How limited is an f/4-5.6 zoom lens?

[carolinajack]

I'm in the the market for a longer lens, something at least to 200 or maybe even 300. I have a D3100 so the 200mm would be fine for me. I am just wondering, though, how limited you are with the lower priced lenses who have a much smaller aperture range and that aren't very fast? Does anyone have any of these? Do you need pretty good lighting to use them? Should I just save more for a 2.8? Obviously a 2.8 would cost considerably more than my body did, haha.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

your obviously going to get better light performance out of a f/2.8 lens, but it really depends on what you want to shoot with it.
I have a nikkor 70-300 VRII lens that took great pics the two times it actually got used. you are limited only by the available light.
if you have enough light to shoot smaller than f/2.8 than it really doesn't matter that much. you certainly cant go wrong saving for a faster lens though, as you never know when you might need that larger aperture. you can always pick up a cheaper tele-zoom now, and use it while you save for faster glass.

 

[Derrel]

Ya know, the Nikon f/4.5~5.6 AF-S VR Nikkor, the "new" 70-300mm lens with Vibration Reduction, is EVEN SLOWER, starting out at f/4.5, instead of the older 70-300 models which were f/4.0 at their widest aperture. In the spring,summer,and fall in North America, an f/4.5~5.6 maximum aperture tele zoom is a bit limiting in anything lower than "good light", and so you will find yourself shooting at ISO 400 many times, in order to get fast enough shutter speeds to stop motion. Optics are good though.

 

[KmH]

Faster lenses, usually the more expensive prosumer grade or pro grade, also tend to have high quality optics that have had the ever present optical aberrations corrected more effectively than the less expensive consumer grade lenses.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

the question here becomes, do you have 1k+ to spend on a fast pro lens, or do you just want something that will fill that zoom range for a while?
if you have the money, spend it on GOOD GLASS...if not, then you have to decide whether to get a cheaper lens to start shooting with, or do without that range for a while. Just because it is a cheaper lens, does not mean you cant take good pictures with it. We have seen plenty of great photos taken here with lenses that are not "pro" glass.

 

[MLeeK]

What are you wanting the lens for? What will you be shooting?

 

[3Ddeath]

It goes without saying that zoom lenses need really high shutter speeds just to prevent camera shake, but I was really surprised by how much it was multiplied compared to my normal 17-70mm, with a 300 I had some blury images even at 1/500th of a second handheld.

Personally I wouldn't be able to afford a 2.8 so I would just make due with the 4-5.6, might just need to use a little bit of ISO even in daylight...

 

[carolinajack]

What are you wanting the lens for? What will you be shooting?

A little bit of everything. Probably mostly wildlife and landscape while my wife and I are hiking. What I'm more worried about is indoor stuff like graduations, etc.

 

[MLeeK]

For the indoor stuff you'll REALLY want that f/2.8. The 3.5-5.6 won't cut it.

There are options that aren't $2000.
I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS. OS being Sigma's version of VR/IS
The Tamron is also a macro lens and is slower to focus. I have used it successfully for sports, but let me tell you shooting sports is a WHOLE LOT EASIER now that I have the Sigma. I have never used the OS on my sigma, but I am sure it could come in handy if I were shooting in a situation like the auditorium where I might need a shutter speed under 1/400.
Sigma also made another version of the 70-200 with no OS, however it too is a slower focus macro lens. I shoot with a woman who shoots some sports with it well. That one I believe you have to find used or on something like KEH or FredMiranda.
The Sigma 70-200 OS for NIkon runs $1299
The Tamron runs $769

 

[carolinajack]

the question here becomes, do you have 1k+ to spend on a fast pro lens, or do you just want something that will fill that zoom range for a while?
if you have the money, spend it on GOOD GLASS...if not, then you have to decide whether to get a cheaper lens to start shooting with, or do without that range for a while. Just because it is a cheaper lens, does not mean you cant take good pictures with it. We have seen plenty of great photos taken here with lenses that are not "pro" glass.

That's exactly what I've been thinking. I have been thinking that that aperture range would be fine for my purposes but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Tripods are our friends.
seriously though, faster glass is great if you can afford it.
depending on what you are shooting, you may have to compensate by other means.
tripod with slower shutter speed, little higher ISO (hate that personally)
external light sources like a flash. If you get a cheaper lens, you will have to work around the smaller aperture and not-quite-as-good optics..otherwise, you will just have to do without that focal range until you can get a better lens. simple as that.

 

[carolinajack]

For the indoor stuff you'll REALLY want that f/2.8. The 3.5-5.6 won't cut it.

Thats kind of what I thought. Those situations, for me, are so few that I may not worry too much right now. Would I be ok outside at dusk or on a slightly overcast day shooting on a tripod?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

good glass = good times. its like motorcycles, the faster the more fun

 

[carolinajack]

Tripods are our friends.
seriously though, faster glass is great if you can afford it.
depending on what you are shooting, you may have to compensate by other means.
tripod with slower shutter speed, little higher ISO (hate that personally)
external light sources like a flash. If you get a cheaper lens, you will have to work around the smaller aperture and not-quite-as-good optics..otherwise, you will just have to do without that focal range until you can get a better lens. simple as that.

I'm a huge tripod and shutter release fan. Anything I can do at any time to keep my camera from moving I will usually do.

Basically what I'm getting is that I can get by in good lighting situations and maybe in less than good with compensation where I can find it.

 

[MLeeK]

For the indoor stuff you'll REALLY want that f/2.8. The 3.5-5.6 won't cut it.

Thats kind of what I thought. Those situations, for me, are so few that I may not worry too much right now. Would I be ok outside at dusk or on a slightly overcast day shooting on a tripod?

Dusk could get a bit troublesome, but otherwise? you should be great on an overcast day.