Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
Here's an example of what I am talking about.
Light conditions are poor and subject is too far away for the std 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens to handle well.
Focul length: 55mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Shutter speed 1/60s
ISO: 3200
|
Based on what you shot that at (even at such a high ISO), I can't see too many lenses that can shoot what you're imagining without a flash.
Here's the problem if you get a lens shooting at 200mm with that same photo: you'll need to shoot at about 1/200 (less if it has VR and you have steady hands or a mono/tripod). But because it's so dark in there, the photo (even if the lens shot at 2.8) will still be a challenging one. You also don't want to be shooting at 3200 ISO with your camera body either so the goal would also to be to shoot as low ISO as possible.
When there's not enough light... there's just not enough light. It seems to me a good option there is to use a flash (and not the one built into your camera) and/or try to get closer to the subject.
You could go the Photoshopping in RAW format route, but that's IMO a lot of effort to go into a photo when you can think of other ways to get a better photo in your viewfinder first.
If you really want to try that shot with another lens without a flash, I'd pick up a 50mm, f1.8 for a couple hundred bucks, get closer to the subject and possibly annoy a few people. Even if the lens doesn't work for that particular shot, it's still an excellent, cheap lens that can be used in all types of situations.
The 18-200mm is pretty pricey and if you're spending $800 already, you might as well hold out, bend over and buy a 70-200/2.8 for $2000 (or heck, you can get a Sigma version of that too for much less than the Nikon one).