![General [M]ayhem](/images/misc/logo.gif){kind=logo}
|
|
|
|
|||||||
» Less advertising throughout
» Post and participate in discussions
» Network with other forum members
» Free private messaging
 |
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
|
Growing need for longer glass...
Title says it all. I can no longer get the shots I need with my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 , though I love the lens to death and I will never part with it, I really need something in the 70-200mm range.
It's gotta be f/2.8 because light is hardly in abundance and I usually find myself shooting at f/2.8, ISO 1600, at somewhere between 1/30th-1/80th. What are my options? Though I'd love to drop 1600 bucks on a 70-200mm VR, I really don't have that kind of money... Even 850 for the Sigma is pushing it. Are these the only two options? If only I shot Canon... then I could get my hands on a 70-200mm 2.8L 
__________________
whut. |
02-04-2007, 07:50 PM
|
#1
|
|
how about the nikon 80-200 2.8
__________________
_,,_ [_o_] there is no free lunch in photography. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinoadventures/ |
|
02-04-2007, 08:31 PM
|
#2
|
|
|
Another vote for 80-200 2.8. Fantastic lens. There's a fair amount of these floating around used, as well, if you're looking to save some money. Many people have ditched them to go up to the 70-200 for the VR and such.
__________________
"The camera always points both ways. In expressing the subject, you also express yourself." –Freeman Patterson |
|
02-04-2007, 08:39 PM
|
#3
|
|
|
no 400mm no care
|
|
02-04-2007, 08:51 PM
|
#4
|
|
|
Quote:
get the 200 f/2 yet?
__________________
Nikon DSLR club - D2H [M] GNU/Linux crew Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club (co-founder) |
|
|
02-04-2007, 08:54 PM
|
#5
|
|
|
if you're shooting at 1/30-1/80 at 200mm without IS/VR it is going to be blurry (unless you are shooting something that isn't moving that fast, and you're using a tripod)
__________________
[M]acintosh Captain Benjamin Maxwell of the USS Phoenix Currently Residing in the brig of the USS Excelsior [M] Canon Digital EOS Club |
|
02-04-2007, 09:13 PM
|
#6
|
|
I suck conservative cock
|
Quote:
sorry we can't afford those pimpin lenses mr paparazzo  
__________________
Leader and Founder of Gen[M]ay Anti-Liberal Club Gen[M]ay Grammar Gestapo SS Trooper |
|
|
02-04-2007, 09:17 PM
|
#7
|
|
Berticus and wigglesworth are my bitches. But im Pidge's Bitch.
|
I'm saving up for one of those 18-200 VRs
 I'm tired of swapping my lens all the time. |
|
02-04-2007, 09:35 PM
|
#8
|
|
|
85mm f/1.8 is a bargain
|
|
02-04-2007, 09:36 PM
|
#9
|
|
|
Quote:
I'll save for one too. I'll start the fund the day I decide image quality and indoor shooting no longer matters to me.
__________________
_,,_ [_o_] there is no free lunch in photography. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dinoadventures/ |
|
|
02-04-2007, 09:42 PM
|
#10
|
|
|
Quote:
qft, don't get me started on that lens Most of the time I find myself reaching for the d70 kit lens over it. If I need something longer i'll use the 80-200
__________________
Nikon DSLR club - D2H [M] GNU/Linux crew Gen[M]ay Pro Audio Club (co-founder) |
|
|
02-04-2007, 09:54 PM
|
#11
|
|
|
if you just need something barely longer but much faster, the 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 will still be used even if you get a 70-200
|
|
02-04-2007, 09:57 PM
|
#12
|
|
my brother has the sigma 50-150 with the HSM, and it's pretty fucking sweet i have to say.
__________________
MBON|gHub|LbYpavflKJ 59fce89076a3d2f5851e8c291f40e708 "Do not be afraid of the darkness, be afraid of what it hides" - Drizzt Do'Urden d53f78fef409408e2230f13db8ca19bb [pornmay.com] b93149b95e0d7e32a815b7ae4e95c3d6 |
|
02-04-2007, 10:25 PM
|
#13
|
|
|
beg, steal, pimp, pillage... get the 70-200 whatever way possible !
__________________
nikon www.lumensphotography.com |
|
02-04-2007, 10:37 PM
|
#14
|
|
|
as an owner of a 70-200, it's not that useful indoors, particularly if you have moving subjects
|
|
02-04-2007, 10:41 PM
|
#15
|
|
 Thread Tools |
|
|
|
