Help choosing telephoto lens - f/2.8 vs. VR

[LittleMissMagic]

First of all, I'm an amateur hobbyist. I am on a college student's budget, and I'm not making any money from photography. It's all just for fun, and I also do a bit of volunteer work.

I recently upgraded to a Nikon D7100 body (previously shooting with Nikon 1 and entry-level Canon), and I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses.

I would like to purchase a zoom telephoto lens that I can take to Disney for use at Animal Kingdom, DHS stage shows, and similar. I also need to be able to take photos in a theater (like for pageants, high school plays, etc.). My problem is my limited budget (I need to keep it under $800.... and under $600 would be even better). I've been comparing lenses, and ultimately, I'm deciding between the steady f/2.8 aperture or the Vibration Reduction feature. Now, that being said, I would like to some day "have it all" and upgrade to a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens, but that day is not today.... and probably not for a few more years.

Some lenses I'm considering are....

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens... What I'm worried about is that this lens doesn't have vibration reduction. I do have a travel tripod (no monopod), but I would like to be able to shoot hand-held in low lighting situations... will the f/2.8 aperture be able to compensate for that? I am also debating on buying new or used. New really tops out my budget, but I've found it used for around $600-700 on Adorama and B+H.

Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR lens... I'm worried that this lens will not be good enough. It will be the least expensive lens I own if I purchase it. I *think* the f/4-5.6 aperture would be okay.... before I upgraded my body, I used a 30-110mm f/3.8-5.6 lens and didn't know what I was missing out on. However, I'm now a little spoiled by the f/2.8 aperture on my Tokina and Tamron lenses. Will the vibration reduction compensate for the smaller aperture?

I am hoping that you might be able to give me suggestions on the above lenses, or perhaps offer a lens which offers a middle ground between the two. The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is at the top of my budget, while the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 is a budget lens. Perhaps there is a lens that offers a better balance? I have become so overwhelmed! Also, any advice on buying new vs. buying used would be appreciated.

Thank you so much!

 

[havoc315]

You're in a tough spot.
Without VR, you really need faster shutter speeds for a sharp shot-- 1/300 or faster.
But a 2.8 aperture will allow you to get away with faster shutter speeds.
1/300 with 2.8 aperture would give you approximately the same exposure as 1/75 with 5.6.
So VR can give you 2 handheld stops ( but no advantage on a tripod) . Meanwhile, 2.8 can give you a 2 stop advantage at 200 mm. But then there is the downside of 2.8-- your DOF can be too narrow.

The reality is, for those high school plays, you're probably going to want 2.8 AND a tripod. But on vacation, handheld, where you are taking pictures in good light, the VR will be more handy.

But there is yet another factor to consider-- weight and size of the lens. Do you want to be lugging around a big heavy 2.8 lens on vacation?

I know this isn't super helpful.

My own solution-- I have the Tamron 70-300 used. It's 4-5.6. I believe it's in your budget. It's full frame, which is nice if you ever upgrade to the next level. It's big, but smaller than a 2.8 lens. And it serves most of my telephoto needs.

Then when indoor challenging lighting (when I was shooting aps-c), I relied on affordable primes. An 85/2.8 lens and 135/2.8 lens. Much cheaper than zoom lens, and better image quality than zooms. Just lacking the convenience of zoom. Of course, sometimes indoors, I just cranked up the ISO and prayed.

Guess I'm suggesting you skip the 2.8 lens. It's just too big and heavy to be an every day telephoto. Even most people who own the 2.8, will also have a smaller non-2.8 to carry around when they don't absolutely need the 2.8.

 

[havoc315]

Something like this...

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/135f28.htm

For when you really need to shoot indoors. Though I think it would be manual focus.

Or spend a bit more...

http://m.ebay.com/itm/251434777194?nav=SEARCH&sbk=1

About $300 for a Nikon 180/2.8 with autofocus.

The Tamron 70-300 with VR that I recommended can also be found for $300.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/291063488428?nav=SEARCH&sbk=1

So $600... A really great regular light telephoto, and a very good 180 prime.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

You're in a tough spot.
Without VR, you really need faster shutter speeds for a sharp shot-- 1/300 or faster.
But a 2.8 aperture will allow you to get away with faster shutter speeds.
1/300 with 2.8 aperture would give you approximately the same exposure as 1/75 with 5.6.
So VR can give you 2 handheld stops ( but no advantage on a tripod) . Meanwhile, 2.8 can give you a 2 stop advantage at 200 mm. But then there is the downside of 2.8-- your DOF can be too narrow.

The reality is, for those high school plays, you're probably going to want 2.8 AND a tripod. But on vacation, handheld, where you are taking pictures in good light, the VR will be more handy.

But there is yet another factor to consider-- weight and size of the lens. Do you want to be lugging around a big heavy 2.8 lens on vacation?

I know this isn't super helpful.

My own solution-- I have the Tamron 70-300 used. It's 4-5.6. I believe it's in your budget. It's full frame, which is nice if you ever upgrade to the next level. It's big, but smaller than a 2.8 lens. And it serves most of my telephoto needs.

Then when indoor challenging lighting (when I was shooting aps-c), I relied on affordable primes. An 85/2.8 lens and 135/2.8 lens. Much cheaper than zoom lens, and better image quality than zooms. Just lacking the convenience of zoom. Of course, sometimes indoors, I just cranked up the ISO and prayed.

Guess I'm suggesting you skip the 2.8 lens. It's just too big and heavy to be an every day telephoto. Even most people who own the 2.8, will also have a smaller non-2.8 to carry around when they don't absolutely need the 2.8.

I strongly disagree with this premise. Since you already know the advantages of 2.8 lenses, I don't see any advantage in purchasing a variable aperture consumer lens, IF the 2.8 is what you need. The non-stabilized Tamron should allow sufficient shutter speeds that stabilization is not necessary when combined with the high usable ISO capabilities of the 7100. Besides we shot with non-stabilized lenses a long time before digital came along and we seemed to do alright. As far as the weight and ability to use as an everyday zoom, yes, it weighs a more, however if it is what you need then you just use it. I think using the term "most" is a totally perception based statement. I know that the people I shoot with may not be quite the norm, but in my world they are the "most" and all use the 70-200 f2.8 both on APS-C and FF cameras daily. It is one of their go-to lenses. If the Tamron fits your budget and is what you think you need, I would jump on it. The sharpness/clarity alleged advantages of the prime lenses may have been a valid argument in the old days, however today the differences are greatly reduced. This is just my opinion based on my experience. Others may have another opinion.

 

[Animagic!]

You're in a tough spot.
Without VR, you really need faster shutter speeds for a sharp shot-- 1/300 or faster.
But a 2.8 aperture will allow you to get away with faster shutter speeds.
1/300 with 2.8 aperture would give you approximately the same exposure as 1/75 with 5.6.
So VR can give you 2 handheld stops ( but no advantage on a tripod) . Meanwhile, 2.8 can give you a 2 stop advantage at 200 mm. But then there is the downside of 2.8-- your DOF can be too narrow.

The reality is, for those high school plays, you're probably going to want 2.8 AND a tripod. But on vacation, handheld, where you are taking pictures in good light, the VR will be more handy.

But there is yet another factor to consider-- weight and size of the lens. Do you want to be lugging around a big heavy 2.8 lens on vacation?

I know this isn't super helpful.

My own solution-- I have the Tamron 70-300 used. It's 4-5.6. I believe it's in your budget. It's full frame, which is nice if you ever upgrade to the next level. It's big, but smaller than a 2.8 lens. And it serves most of my telephoto needs.

Then when indoor challenging lighting (when I was shooting aps-c), I relied on affordable primes. An 85/2.8 lens and 135/2.8 lens. Much cheaper than zoom lens, and better image quality than zooms. Just lacking the convenience of zoom. Of course, sometimes indoors, I just cranked up the ISO and prayed.

Guess I'm suggesting you skip the 2.8 lens. It's just too big and heavy to be an every day telephoto. Even most people who own the 2.8, will also have a smaller non-2.8 to carry around when they don't absolutely need the 2.8.

This.

Everything havok315 said. I would also like to suggest the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6. I bought it a couple months ago and I really like it. I also would be tempted by fast primes. Personally I have had pretty good result with a cheap and simple Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6. It basically a rebranded Minolta lens, a generic zoom. But I got some nice Fantasmic! pics with it. I expect the Tamron will do even better. If for some reason the Sony and Tamron failed to meet my needs I would buy a fast prime like a 135mm f/2.8.

The speed of 2.8 is nice but I prefer more DOF if I can manage it. However, all things considered it sounds like what you really want is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Try getting a used one to keep in your budget and I think you will be pretty happy.

 

[havoc315]

I strongly disagree with this premise. Since you already know the advantages of 2.8 lenses, I don't see any advantage in purchasing a variable aperture consumer lens, IF the 2.8 is what you need. The non-stabilized Tamron should allow sufficient shutter speeds that stabilization is not necessary when combined with the high usable ISO capabilities of the 7100. Besides we shot with non-stabilized lenses a long time before digital came along and we seemed to do alright. As far as the weight and ability to use as an everyday zoom, yes, it weighs a more, however if it is what you need then you just use it. I think using the term "most" is a totally perception based statement. I know that the people I shoot with may not be quite the norm, but in my world they are the "most" and all use the 70-200 f2.8 both on APS-C and FF cameras daily. It is one of their go-to lenses. If the Tamron fits your budget and is what you think you need, I would jump on it. The sharpness/clarity alleged advantages of the prime lenses may have been a valid argument in the old days, however today the differences are greatly reduced. This is just my opinion based on my experience. Others may have another opinion.

Yes, professional sports photographers use 70-200 2.8 lenses daily. But now, among the tens of thousands of people I see at Disney World on any vacation, including thousands of dSLRs, including seeing hundreds of telephoto zooms per day... over many days... I think I've seen a 2.8 telephoto zoom lens just once. I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've seen non-professionals using 2.8 telephoto zoom lenses in the last year.

Most of us rarely need a 2.8 lens. You are used to it, and you are used to the extra weight. But for most of us, that's a lot of extra weight with very little extra benefit. When shooting at Animal Kingdom for example, you want to stop down.

In terms of handheld exposure, VR versus 2.8 --- It's break even. So there is no advantage of that 2.8 lens as opposed to the VR unless you're shooting fast action (where the 2.8 will allow a faster shutter speed), or if you're shooting on a tripod. If shooting handheld, slow movement (or no movement), the 2.8 lens doesn't offer a real world advantage over a VR lens.

For example, this was shot with a non-2.8 lens.... but with VR... shot at 1/400 and 5.6. and 300mm With my shaky hands, this shot would have motion blur without VR.


untitled-155-Edit.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

I'm not denying that a 2.8 telephoto is useful. Not denying that the above shot may have come out a little bit better with a 2.8 lens. But still need to weigh the much greater cost, the much greater weight. And while the difference in quality has diminished, you still can get slightly better IQ... with much less weight, and much much lower cost, by using a prime lens.

Some other examples of non-2.8...


citifield-55.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


Hiroki Kuroda by Havoc315, on Flickr


Hiroki Kuroda by Havoc315, on Flickr


march2013-95.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Now this was shot with a 135/2.8 prime.. but it was still stopped down to F4..


untitled-97.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[LittleMissMagic]

Something like this...

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/135f28.htm

For when you really need to shoot indoors. Though I think it would be manual focus.

Or spend a bit more...

http://m.ebay.com/itm/251434777194?nav=SEARCH&sbk=1

About $300 for a Nikon 180/2.8 with autofocus.

The Tamron 70-300 with VR that I recommended can also be found for $300.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/291063488428?nav=SEARCH&sbk=1

So $600... A really great regular light telephoto, and a very good 180 prime.

Okay, this is a really interesting solution and something that I hadn't thought about. My reason for wanting the zoom telephoto was that if I'm stuck in a seat in an audience, I'm not sure how much I would be able to do with the composition if using a prime lens. However, if I'm volunteering to shoot a pageant or the like, I will have the ability to move around.... but can I be quick enough? I'd like to be able to catch expressions made onstage from the audience but also be able to capture a group on the stage. I've never used a prime lens before, so I guess I'm a little nervous about it.

 

[havoc315]

Okay, this is a really interesting solution and something that I hadn't thought about. My reason for wanting the zoom telephoto was that if I'm stuck in a seat in an audience, I'm not sure how much I would be able to do with the composition if using a prime lens. However, if I'm volunteering to shoot a pageant or the like, I will have the ability to move around.... but can I be quick enough? I'd like to be able to catch expressions made onstage from the audience but also be able to capture a group on the stage. I've never used a prime lens before, so I guess I'm a little nervous about it.

Though the gap has closed, primes tend to offer better image quality. For example, I use a 50mm 2.8 macro lens often as a walk around. It's 25 years old, I bought it for $180 or so. In my brand (Sony) the premium zoom is Zeiss 24-70/2.8. It's $2,000. But when shooting at 50mm, the differences between the lenses are negligible.

Primes require you to move around more with your feet, and they require you to be more creative in terms of composition.

Yes, there will be some shots you won't be able to get without changing lenses. (You can use your " cheap" telephoto zoom to get some variety of shots and then switch to the prime for some higher quality, or only when necessary).

Anyway, primes are a great way to get premium image quality on a budget. Many people fall in love with primes and ditch zooms.

I'm not a big fan of his, but read Ken Rockwell's article of "why primes are better."

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I'm not here to pick a fight, but to provide the OP with a difference of opinion. There are more reasons to strive for a "2.8" lens than just greater user light flexibility. The quality of lenses that are made for professionals (aka "2.8") tend to be just better lenses. I don't even concern myself with terms like Dynamic Range, etc. Nor do I care if I'm shooting APS-C or FF. I shoot what is in my viewfinder and try to produce the best images I can. If I could spend $300-$400 on a lens that produces the same images as one that costs $1,500+, I definitely would. It would help my bottomline, however with rare exceptions you are not going to get the same quality with a consumer lens vs a professional type lens. The OP is a hobbyist who is already using quality equipment and I would hate to recommend a lens that does not match the quality he currently is using. Depending on which Tamron 70-300 you are using, the ratings go from poor to pretty good. Its up to the OP to look at the advice, do his/her research and choose the best course for them and their style of shooting. I have never claimed to be the expert, however I do have a certain level of experience shooting SLR's since the 60's and if I can help less experienced photographers avoid some of the mistakes I have made then so be it. Ultimately its the OP with their experience, budget, etc., to make the choice that fits them.

 

[havoc315]

That's the thing... If you aren't pixel peeping, not printing 30x 20 prints, then there are indeed many cheaper lenses that can give you results indiscernible from much more expensive lenses. ( many professional reviewers have compared the Tamron I suggested to the big buck professional lenses).
And it's no secret that you can get superior IQ with prime lenses.

You are absolutely correct. For someone who -needs- a 2.8 zoom, there is no substitute.
But for many people, even for most people, it's simply not a need.
I've used premium gear, I've used cheap gear. I've used $50 lenses and $1000+ lenses.
It's the right lens for the right job. Which includes aperture, IQ, budget and weight. (Keeping things more compact is often a need as well).

I do all types of shooting. I don't own a 2.8 telephoto zoom lens. I've considered it. But weighing my needs, budget, shooting style... I'd end up using it 3-4 times a year. Outdoors, in good light, I prefer my Tamron. Traveling, I try to keep it light. I don't even usually bring the Tamron, going with a much lighter prime.

The other thing to remember... With advances in ISO and VR-- shooting with a good VR lens at 5.6, on a good camera at ISO 6400... Will give you better results than you would have gotten 15 years ago with a 2.8 lens. (Using ISO 800 film in your camera for example).

 

[photo_chick]

Can you use a slower lens at indoor stage events? Absolutely. Is it ideal? No.

I can't comment directly on the lenses you listed but I can share my experience.

I've been shooting dance for about 10 years now. I started out with a Rebel XT and the dreaded 75-300 f/4-5.6. And I was able to get some decent shots. However, I was limited in what I could do (more on the long end than wide) and I had to push images up exposure wise in processing. I would under expose a stop so I could have sufficient shutter speed quite often.

Fast forward 2 years and I pick up the 70-210 f/4. (not the L series). Having the faster aperture on the long end meant I was pushing exposures up less and that meant less noise in my images. It made a difference but not a huge one. The sharper lens here was more of a benefit for me.

Skip ahead to this spring when I finally rented the 70-200 f/2.8 on a 6D. I got the non-IS version and this was a test run to see if I really felt like I needed the f/2.8 over f/4. The aperture was a small gain on the long end but the weight of the lens almost negated that for me. However the sharpness of this quality lens allowed me to push noise reduction farther before the image turned to detail lacking mush.

Which would I choose? Well, since I don't shoot dance professionally on a regular basis I got the 70-200 f/4 L for myself. Because the f/4 is enough for what I need but I want the sharpness and faster AF this lens has over my circa 1988 70-210. And should I ever be hired to shoot a dance event I can always rent the f/2.8 if I feel I need it.

Anyway, my decision was about more than just which lens is fastest. I took a long hard look at all aspects of the lenses to figure out the right fit for me.

 

[Melany502]

My 70-200 2.8 is my most used lens.

 

[WDWFigment]

Get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, without a doubt.

 

[HPS3]

Get the Tamron 70-200. If your shooting moving subjects the stabilization won't really help. I even keep my shutter around 1/200 when I shoot my kids around the house.

 

[havoc315]

Get the Tamron 70-200. If your shooting moving subjects the stabilization won't really help. I even keep my shutter around 1/200 when I shoot my kids around the house.

I must have the least steady hands..... I often get camera shake/motion blur even at 1/200 at 200mm, if I don't use stabilization.

Funny seeing you recommend the big 2.8 lens,when you just switched to a much more compact system, lol.

Anyway, for me, the weight and size (and price) of the 2.8 telephoto zoom just isn't worth it for me. For the very rare occasion where I might need it, I could rent it. But I don't need all that extra weight every time I shoot portraits, or I go to a little league game, or vacation, or the zoo.

 

[HPS3]

I must have the least steady hands..... I often get camera shake/motion blur even at 1/200 at 200mm, if I don't use stabilization.

Funny seeing you recommend the big 2.8 lens,when you just switched to a much more compact system, lol.

Anyway, for me, the weight and size (and price) of the 2.8 telephoto zoom just isn't worth it for me. For the very rare occasion where I might need it, I could rent it. But I don't need all that extra weight every time I shoot portraits, or I go to a little league game, or vacation, or the zoo.

I actually don't have any telephoto lens. When I had the 70-200 i used it a handful of times, but I don't really use a long lens. I'm a wide guy and really like the 35 on apsc as my prime. I was just saying that for a dslr, the 70-200 isn't much bigger than the Tamron 70-300 VC. As a matter of fact, its shorter once you zoom in on the 70-300.

I'll never go back to a full dslr setup. For me, mirrorless fits my style.

 

[havoc315]

I actually don't have any telephoto lens. When I had the 70-200 i used it a handful of times, but I don't really use a long lens. I'm a wide guy and really like the 35 on apsc as my prime. I was just saying that for a dslr, the 70-200 isn't much bigger than the Tamron 70-300 VC. As a matter of fact, its shorter once you zoom in on the 70-300.

I'll never go back to a full dslr setup. For me, mirrorless fits my style.

Weighs about 30% more than the Tamron... and double many lighter telephoto zoom options. It's 5 times the weight of my 135/2.8 prime.

OP stepped up from the Nikon 1. Victoria, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see you as the type of person to lug around 20 pounds of camera gear.

For people who *need* the 70-200/2.8 zoom, there may be no substitute. But as you said, you don't need it -- you prefer something more compact and don't use telephoto often anyway. (I actually use it most often for portraits on fullframe).

Personally, I don't mind a little bit of bulk -- I do mind unnecessary expense and unnecessary bulk. If I plan on shooting at f8 in good light, then I see little reason to double my weight and triple my budget with the 70-200/2.8. (Plus, in such situations, I prefer the extra reach of 300mm).

On vacation, I tend to leave even my Tamron 70-300 behind -- even that is too heavy to lug around. But I do carry my 135/2.8 prime, which gives me some telephoto when I need it.

Example of the prime on vacation:


vacation-622.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[LittleMissMagic]

Well, when I was at Disney this January, I made a plan for what was going to shoot that day, and I brought the appropriate gear. I am a small person, so lugging around a heavy backpack is not good for me, but I don't mind bringing the gear if it will allow me to make the shots that I want. I typically stay onsite and will return to the hotel during the day, so I can swap out gear midday if needed.

The Nikon 1 is my compact system. I actually haven't used it much at all since I upgraded to the D7100 (and only used it when I needed the 30-110mm lens). So when I want to travel light, I have that. It actually functioned more like an entry-level DSLR for me and was what got me really interested in photography. I actually learned how to shoot in manual using it.

Renting a lens isn't really an option for me right now because I'm not making any money from photography, and I feel like the money spent on a lens rental would probably be put to better use if saved towards purchasing that lens.

But the prime and 70-300mm lenses are definitely an option which I am still considering.

 

[mom2rtk]

Try not to look at renting a lens as lost money. In general I'm in favor of putting that money toward buying it, especially if it's a lens that holds its value. But if it can keep you from making a costly mistake, renting is a great way to go. I rented a 2.8 zoom for each of my sons' high school graduations. It told me what I needed to know about not wanting to own one. I loved it, and I'm sure I'll rent it again when my daughter graduates, but I have no desire to lug one around Disney.

 

[wiigirl]

Well, when I was at Disney this January, I made a plan for what was going to shoot that day, and I brought the appropriate gear. I am a small person, so lugging around a heavy backpack is not good for me, but I don't mind bringing the gear if it will allow me to make the shots that I want. I typically stay onsite and will return to the hotel during the day, so I can swap out gear midday if needed.

The Nikon 1 is my compact system. I actually haven't used it much at all since I upgraded to the D7100 (and only used it when I needed the 30-110mm lens). So when I want to travel light, I have that. It actually functioned more like an entry-level DSLR for me and was what got me really interested in photography. I actually learned how to shoot in manual using it.

Renting a lens isn't really an option for me right now because I'm not making any money from photography, and I feel like the money spent on a lens rental would probably be put to better use if saved towards purchasing that lens.

But the prime and 70-300mm lenses are definitely an option which I am still considering.