your call depending on the distances you are working with in your venues.

 

[Watchful]

You can get those shots, albeit with some noise, but an unknown band in a dark grimy bar should have some video noose anyways.

 

[dannylightning]

I would keep the zoom you have for a while and add a macro and a fisheye, then later swap the zoom.

i have some extension tubes and i get great results with them for macro, not really into macro.... i have no interest in a fish eye lens.. i had a 10-20mm lens at one point.. not really my thing either.. more of a general shooting lens is what i am looking for. something that will be descent in low light thew out the whole focal range so something in 2.8 or f/4 is kind of ideal that is if F/4 would be a good choice i do not know.

i have some friends that play in bands. i would like to be able to get some good photos of them playing. there usually in some dark dingy bar.. not sure how well f/4 and my d7200 would do in that situation.. i have photographed them a time or two in the past quite a while ago but i used a flash.. more than likely the flash is not always gonna work. ill have to go out and shoot them with my lens set to 35mm ish where i can use it at f/4 some time and see how that works out.. that way ill know if a f/4 lens will do the trick or not..

What??????? Wait................................... your not following the Watchful Way of Photography, but doing your own thing???

If you are looking at dark indoor type things like bands in clubs etc., then an f2.8 would be the route I would go. Yes they are #1 expensive and #2 heavy, but they are also built like a tank, usually have the best optical quality and something that might mean something to you later on, they hold their resale value. 24-70 or 70-200 would be your call depending on the distances you are working with in your venues.

local bands, small venues where i can get right up next to the band.. 70mm may actually be too long unless i want to stop back but than ill be behind all the people, maybe not i would have to do some experimenting... allot of the times i could set back when most of the people are setting down and 70+ mm wold be ok but some times its more of everyone standing, depends on where they are playing.. most of the shots i took of my friends bands a while back were around 50mm or so... i am thinking my 18-35mm would probably be good and something like that 24-105mm would be perfect if the F/4 was gonna give me a good exposure..

 

[Watchful]

Take a look at some of the old pics from CBGB omfug.

 

[table1349]

Give the 18-35 a shot. It may be the ticket especially being an f1.8. Never shot that lens so I have no experience with it.

My zooms consist of the trifecta, 16-35 f2.8 II, 24-70 f2.8II & 70-200 f2.8 II. Everything else is shoot are primes.

 

[Derrel]

18-35mm at f/1.8 would be pretty handy for APS-C up close. Plus the lens is so huge, you'll look very paparazzi.

 

[dannylightning]

18-35mm at f/1.8 would be pretty handy for APS-C up close. Plus the lens is so huge, you'll look very paparazzi.

Seems small to me lol since I mainly do wild life. Lol.

I want it for. Landscapes, portraits, or what ever, I had fun shooting bands so I want to be able to do that as well and I have always liked low light shooting too. Next time I have a day off and a friend's band plays I'll take what I have put and see what mm I tend to be shooting at, so that will be of some help.


Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Yes, it is definitely smaller than say, a 150-600mm zoom! But dat lens speed-- f/1.8 in a ZOOM!!!! Wow, that would be nice to have!