Alternative Lens to 70-200 f/2.8

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Noisy, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #1
    Well lately ive been photographing in and around some ruins, but find climbing with camera + 70-200mm attached gets a bit weighty after a while, i was wondering what the best alternative (lighter) is, hopefully something not much over f/2.8.
    Any idea's on the 24-120mm VR lens ?? i do have the 18-70mm but wanted a little more past the 70mm end, any idea's greatly received, tar
    ;)

    only real alternative is going back to he D70 + 70-200mm but i'd rather not do that if i can help it.
     
  2. Over Achiever macrumors 68000

    Over Achiever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Toledo, OH, formerly Twin Cities, MN
    #2
    Have you thought about using primes?

    Do you find a particular focal length that you tend to use? Perhaps using a prime lens might work for you, it's not as versatile, but you can move your feet or crop the scene afterwards. It's much lighter, still as bright or even brighter, and is relatively inexpensive.
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    Sigma 50-150 mm f/2.8.

    It's a DC lens, so it's made for APS-C sensors. This means the lens is tiny in comparison to the 70-200 mm f/2.8.
     
  4. nutmac macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #4
    Although max aperture is 1-stop less, Canon's EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM is the most obvious alternative. Depending on your photographic needs, you might find its f/4 max aperture + 4-stop image stabilizer, and external flash to be quite sufficient.

    Even smaller and lighter are Canon's EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS.
     
  5. terriyaki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #5
    He's looking for Nikon options.
     
  6. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    The 24-120VR has some of the worst reviews across the board of any modern Nikon lens. Almost every copy sold is VERY soft. I would avoid it at all costs.

    18-200VR, maybe? Its a very well regarded lens, goes very wide and very tele and its not *that* expensive to boot.
     
  7. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #7
    I recommend you have a look at Tokina's 2.8/50-135 or Sigma's 2.8/50-150 zooms. They weigh about half, focus rather quickly and at least Tokina's is built like a tank.
     
  8. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #8
    Thanks Guys

    Ok. the choice so far is, either the nikkor 85mm f/1.4 or 18-200mm vr just gotta do some research for any others that might fill the gap, the main focal range i want is around 70/75 - 105/135mm, and i see whats ment about the 24-105mm being a bit dire, ive researched it and not really found any good reviews, thanks ;)
     
  9. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #9
    I have a Nikor 135mm f/2.8 lens that is nice. It's old but a sharp as any of the new lenses
     
  10. seany916 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    #10
    stick with your 70-200 2.8.

    it's a bit heavier, but it gets the job done better than anything else you might replace it with AND you already have it.

    save your money and hire a caddy for your gear.
     
  11. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #11

    This might be slightly cheaper than a caddy (Friday afternoon humor):

    [​IMG]
    "Practice, practice, practice".

    FWIW, when I'm scrambling places that I'm not really comfortable with ye olde bigge camera, I carry a pocketable point & shoot. It won't take equal pics, but its a compromise.


    -hh
     
  12. seany916 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    #12
    Would a D40 with 18-200 3rd party lens do the trick?

    Cheap, light, AND useful?
     
  13. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #13
    I don't think I could do the P&S routine when traveling light. For me the D200 sans grip and a 50MM are my lightweight setup. Been thinking about getting a D40 or D60 to be the lightweight champion or disposable camera (for those rough areas) of the future, paired with an 18-135 which in my opinion is replacing the 18-70.

    I never thought the Nikon D2xs or equivalent and a 70-200 would be heavy in any way. Carrying a 400 f2.8 or a 300 f2.8 (borrowed of course) and a 70-200 f2.8 on two D2hs bodies is quite heavy and cumbersome.
     
  14. zdobson macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Indiana
    #14
    +1

    +2 :D
     
  15. Shacklebolt macrumors 6502a

    Shacklebolt

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    #15
    As an owner of the 70-200 f/2.8, I can say that, although some won't be thrilled with this, the 18-200mm VR is a decently viable option. No, not the same quality of shots, but far, FAR lighter, and climbing all over the place, it's moderately appealing if you're looking for a less bulky ensemble.
     
  16. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #16
    thats my thinking, after a while, when your trying to get a good footing on a muddy hillside holding the big Nikon + 70-200 is a wee bit of a specialised juggling act, but ive tried a 18-200mm VR and the difference is amazing, but ive also had a look at the 85mm f/1.4 and thats awesome, might buy both, but optically the 18-200 is good up to about 150mm then the quality drops, but not a lot, not enough to put me off buying one, lets see what happens.
     

Share This Page