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

[Ballistics]

3 stops VR f/2.8 @ 200mm 1/40 ISO 800

Remote8 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

4 stops VR f/2.8 @ 200mm 1/20 ISO400

Remote9 by The Photo Major, on Flickr



Super low light conditions with subject about 14 ft away and these are both 100% crops. For over 1000 dollars cheaper than the Nikon lens, I think this lens fairs pretty well.

Note: 3 stops exactly would be 37.5mm and 4 stops exactly would be 18.75

 

[sovietdoc]

Well, the shots are shot using different iso...

 

[TheBiles]

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

I can hand-hold my 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm and 1/13s. They're really not kidding with the image stabilization technology.

 

[Ballistics]

Well, the shots are shot using different iso...

So? The shutter speed is still @ 1/20

 

[carolinajack]

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.

I'm still working on that question. On one hand I am kind of anxious to shoot at that range, on the other I really DO want good glass. I do, however, like the idea of the FFL lenses and will definitely be checking into that. What I really want is to have my proverbial cake and eat it, too.