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

[fjrabon]

this is also one of the areas where a body upgrade may be worth it just as much as glass. Reason being, if you upgraded to a d7000 or other camera with a built in focus motor, you enable being able to buy the 80-200 f/2.8 af, which is like 1000 cheaper (which is the price of a new d7000), and just as good optically imho as the 70-200 af-s. So then you'd have a fast zoom, and better high ISO performance. Which when you combine the two together is like night and day on low light tele shots.

 

[jaomul]

On the upside you are (maybe) more likely to carry a slower lens more often for day to day stuff due to them being lighter and more portable

 

[Derrel]

With the NEWEST and BEST d-slr bodies, "f/5.6 is the new eff two point eight." And no, I am NOT joking. What 10 years go absolutely DEMANDED a pro lens and a pro camera can now be imaged, better, with a mid-priced Nikon or Canon that has simply superb higher-ISO performance. With the advent of NEWER technologies, like LOW-cost, easily-manufactured aspherical elements, even today's "consumer" zoom lenses are sharper and better than MANY, if not all, older "professional" zooms lenses from Nikon and Canon. And, as shown by Popular Photography magazine almost a decade ago, cheap "consumer' zoom lenses shot at f/8 are often virtually INDISTINGUISHABLE from images made with $1,699 Nikon and Canon "pro zooms" like the 70-200 and (then-current) 28-70mm f/2.8 zooms. Yeah...f/8...one might call it The Great Equalizer.

Ya know, I think soon I am going to take TWO identical images, one with a very expensive Nikon lens, and another with what some people would consider a prosumer lens, strip the EXIF, and ask for people to try and positively identify WHICH image was shot with the really expensive lens and which with the $349 pawn shop Nikkor zoom.

 

[Heitz]

And don't forget the focus speed. I have several pro-level FX lenses and several prosumer DX lenses. The pro lenses focus extremely quickly. The others, not so much. E.g., I have the Nikkor 55-300 4.5-5.6. It produces great, sharp images with enough light, but it focuses so slowly that its really hit-or-miss for quickly moving subjects.

 

[carolinajack]

this is also one of the areas where a body upgrade may be worth it just as much as glass. Reason being, if you upgraded to a d7000 or other camera with a built in focus motor, you enable being able to buy the 80-200 f/2.8 af, which is like 1000 cheaper (which is the price of a new d7000), and just as good optically imho as the 70-200 af-s. So then you'd have a fast zoom, and better high ISO performance. Which when you combine the two together is like night and day on low light tele shots.

I would love to be able to upgrade the body but it isnt in the cards just yet. I didnt really know, when I opted for the D3100, how much better off I would be with a camera with an internal focus motor. I may start putting money aside for a better body next year or so. Having an infant with daycare to pay for plus about a million other things doesn't really leave a lot left for cameras.

 

[pixmedic1 1]

this is also one of the areas where a body upgrade may be worth it just as much as glass. Reason being, if you upgraded to a d7000 or other camera with a built in focus motor, you enable being able to buy the 80-200 f/2.8 af, which is like 1000 cheaper (which is the price of a new d7000), and just as good optically imho as the 70-200 af-s. So then you'd have a fast zoom, and better high ISO performance. Which when you combine the two together is like night and day on low light tele shots.

I would love to be able to upgrade the body but it isnt in the cards just yet. I didnt really know, when I opted for the D3100, how much better off I would be with a camera with an internal focus motor. I may start putting money aside for a better body next year or so. Having an infant with daycare to pay for plus about a million other things doesn't really leave a lot left for cameras.

*cough used D90 *cough*

 

[carolinajack]

On the upside you are (maybe) more likely to carry a slower lens more often for day to day stuff due to them being lighter and more portable

I am typically one to suffer weight in size in favor of preparedness. That being said, I'm also looking into a better bag set up to make day to day stuff and traveling more streamlined. When I bought the bag I have, I didnt realize how quickly it would fill up.

 

[carolinajack]

This is kind of goes along with what Derrel said but I was wondering how many people (meaning myself and the people who would be looking at my pictures) would be able to tell the difference between the top quality glass and the lower level stuff. That is, given all the same settings. I don't think, in fact I'm almost positive, that I wouldn't be able to tell a difference right now. I would imagine it would be like your palate with food, it takes time to mature.

 

[carolinajack]

Pixmedic, I was actually thinking about a used D90. That would be much more doable.


If I do go the cheaper route and just find a 4-5.6 or buy the newer 4.5-5.6, is 200mm as far as I should go? The low speed of the lens would really show at 300mm, right?

 

[bratkinson]

When I made the transition from Point-n-Shoot to a DSLR about 18 months ago, I started with the Canon 18-135 f3.5-5.6 zoom as my 'main' lens. Worked great, good IQ, etc. But it really stumbled doing inside shooting at church without a flash. I was shooting at 1/10th and 1600 ISO just to get ANYTHING decent without a flash. Waaayy too slow shutter speed!

Since I usually shoot about 15-20% without flash indoors, I needed speed. Of course, speed = $$$. So I replaced it with a fast "L" zoom, and an even faster 135mm F2 L and 200mm F2.8 L lenses for fantastic low-light no-flash results!

But I still miss the longer zoom range of the 18-135 doing land and city scape work...

 

[pixmedic1 1]

Pixmedic, I was actually thinking about a used D90. That would be much more doable.


If I do go the cheaper route and just find a 4-5.6 or buy the newer 4.5-5.6, is 200mm as far as I should go? The low speed of the lens would really show at 300mm, right?

I have a nikkor 70-300 VRII and its a great lens. its just a slow lens. It almost never gets used however, as we rarely need a long lens. our 17-50 f/2.8 or 35mm 1.8/50mm f1.4 are what is mainly used. sometimes the 28-75 f/2.8, but not as often. that being said, the more focal range you have in one lens, the harder it is to get better quality. which is why the f/2.8 tele zooms are stopped at 200mm. im sure someone else here could explain it MUCH better than I can so I will let them if they wish. the point is, as I mentioned earlier, it will all depend on what you want to shoot, and how long you want to wait to have that focal range. if you get a 300mm tele zoom, you will have the same issues that all long zooms have at the far end. I am pretty sure you could find a few people here that have a 300mm zoom that take great pictures with it. its all about the setup. just because its a slow lens doesn't mean you cant get good pictures with it, it just means you have to be a little more deliberate with how you shoot. If I wanted to shoot at 300mm, i would hope it was during the day with plenty of light, and somewhere where I could have a tripod. or something i could lean on to help steady the camera and lens. there is a convenience to zoom lenses, but don't discount fixed focal lenses in the 200mm range either. they will be much faster and better optically than a cheap tele zoom at 200mm. you can get a 85 or 105mm and 200mm fixed focal and have that same basic range but with faster glass. just depends on how you want to shoot, and how much moving you are willing to do. just saying, some good used fixed focals might be a good alternative, and there a few fixed focal fans here that would be better suited to explain them than I am. I hope I at least covered the basics well enough. :mrgreen:

 

[Ballistics]

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

I highly recommend the Sigma 70-200mm OS over the AF-S 80-200mm 2.8. Many people recommended the 80-200mm because it was Nikon, but I really think Sigma outdid themselves with this lens. It's such a great lens and is very sharp wide open. The OS is fantastic and allows a shutter speed as low as 1/160 @ 200mm on a DX body (I haven't tried any slower than that yet).

 

[Solarflare]

1/160 s at 200mm is not much of an archievement ?

Nikon claims 4 stops with their VR II lenses and that would be 1/13sec with 200mm, assuming you can handheld 1/200 sec with a 200mm as the rule of thumb claims.


Also, I have found that even with a good low light camera like the D5100, the limits of low light performance are reached very fast indeed. ISO800 already sees the first noise.

Granted, I can push the camera to 25k and the special night vision blackwhite mode nicely, and still get something. But it aint pretty.

Thus, IMHO:

larger aperture / slower shutter speed >> higher ISO

 

[pixmedic1 1]

I think we have beat the quality issue into the ground here a few times over. yes, we are all aware that in order to get the best quality from a tele-zoom you need the f/2.8 lens. My original question still stands to the OP. can you get by without that focal range until you can save for a 70-200 f/2.8? (be it nikkor, or sigma, or Tamron or whatever) or do you REALLY want to start shooting longer distances NOW? I still think you should look into Fixed focal lenses as an alternative to the monster 70-200 f/2.8, provided you don't mind switching out lenses. That is actually our plan, since my wife is very petite and does not like the size and weight of the fast tele-zooms. A 105mm and 200mm will do just fine, and will be fast. and cheaper. just a thought.

 

[Ballistics]

1/160 s at 200mm is not much of an archievement ?

Nikon claims 4 stops with their VR II lenses and that would be 1/13sec with 200mm, assuming you can handheld 1/200 sec with a 200mm as the rule of thumb claims.


Also, I have found that even with a good low light camera like the D5100, the limits of low light performance are reached very fast indeed. ISO800 already sees the first noise.

Granted, I can push the camera to 25k and the special night vision blackwhite mode nicely, and still get something. But it aint pretty.

Thus, IMHO:

larger aperture / slower shutter speed >> higher ISO

Sigma claims the same 4 stops, 200mm is 300mm on DX. I said that I went as low as 1/160 which is a stop and haven't tried any lower, I didn't say that it was the best it could do.