Alternative Lens to 70-200 f/2.8

[Mr.Noisy]

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.

 

[Over Achiever]

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.

 

[Abstract]

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.

 

[nutmac]

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.

 

[terriyaki]

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.

He's looking for Nikon options.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

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.

 

[OreoCookie]

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.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

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

 

[ChrisA]

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.

I have a Nikor 135mm f/2.8 lens that is nice. It's old but a sharp as any of the new lenses

 

[seany916]

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.

 

[-hh]

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.

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

"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

 

[seany916]

Would a D40 with 18-200 3rd party lens do the trick?

Cheap, light, AND useful?

 

[Digital Skunk]

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.

 

[zdobson]

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.

+1

save your money and hire a caddy for your gear.

+2

 

[Shacklebolt]

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.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

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.

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.