I just received the following question:
First, thanks for the great posts--just discovered the forum and your blog and it is very helpful.
You clearly have a lot of experience so I respect your opinion on a lens recommendation. I have a D7000 and am a relative newbie, but have learned a ton in the last year and am enjoying the new hobby. I leave in a week for a hiking safari in Africa. There will be relatively little time in a jeep with tripod or window mounts, so the form factor and weight are an issue--thus, I cannot take one of the "super-zoom" (up to 400mm) solutions and even my 70-200 2.8 is probably more than I can handle via foot (10- 15Km hiking each day).
So, ideally, I'm looking for a single lens solution (I realize the trade-offs here) that has a relatively small form factor and relatively low weight (medium weight is fine--just nothing extreme!). Two options I am considering, both Nikon:
70-300 (I own this lens)
28-300 (I have considered a purchase or could rent).
Basically, I am wondering about the tradeoff, figuring a lot of the shots will be taken at full zoom (animals at a relatively safe distance)--is there any advantage to the 28-300? Or said another way, within the 70-300 range, does the 28-300 offer any advantages (speed?). I cannot find a comparison of the two anywhere online (including the forum here), so wondered if you had any thoughts.
Thank you for any help--sorry for the long message.
To me the answer is quite clear:
I'd go for the 28-300, which I own myself and have reviewed here
(as you surely have seen).
I think highly of the 70-300 in term of image quality. But to be honest the missing focal lengths shorter than 70 would make me shy away from that lens as my only companion.
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews
, My Pictures
, My Photography Blog