with or without tripod mount

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by rwesurfn, Jan 12, 2005.

  1. rwesurfn

    rwesurfn Guest

    I am looking to buy a used 80-200 f/2.8 lens for my D70 and was wondering
    what the consensus was on the tripod mount option? The older nikkor version
    has no tripod mount. Am I going to miss this terribly? I will mostly use
    this to take indoor sporting event pics and pics of my kids in less than
    perfect lighting situations. I know this is a fairly heavy lens and was
    wondering if I should just bite the bullet and go with a newer version. What
    are everyones opinions on an off brand lens of this type a well (sigma,
    tamron,Tokina)?? any help will be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks,
    Mike
    --
     
    rwesurfn, Jan 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. rwesurfn

    mc Guest

    If it comes to that, you can make a wooden tripod mount...squarish, with a
    1/4"-20 threaded insert in the bottom.
     
    mc, Jan 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The older versions are also push-pull zooms, if it matters to you. I
    use one of the older 80-200 f/2.8D's. For tripod use, I add a Bogen
    3420 lens support. The result is a more stable mount than any
    lens-based tripod mount I've tried, but at a cost in both convenience
    and weight.

    While I use a F100, I suspect that on a D70 the older models'
    autofocus speed would be somewhat leisurely.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Jan 13, 2005
    #3
  4. I just bought Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED AF lens for my D70. First
    time out, I was able to take some decent pictures of my son playing
    hockey in a rink that was dim by even hockey rink standards without a
    tripod. I forgot my glasses though, so I was only using the "sports"
    setting of the exposure choices. About half of the pictures were
    underexposed, so I'm going to have to fool around with exposure
    settings, but ball park, I don't think I'm going to need a tripod for
    taking action hockey shots.
     
    Aldo Pignotti, Jan 13, 2005
    #4
  5. rwesurfn

    Alan Browne Guest

    Collar. Nuff said. (See if there are add on collars for the older version, as
    well, I'm not clear on whether this is possible).

    Tokina make a decent 80-200 f/2.8, but not as sharp as Nikon/Sigma. Tamron
    don't seem to have such a lens (I may be wrong).

    Nikon have it in several incarnations. The ED / IF-ED versions come with a
    collar AFAIK. They are sharper than the Tokina and Sigmas

    Sigma have two that are rated in sharpness close to the Nikon. Get your hands
    on one and see how you like the build quality before you commit.

    G'luck.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 13, 2005
    #5
  6. rwesurfn

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hockey is played on white ice. This tends to fool the exposure system to think
    there is more light than there actually is. Best to find the proper setting
    using the histogram and monitor and then set it manually and leave it. Much
    more consistent results.
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 13, 2005
    #6
  7. rwesurfn

    Basic Wedge Guest

    I've taken tens of thousands of sports shots, and never used a tripod. I
    can't really imagine how you could. A monopod, certainly, but never a
    tripod.

    Rob
     
    Basic Wedge, Jan 13, 2005
    #7
  8. rwesurfn

    rwesurfn Guest

    Thank you all for your suggestions and comments, I just bought a tokina
    80-400 from KEH (excellent place to do business with by the way) and it
    seems to be a decent lens, a little soft on the long end but, for my needs
    is adequate for now. I am going to take my camera to the store this weekend
    and try out a few lenses.
    Thanks again for the help
    Mike
     
    rwesurfn, Jan 13, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.