Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:19 pm

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:58 pm 

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?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:41 am 
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 .

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:19 am 

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 1831
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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 8003
Location: Germany
Which body are you shooting on Gonzalo?

Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D810+assorted lenses

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:53 am 
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.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:41 am 

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 1831
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.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group