70-200mm lenses

[YesDear]

Yeah, but I want a cell phone that works as a good phone not a camera or video!

 

[ssanders79]

Not to ruffle any feathers but I’m old school and if I want to take videos I’ll use my video camera and if I want to take stills I’ll use my still camera… I’ll just wait for the D400 thank you.

While I do not have a dslr w. video, I have seen a few videos taken with nifty-50s and the video looks great. Your traditional video camera will not have the same depth of field that you can get with these new dslr+videos.

I would consider a body with video as I rarely pull out my video camera as it is too much of a hastle and I prefer photography. Howerver, it would be cool to have the capability to shoot quality video for those I wish I had a video camera moments.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I see two upgrades.... The video and the price

The "s". Don't forget the "s".

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Not to ruffle any feathers but I’m old school and if I want to take videos I’ll use my video camera and if I want to take stills I’ll use my still camera… I’ll just wait for the D400 thank you.

Having a video cable DSLR, I'm telling you to keep an open mind. It doesn't replace a normal video camera (at least none of the current models do), but it can do things that an affordable normal video camera can't - shallow DOF, extreme low light, interchangeable lenses.

It also comes in handy as a second camera. I used my regular video camera and the video capability of my DSLR as a two camera setup for recording a school play. With the video camera, I got wide shots and with the DSLR I got close-ups. It was great having a second camera.

For day-to-day video, though, it's just not that useful. Maintaining focus is a challenge. The on-camera mic is even more worthless than a normal on-camera mic (and that's a really low bar). Smooth zooms are almost impossible. The lack of an articulating LCD screen is annoying. Not having a built-in ND filter is annoying. Exposure control, while possible now that they've upgraded the firmware, is still lousy if you have to make adjustments during a shot. No zebras, no peaking, no knee control, etc. It's amazing for what it does, but it supplements rather than replaces a regular video camera.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I know almost nothing about Nikon release cycles. Does this mean that the rumored 700x won't be released until at least the Spring? In the Canon world, there are usually only two releases a year.

 

[tjl1388]

The only other "upgrade" I see besides the video is the ability to use CF and SD cards at the same time. It would be nice to have a backup memory source.

No where near enough for me to upgrade from my D300. My next purchase is a 14-24 2.8.

 

[handicap18]

Unless you really really really want video, I'd find the regular D300 on the discount shelves. Sure the extra SD card slot is nice, but with an 8GB card I can get well over 600 images which is more than 25 rolls of 24 exposure film.

7 fps vs 6 fps isn't a big difference. Having the option of 8 fps with the battery grip is nice.

Maybe if they clean up the high ISO, but the D300 is one of the highest rated crop dSLR's for high ISO.

Even when a D400 comes out in another 2 or so years, what more can they add... maybe 15MP, but that is realllllly pushing the limit of the crop sensor. Maybe auto focus with the video.

I say go find the D300 now while they are depleting inventory for the D300s. Or just get the D700.

 

[tjl1388]

At some point people have to realize that it is not all about the body and that it is just as much about the lens.

I have seen more improvement in my photography due to learning how to properly use the camera and utilize the different lenses for their abilities.

 

[Lost n' Translation]

I'm thinking of renting a 70-200 2.8 for my October trip. I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8, so I have the wide end covered. I think the 70-200 would allow me to get some different perspectives of the parks. Do you think that there whould be enough shooting opportunities to use this lens?

 

[TestTrackBoy]

I use a Nikon 70-200mm at the parks and love it. I use it during parades to get right up on the performers. I also get nice bokeh shots using this lens too. If your serious in getting nice and different photos I would get the lens.

 

[Lost n' Translation]

That's what I was thinking. I would be able to fill the frames on the shots without having to crop 100's of pics.

 

[disneyboy2003]

The 70-200mm lens comes in handy for the Kilimanjaro Safaris at Animal Kingdom and for Fantasmic at Hollywood Studios. I've also used it at a few shows in front of Cinderella's Castle, when I was standing a little further back from stage.

You can also use it during "Wishes" to get a closer shot of Tinkerbell to see if she's really a girl!

 

[AndrewWG]

I also bring mine into the parks but I would add that I don't bring it in every day. I certainly bring it (and my teleconverter) to AK. It is great there. The other parks I will make a decision in the morning as to whether or not I want to lug it around with me. It is a big lens and adds some significant extra weight to the camera bag and camera. It is a bit much to carry around, BUT the shots you can get with it are worth it many cases.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I love taking a 70-200 f/2.8 to the parks. It's on the bulky side, but I love the focal range. My favorite uses are shows (FotLK, Nemo, LM). I also love it for taking pictures of people and characters. The wide aperture gives great isolation. It's not something that I bring every day because of the bulk and weight, but I take it frequently.

 

[dioxide45]

The lens will be a bear to lug around. If you are wanting to take evening photos or photos of some of the indoor shows without a flash this would be a needed lens to get the zoom you want. You could just buy a Canon - 55-250mm f/4-5.6 Telephoto Zoom if it is only daytime shots you are looking for. It is much smaller in size. It won't give you the same great photos, but should meet most basic needs. It would also be something you would be able to keep instead of turning it back in after your trip.

My wife has the lens you are looking to rent and just bought the one I mentioned specifically for taking on trips to WDW and other areas. The size of her other lens and 1.4 extender makes it difficult to travel with.

 

[jfinke]

I tend to use my f/4 mostly in AK. Otherwise, I am usually shooting wider. Though I think I tend to carry everything anyways, just in case.

 

[Steve's Girl]

I take my 70-200 with me into the parks most days. I have a backpack camera bag and really don't mind carrying it at all. I love it for close ups of various performers, my kids, characters, etc.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

The new version has VRII which supposedly allows up to 4 shutter stops as opposed to the older one which allows up to 3. Anything else besides price difference? I'm seriously thinking of getting one of these...Leaning toward the older model as it's several hundy's cheaper. Thoughts? I'm bummed that I didn't buy it when it was several hundred dollars cheaper for the old one from what it's priced now...Also what teleconverter will work with the old one, since that's the one I'm probably going to get.

 

[VVFF]

The new version has VRII which supposedly allows up to 4 shutter stops as opposed to the older one which allows up to 3. Anything else besides price difference? I'm seriously thinking of getting one of these...Leaning toward the older model as it's several hundy's cheaper. Thoughts? I'm bummed that I didn't buy it when it was several hundred dollars cheaper for the old one from what it's priced now...Also what teleconverter will work with the old one, since that's the one I'm probably going to get.

The teleconverter won't change between the two lenses. either a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter will work find with a loss of either 1 or 2 stops for the aperture.

 

[GrillMouster]

If you find a good price on the old 70-200, grab it.

When Nikon first released full-frame (FX) bodies a few people noticed that the old 70-200 had some slight vignetting on the edge of the frame. The new 70-200 is supposed to correct that. If you're shooting a crop-body (DX), the 70-200 is fantastic. As a matter of fact, most of the people I know shooting with a FX body haven't really complained about the old 70-200.