70-210 f/4?

[JohnnyRebel]

I'm thinking about picking up a Nikon 70-210 f/4 as I rarely need a zoom (2-3 times a year) but like the idea of constant f/4 rather than f/5.6 at the long end (which is where I will use it mostly).

Or am I thinking wrong, and would be better off with VR and f/5.6? I will not be shooting action, but would very likely be indoors (concert, play, etc...).

I do want to shoot handheld, and would like to shoot fast enough to freeze bows on string instruments or the conductors hands. It is possible to catch these in somewhat still moments (changing direction on the bow, or at high/low/wide moments while conducting.)

I'll be using the D7000.

JR

 

[elitejp]

f/4? at low light? I dont think you will get near the shutter speed you need.

i think to get anywhere near that you will need at least iso 6400 and above. Your shooting a crop so you need ss to be around 1/320sec handheld @200mm which im assuming you will be at that focal length.


All right im gonna pull out my camera and see if it isnt pitch black shooting low light at these numbers.

edited

Shooting my 50d @ f/5 200mm 1/320sec iso 6400 (actually a pushed iso 3200) unless your shooting directly into a source of light its going to be way to dark.

And from what ive researched it would seem that any active type movements need a ss above 200. Stopping string movement on an instrument or a conductors hands i would think you would need something a lot higher. VR wont help in these situations.

 

[Anubis]

sadly nikon does not make a 70-200 f/4, not sure if Sigma or anyone else does.
and for what you plan on shooting you will want 2.8 as elitejp said. F/4 wont cut it

 

[jpeyton]

Spend less money on a long lens and buy a better seat. Then you can use an 85/1.4, which will suck up enough light for you to stop motion and have a usable ISO.

 

[Paladin3]

F/5.6 is rather slow for the low light of a stage. I've done it, shooting handheld as slow as 1/30, but you have to really brace yourself and be prepared to toss out a lot of photos from your camera shake or the subjects motion blur. Those plastic f/5.6 zooms are just too light for me to hold steady. I have a much easier time handholding an F4 with an 80-200 f/2.8.

There was a Nikon AF 70-210 F/4.0 lens made in the late 80's that you can pick up used on eBay for around $150. I would say that lens is a better option than any of the newer F/4.0-5.6 tele zooms for this kind of low-light work. I'd rather have this lens for a zoom tele than one of the newer, slower options.

An 80-200 F/2.8 would be your best bet. It will be much sharper wide open, give you the extra stop of light and all that, but they are expensive, even the off-brand used ones.

An alternative to the expensive f/2.8 zoom may be a fixed 135/2.8 or 180/2.8, depending on your budget. If you are willing to manually focus then a used AI-S 135/2.8 goes mighty cheap on eBay and it will still meter on your camera. A prime like that will be tack sharp too.

Also consider a monopod if you end up shooting with a f/5.6 zoom. It's the poor man's VR when you can't rest your lens on the seat in front of you.

 

[ElFenix]

70-210 was a vivitar length. nikon had 80-200 and after making a couple 70-210s, canon popularized 70-200. i don't think any of those 3rd party f/4 and faster lenses ever came in AF. they also may not meter with your camera.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Shooting my 50d @ f/5 200mm 1/320sec iso 6400 (actually a pushed iso 3200) unless your shooting directly into a source of light its going to be way to dark. And from what ive researched it would seem that any active type movements need a ss above 200. Stopping string movement on an instrument or a conductors hands i would think you would need something a lot higher. VR wont help in these situations.

Thanks for taking the time to experiment, and for all the wisdom. I can't see myself being satisfied with anything less than the 80-200 f/2.8, but let me ask if I am going to spend the $1000+ for the 80-200, should I go the extra $500 for a used 70-200 VR I?

JR

 

[elitejp]

Im really not familiar with Nikon glass as i shoot canon however I know sigma has a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM which looks pretty good (1300 dollars). VR/IS/OS just doesnt stop motion and for that one scenario you mentioned it wont be useful. However given that same scenario and you deciding that for the next pic you want to take your going to focus on the person and arent really concerned about stopping string movement or if your taking a pic of the conducter and he has his hands somewhat still for that brief moment then image stability will be a huge help. Still shooting at 200mm you could drop your ss down to 1/30 or 1/60 (thats normally fast enough to stop any image blur when people arent actively moving) which will allow you to drop your iso down lower as well. All in all your picture will be clearer and have a lot less noise. And you wont need a monopod or tripod. (Even the monopod/tripod wont help you in stopping motion) So for me PERSONALLY i dont plan on buying any more lenses that dont have IS. There just is too many situations where it can come in handy. Canon has a new 24-70 that just came out but without IS. Tamron also just came out with a new 24-70 that does have IS (or whatever they call it). For me unless the new canon 24-70 is magical in its IQ I plan top just skip it and go with the Tamron. If you can afford it good glass really does make a big difference. If I was you I would do some major research on the sigma 70-200 os, and see how it compares to the lenses you are currently looking at. Also dont forget to take into consideration buying the sigma used.

 

[twistedlogic]

I can't see myself being satisfied with anything less than the 80-200 f/2.8, but let me ask if I am going to spend the $1000+ for the 80-200, should I go the extra $500 for a used 70-200 VR I?

JR

I'm guessing you mean the AF-S 80-200? I'd suggest the 70-200 VR simply because the (55 oz)80-200's motor will be older and the (50 oz)70-200 is 5 oz. lighter and thinner.

As you said in the OP, you "rarely need a zoom" so why not get the lowly 80-200 AF-D or 80-200 AF (push pull). AF is not as fast as AF-S, but your not exactly shooting high action sports.

And there is also the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 2.8. I believe the Tamron is the lightest of them all, weighing in at 46.9 oz, 10 oz lighter than the 80-200 AF-S if that is a concern. They also offer pseudo macro capabilities (0.32x magnification, 0.95m MFD)

I think the 70-200 is gonna be my next lens, I'm just afraid I won't use it much.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

think the 70-200 is gonna be my next lens, I'm just afraid I won't use it much

That's where I'm at. It's a lot for a lens I might not use much. But, others seem to use it all the time and tell me I will too after I get it.

JR

 

[irse]

If you're going to want to freeze bows in action, you will still need a fast shutter speed. Fast enough that the VR won't really matter.