Sigma 70-200 F2.8 V Nikkor 80-400 VR

If you could stretch your budget to the 70-200 F.28 of Nikons and a TC, either the 1.4 or the 1.7 that would make a very nice lens. The 80-400 as others have said is slow in focusing as it does not have an internal focums motor unlike the 70-200.

80-400mm AF VR Lens

I own one of these bad boys, as well as a 70-200mm lens and use them both on a Nikon D70 and a Nikon F4S, and have never really struggled with the slower focusing speed of the 80-400VR lens. If part of your aircraft is out of focus, surely the best thing is to stop your lens down a couple of stops for a slightly better DOF.

I’ll be honest, I’d prefer the option of the 70-200mm lens with a TC, but seeing the majority of stuff I photograph doesn’t move, I stick with the 80-400mm lens.

Hope this helps,

Scotty 😉

If you think that 3 FPS is too slow, you might be right! Check this baby out [click].

Hmm… Seems like the ultimate attempt to take the quick road to getting good photos to me. I’m cynical, I know, but how about people actually learning to use their equipment instead of blasting out loads of frames and hoping there’s a good one in there? Yes, learning takes time, but I really do tire of hearing people talk about how important specifications are instead of taking the time to learn a little more about how cameras do what they do. Rob, I’m talking about the Casio camera itself here, not you personally!

Off course I speak from experience I don’t use acoustic theories to justify photography.

Me neither, it just happens I’m an experienced sound engineer and musician and I can see the similarities between music and photography. However, as my point was based largely on approaching things technically and artistically, you’d only partially comprehend one half of the analogy.

with good timing and experience 3fps can deliver great results. Way in the past I’ve even managed to get good results without any kind of motordrive. My present camera’s can deliver up to 8fps, but I hardly ever need anything faster than about 3.5fps.

Precisely! If you have 10fps capability but poor technique, all you’ll actually get is more poor quality photos.

Technique, experience, knowledge and natural ability are far more important than the specifications of your equipment in almost every shooting situation imaginable. This isn’t an opinion, either. It’s a simple fact, and a search by camera type on Flickr shows the stunning results some people can get from the most basic of equipment and the terrible results some others get from high end gear. Higher shooting speeds have their uses, but there’s only one way of getting good results when you view your shots on the computer, and that’s knowing what you’re doing.

Paul

Greater the fps the greater the probability in getting the exact frame you want and in many cases: a frame thats better than you expected. That is why they make cameras with 10fps and thats is why D3 is huffing and puffing about 9fps (even though its 9fps JPEG in DX (not FX) mode)

Incorrect! In FX mode the D3 delivers up to 9fps, in DX mode up to 11fps.
Apart from that, with good timing and experience 3fps can deliver great results. Way in the past I’ve even managed to get good results without any kind of motordrive. My present camera’s can deliver up to 8fps, but I hardly ever need anything faster than about 3.5fps.

And yes, Nikon allows the 70-200 with TC to work with both AFS and VR!

If you think that 3 FPS is too slow, you might be right! Check this baby out [click].

I’ll believe it when I see it!!

LOL thanks for this link. I was having another spirited debate on another forum (I seem to have lot of those) and this link really helps me with my point.

Thank!!!
________
Meta One
________
Class action lawfirm

So you’re claiming you ‘need’ more than 3fps to get good shots? Again, it seems we disagree! Paul

Good…at least we are back to where we started. Whether (or what) you agree with is irrelevant to me.

Greater the fps the greater the probability in getting the exact frame you want and in many cases: a frame thats better than you expected. That is why they make cameras with 10fps and thats is why D3 is huffing and puffing about 9fps (even though its 9fps JPEG in DX (not FX) mode)

I am sure there are great shots that were/are/will be taken with a 3fps body but there will be more shots to be had in the same instance on a 5/8/10fps body.

Off course I speak from experience I don’t use acoustic theories to justify photography. I’ve seen what a 3fps body got when we stood side by side shooting the same event (Point Mugu Airshow). They were good pics, but the 5fps was simply better.

Those in denial will just have to live with it, those who are curious will have to empirically test it. Being the oracle forum I dont expect much of the latter.
________
Ford Zephyr engine picture
________
Ferrari 312B Specifications

But 3fps is not that great, I have seen what 3fps can do (or rather wont do)

So you’re claiming you ‘need’ more than 3fps to get good shots? Again, it seems we disagree!

Paul

If you think that 3 FPS is too slow, you might be right! Check this baby out [click].

I’ll believe it when I see it!!

haha i dont think i’ll be switching….i’ve made my bed so to speak haha!,thanks for the advice anyway;)

thanks, i’ve a nikon D80,and the slow autofocus of the nikkor doesnt sound all that appealing.

D80 is a 3fps body. You could try the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8VR and add a 1.4x TC to it (donno anything about Nikon TC but the Canon one does allow AF and IS to work) and you will get 98-280mm at f/5.6. But 3fps is not that great, I have seen what 3fps can do (or rather wont do)

Or better yet……….switch to canon. You wont ever find yourself in such a pickle.:diablo:
________
Plymouth Gran Fury specifications
________
HEMP

thanks, i’ve a nikon D80,and the slow autofocus of the nikkor doesnt sound all that appealing.

which one is better to choose for photographing moving aircraft,on a recent trip to heathrow i had terrible trouble with some sections of the aircraft being slightly out of focus,now i was shooting through glass but would say the nikkor VR lens help reduce this due to the VR technology?,secondly the sigma 70-200 is a constant aperture lens,which i think given the same focal length would deliver slightly better results,but the limited zoom on this lens compared to the nikkor buts me off,any opinions?

1) I donno what Nikon body you have but its one of those 3 fps bodies you are not going to get too many keepers.

2) You dont really need to shoot at f/2.8 even f/5.6 or f/8 would do well depending on the subject (and you also get a deeper DOF and this means all of your a/c will be in focus, if focus is achieved).

3) 80-400mm gives you a great focal length for airshows and f/4.5 to 5.6 is more than enough.
________
Mercedes-Benz Vario
________
Ford zetec engine specifications

Gary,

I don’t own any of these two lenses, but this is what I think:

– When only some sections of an aircraft are slightly out of focus and other sections aren’t, it has nothing to do with movement blur (but probably because of not using an aperture small enough for the required depth of field and improper focusing technique). VR would not help in this respect.

– The Nikkor 80-400VR has no AF-S and is therefore rather slow in focussing, which could be a problem with moving aircraft. Otherwise this lens is reported to be very good optically.

– The Sigma 70-200HSM has received very good reviews and optically seems to be almost as good as the Nikkor AF-S 2.8/70-200VR. However it lacks VR.

– I’m very happy using the Nikkor 70-200VR on moving aircraft, with or without the TC14EII converter, which transforms this lens into a 100-280.

– For longer reach I use the AF-S Nikkor 4/300, with or without the TC14EII; excellent sharpness and faster focussing than the 80-400VR.

I hope this helps making up your mind.