80-200mm

[ronnie27]

i am thinking of buying a new nikon zoom lens. the question is should i buy the 80mm-200mm f/2.8 ED AF or the ED IF-S. IS THE HUGE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE WORTH IT?. My camera is the Nikon D300.
Thanks.
one other question. i love photographing people. i have been advised to use a 50mm lens. i prefer using the zoom at a distance of at least 15 metres. i do not like people to pose for me. photographing them at a distance usually gives me what i want. question? what lens would you use?

[djwixx]

Personally I think the 50mm F1.8 is a must have for the price and it has great depth of field control. Buy the Nikon 3T and 4T close up filters and you have a (almost) macro lens. Add a ND filter (and/or polarizer) to allow exposures at F1.8 on bright days. I suspect the 50mm F1.4 is also a great buy but at 4x the price! I also love my 85mm F1.8 which allows me to get closer and on a D300 with reduced noise you'll be surprised what shots you can get in very poor light.

[prinothcat]

The non AF-S 80-200 is a bit noisy when it focuses. It's also a heavy beast. Further there is a slight torque as the front elements rotate. I shoot one and love it. The focus is plenty fast, and in most situations I'm shooting fast enough shutter speeds where VR isn't necessary. Both are going out of production (the AF-S is already..) The price difference to get the newer 70-200 AF-S VR was not justifiable. More so because it's likely also due for an upgrade according to some people. Added bonus, if you get an 80-200 and decide to upgrade, they hold their value quite well. The AF-S might be nice if you want stealth otherwise go with the ED. I use mine at 80mm with close up filters and get nice results as well. Examples are in my galleries addressed below.

chris - who noticed two or three days later that a) he doesn't type well and B0 he doesn't proof at all...

[sean_mcr]

Personally speaking I find most ( but not all) shots of people taken with tele lenses too removed and lacking the intimacy that shorter lenses provide. No matter what lenses a person owns, a 50mm lens is a good tool to own and it's not without reason that Bresson shot at that range for almost 40 years. He was arguably the greatest candid shooter of them all. Nobody needs to be 15m away to capture life

Whatever you choose, consider getting a 50mm to

[jestev]

It sounds to me like you like shooting candids from far away without the subject knowing -- the 80-200 is your best bet for that. I have the non-AF-S version and I love it. I'd say get it and use the extra to buy a 50mm and maybe an 85mm (great portrait lens).

There's no reason not to have at least the 50mm f/1.8D in your bag -- it's cheap and amazing.

[sean_mcr]

A tele lens is not needed to shoot people candidly, history has taught us that 24 to 50mm is king. Almost all work in that genre of any significance has been taken between those two focal lengths. The list is endless the work well documented and proven.

Of course you are free to choose to shoot with anything you that wish to. But a tele lens for candid photography is not essential; It is actually second best at best

[prinothcat]

A tele lens is not needed to shoot people candidly, history has taught us that 24 to 50mm is king. Almost all work in that genre of any significance has been taken between those two focal lengths. The list is endless the work well documented and proven.

Of course you are free to choose to shoot with anything you that wish to. But a tele lens for candid photography is not essential; It is actually second best at best

the key phrase is... "shooting candids from far away without the subject knowing". Yes it can be done with short focal lengths but it is much more challeging that way... I personnally don't subscibe to what I feel is the sniper approach but to each his own. I think if you're going to shoot people without their knowalge you need to risk getting caught and thus face the conssequencces of your action. I also don't photogragh people this way so may be my opinions are just that.. opinions.

[sean_mcr]

Risk getting caught? Consequences of their actions?

Is that not something somebody should only consider when they are doing a bad thing?

If somebody is going to do this with any heart they have to believe in what they are doing, that it's a good thing, a worth while thing and act accordingly, otherwise they will project their fears outwardly.

[prinothcat]

Risk getting caught? Consequences of their actions?

Is that not something somebody should only consider when they are doing a bad thing?

If somebody is going to do this with any heart they have to believe in what they are doing, that it's a good thing, a worth while thing and act accordingly, otherwise they will project their fears outwardly.

I know of many people (my self included) that do *not* like being papparrazzied'.... and that's what the long mens "without being seen" approach reeks of to me. again just an opinion.

[sean_mcr]

Well I myself agree that the use of tele lenses for such photography has damaged its reputation. But it's not so much the lens
(though they are second best) as it's the mindset that brings about its use. Candid photography is about describing life; That simple ideal is notoriously hard to put in to practice. At its best a photograph says as much about the person who took the photograph as it does of those contained within it. It's been said that photography is a mirror, I believe that's true. I honestly believe that the best way to describe life is by being involved in it, to come out of the cold and be candid.

Way off topic here, now. My apologies for that

I don't even own a zoom lens, but I do have a 50mm and and their reputation is not without good reason.