Camera Labs

Hi,

I currently have a nikon 28-300/4.5-5.6', and i am trying to decide if it is worh to buy the nikon 70-200/2.8 of if i should jum to the nikon 200-400?

Regards
Gonzalo

I actually only have an use the 70-300 vr now, as a traveller (for editorial or commercial jobs) I find the 70-200 way to heavy and big, not to mention the price, I had one to many 70-200 2.8 and I'm done with them, and I dont miss them, not yet, specially cause with the new high ISO DSLR they VR of the 300 works just fine for me .

Well it all depends on:

What you shoot
What's your budget

Your current lens is a relatively slow jack of all trades, master of none lens

Your options that you quote are far more specialist, and far more expensive - have you seriously seen the price of the 200-400?

IMO - If you're asking if you need either, then you should get neither. They are specialist lenses with prices to suit

Which body are you shooting on Gonzalo?

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

maybe you can look at the Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm which is cheaper then 70-200mm but i think you need body with motor so D7000 or D90 or D300s or full frame. Also AF-S 300mm prime lens is cheaper then 70-200mm.

I am still happy enough with my Nikkor 70-300mm, i dont understand why people take a 200mm tele lens it is so short.
Is too short for nature/wildlife kind of photos but maybe they use it for different stuff.

A lot of people buy 70-200mm with a 1.4 extender. What is the point of that (you lose sharpness and light). Might as well buy a 70-300mm then (or 80-400mm). I personally dont see the whole point of the 70-200mm lens but maybe it is just me.

Well if you're quoting from a Nikon list of lenses, you missed the most obvious recent addition.

70-200 f4

Sure, with the f4 or f2.8 you're shorter than 70-300. You can isolate subjects far better, focus better and quicker, shoot in lower light, take tele-converters if you wish. The VR was far better that the 70-300 of mine (when that worked). Rent one or borrow one and see. It's a completely different ballpark!

Sports - ideal focal length for some sports, especially with the ability to crop that larger MP bodies give you
Wildlife - no it's not ideal - you'll need longer, unless you shoot your wildlife in a zoo, birdlife close from a hide, or live in Galapagos or South Georgia
Wedding/Portraiture - a good solid performer, not so much isolation compared to an f2 lens at 135mm or 105mm, but good through all portrait local ranges

It's a solid and very usable focal range for a variety of uses. I'm happy with my 70-300 for what I use it for, but the 70-200 f2.8 is miles ahead for bokeh, IQ is stellar, and it doesn't hunt like the 70-300 at all.