Nikon D80 VR lenses

[Lakewood Photography]

Newbie in the house!

First I want to apologize if there's already a post on this - I've searched and searched and can't find one that will lead me in the right direction. Second, if there is a post - please lend me the link!

I'm in the market for a stabilizer lens, preferably around 18 - 200mm+. Nikkor VRs and Sigma stabilizers seem to be pretty popular. If you currently use a stabilizer lens, can you answer a few questions?

1) Do you know where I can find used lenses for the d80? I realize the lenses typically retain their value... would you buy used or new?

2) What is your experience with a stabilizer lens?

3) What is your experience with Nikon vs. Sigma?

4) Do you have any b/f and after photos of w/ and w/o a stabilizer lens?

5) I've been looking at ebay and amazon for these lenses... any other recommendations?

 

[Socrates]

Newbie in the house!

First I want to apologize if there's already a post on this - I've searched and searched and can't find one that will lead me in the right direction. Second, if there is a post - please lend me the link!

I'm in the market for a stabilizer lens, preferably around 18 - 200mm+. Nikkor VRs and Sigma stabilizers seem to be pretty popular. If you currently use a stabilizer lens, can you answer a few questions?

1) Do you know where I can find used lenses for the d80? I realize the lenses typically retain their value... would you buy used or new?

2) What is your experience with a stabilizer lens?

3) What is your experience with Nikon vs. Sigma?

4) Do you have any b/f and after photos of w/ and w/o a stabilizer lens?

5) I've been looking at ebay and amazon for these lenses... any other recommendations?

1. Try B&H and Adorama. They both sell used items and they're both reputable vendors.

2. I just ordered the Nikon 18-200. It arrives on Monday.

3. I have Nikon bodies because I want Nikon glass.

4. See #2 above.

5. See #1 above.

 

[kundalini]

See Socrates reply #1, #3.

I have two VR lenses - 55-200mm and 70-200mm. To be honest, I have not done a comparison test with VR on/off. That gives me an idea for tomorrow! Cheers.....

I've done all my on-line shopping with B&H. No worries.

Whereabouts in SC. I'm near Raleigh NC

 

[Lakewood Photography]

See Socrates reply #1, #3.

I have two VR lenses - 55-200mm and 70-200mm. To be honest, I have not done a comparison test with VR on/off. That gives me an idea for tomorrow! Cheers.....

I've done all my on-line shopping with B&H. No worries.

Whereabouts in SC. I'm near Raleigh NC

Will you show the before / after photos once you've experimented?

My husband and I moved to Spartanburg about a year ago... are you familiar with the area?

Thanks much!

 

[kundalini]

Oh, you are way west of me. I'm hoping to move to the Asheville area this spring. My sister got married in Dillon SC. Yeah, yeah, yeah.....a sad story. But they're still together after 35 years.

No promises on tomorrow, but I'll try to remember. Do you have a preference on which lens? The 55-200mm is about $170 and the 70-200mm is about $1700. What's your budget like?

 

[Mav]

VR just lets you shoot at slower shutter speeds at longer focal lengths, which is great in marginal light for static subjects. The only difference between the before and after is that one will be blurred and the other sharp. You need a shutter speed of about 1/200s to shoot at 200mm and get sharp results. But if that puts you at iso1600 then you'll have a noisy photo. VR would let you shoot at maybe 1/50s or even less - a 2 stop improvement at least. That would put you back at iso400 which will give a much cleaner image. And that's all there really is to it, except to note that if you're shooting moving targets then VR won't help.

You generally get what you pay for with lenses (Nikon vs Sigma). I'm like Socrates in that I didn't buy an expensive DSLR just to put cheap(er) third-party glass on my camera.

 

[kundalini]

Touche' (sp) Mav. With my D80, I dare go beyond ISO 400 because of the noise. Granted ISO 800 in certain situations might be acceptable. Now with the D300, I have no concerns with regard to ISO. But that's just this camera.

You can not expect good shots without good lighting. You can get better results with better lenses with larger apertures, possibly, but it all boils down to the person behind the camera.

To put it bluntly, I've got good camera bodies, I've got excellent lenses, I still take crap shots. However, those crap shots are on a constant down slide. Well, that's all I will confess to.

 

[Lakewood Photography]

... except to note that if you're shooting moving targets then VR won't help.

What equipment would you recommend using for moving targets for a d80? Thanks!

 

[kundalini]

The VR ( I think ) is designed for shooting stationary subjects hand held. The point being that with longer focal length lenses it is more difficult to hold the lens/camera steady and the VR fucntion helps reduce that anomally. The higher end 70-200mm VR works both in the horizontal and the vertical planes.

An answer to your question is difficult for a resolution. It is a very broad question. Personally, I like primes, but I realize the benefits of a zoom. You need to figure what type of shooting you will predominantly be doing. Also, budget is an important factor.

Once you have an idea of your shooting style, you can go to somewhere like photozone.de for reviews on the lens(es) that you have in mind.

 

[Mav]

What equipment would you recommend using for moving targets for a d80? Thanks!

Something fast, like an f/2.8 for a zoom, or f/2 or faster for a prime. This all depends on the lighting conditions too. For moving targets during the day in the sun, a slow f/5.6 lens is probably fine. But at night, or in marginal light you'll need all the speed you can get.

My daughter on a swing, D80 + 85mm f/1.8D at 1/200s, f/1.8, and Auto ISO picked 320.

Round the aperture up to f/2 for simplicity. I needed the quick shutter speed to freeze her motion on the swing to get a crisp shot. If I only had an f/2.8 lens the ISO would have been 640. More noise, but still ok. If I only had an f/4 lens, ISO would have been 1280 which is starting to get ugly. If I only had an f/5.6 lens it would have needed iso2560. The D80 will do this, but it'll look like crap, have a lot of noise, and poor dynamic range. I would have had to drop the shutter speed down a stop to 1/100s instead for iso1280 (or 1/50s for iso640), but then I no longer have the speed to freeze her motion on the swing. Since I was close enough I could have used a flash and still gotten by OK with a slower lens, but I don't like blinding my daughter with direct flash. The conditions were actually a lot darker than the exposure suggests so it was fairly dark here - at or around sunset in a shaded area.

 

[brileyphotog]

Just to go against the grain...Sigma makes one heck of a lens. Is it a Nikon? No. But in my experience, I can get 85% of Nikon's performance for 1/3 of the price. I call that a fair trade. However, I've never used a Sigma stabilized lens. In fact, I didn't know they made any.

By the way...Nikon glass is sometimes nearly identical to 3rd party glass. For example, the 70-300 f4.5/5.6 bears an uncanny resemblance to the same Tamron lens.

 

[Mav]

I think the 70-300G ED aka Tamron look-alike is the only lens in Nikon's lineup ever suspected of really being a Tamron design.

 

[brileyphotog]

Yes, but people have been saying for years that Nikon contracts out some of their lens manufacturing, especially on the lower end stuff. But I'm not really trying to be a conspiracy theorist.

 

[skiboarder72]

heres my feedback on the 18-200 vr, i like it enough to be my avatar

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114255

"Life - Changing

My 18-200mm VR is more than just a new lens. It's changed the way I live and make photos. Some reasons my 18-200mm VR has changed my life are:

1.) No more camera bag! For casual trips I wrap this and my D200 in a sweatshirt and throw it in my carry-on bag. This saves a bag and keeps it hidden.

2.) No more tripod! VR obsoletes tripods. Now I only bother with a tripod for night photography. See Why VR is Important.

3.) My bag weighs less when I do carry it. This and my 12-24 mm do everything. I used to tote an F2AS and 16 fisheye, 17 Tokina, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2.0, 50 f/1.4, 55 Micro, 105 f/1.8 and 180 f/2.8 ED manual-focus AI-s Nikkors everyplace I went. My 18-200mm VR is sharper, especially hand-held in low light.

4.) I can leave my macro at home. My 18-200mm focuses as close as I need without clumsy macro settings. My first 200mm lens, a manual-focus T-mount Vivitar, only focused as close as 12 feet! My 80 - 200 AFS only makes it to 5 feet. Today my 18-200mm VR focuses as close as 8 inches from the front of the lens at 200mm! Nikon's spec of 20" is the distance from the subject to the image plane, which is the back of the camera, not the front of the lens. At 200mm the lens extends almost to the subject!

5.) No wasted time or sensor dust collected changing lenses. I missed a lot of shots in the days before zooms. In 1999 I thought it was great replacing eight fixed lenses with two zooms. I just replaced those two zooms with this one!

6.) The 18-200mm VR just became the world's best portrait lens, especially for pets. My $1,500 80-200mm AFS didn't focus close enough (5 feet) to let me get close shots of pets. Even better, the ability to zoom from tight head shot to group lets me get more shots that would otherwise be lost changing lenses or grabbing another camera. With the 18-200mm you can zip in and out from tight head shots to full body and environmental without making your subject wait for lens changes. "

From kenrockwell.com

 

[sabbath999]

I have an 18-200 VR, it is my wife's lens.

She doesn't like to change lenses, and she likes to shoot handheld in dark situations.

Does the lens have flaws? Yes. Is it a "jack of all trades, master of none" lens? Yes.

Is it worth the money?

To me? Absolutely not. With the release of the 18-55 VR kit lens, and the excellent and dirt cheap 55-200 VR, I would MUCH rather spend half the money and swap lenses. The combo is vastly superior in image quality at half the price (assuming that the 18-55 VR has at least the same image quality of the 18-55 non-VR which I own... all the reviews say it is better, but I have not used one yet).

To my wife? Yes, it is worth it... she just likes to walk around and take pictures, and not screw with anything at all. One camera, one lens is all she wants, anything else cramps her creative style.