70-300 VR change....speed or reach ?

damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,267
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of selling my nikon 70-300VR but have 2 schools of thought

The first is speed so a tamron 70-200 VC and the second is reach so a sigma 50-500.

With the first, I'd lose 100mm of reach but gain a lot faster lens. With the sigma, I'd gain 200mm but that would be at the cost of f6.3 and weight.

Has anyone gone from 70-300 ( nikon or canon ) to either of these lenses ? I'd like to hear any experiences, good or bad.

Thanks
 
Primarily, what do you shoot?
 
I have the 70-200mm VC and used to have the 50-500mm.

There is nothing I shot that I'd prefer to have the 50-500mm for - that includes wildlife.

The quality just isn't there when you compare the two.

The 50-500mm just isn't anywhere near the quality of the 70-200mm.
 
Used to have a 70-200 f/2.8, 70-300 VR and 150-500 OS. Now just have the 70-300. I so rarely needed the f/2.8 capability that I never carried it around and the 150-500 was just too heavy to lug about, although it did perform well when I did take it out. The 70-300 is relatively light, the VR is very effective on it and it's a reasonable compromise in length. When stuck on a 1 series using the adaptor, it has the AoV of an 810mm on FF - long enough for me!
 
I don't really shoot anything "primarily" - that's the issue. I shoot cars, drag racing, my kids, an occasional airshow etc. I'd like to shoot some wildlife but the 70-300 isn't long enough. That said, at nearly 2kg, I'm concerned that the sigma is too heavy

Whatever I bought would replace the 70-300VR so the IQ would have to be spot on as I know I'd be disappointed if my shots were of worse quality.

Typical wanting the best of both worlds eh ?
 
Personally I think you have the best compromise lens and if you can't give us a real reason for wanting to change it then the best advice is don't.
 
Nawty said:
Personally I think you have the best compromise lens and if you can't give us a real reason for wanting to change it then the best advice is don't.
Click to expand...
I think that's exactly right. You could replace your lens with a 70-200 *and* a 50-500, but neither one of them on its own would be as good an all-rounder as the lens you already have.
 
I have both a nikon 70/200 and the sigma 150/500, I do shoot primarily wildlife and zoos
I find that the 70/200 is my most used lens, it's fast and pin sharp so there is an option to crop the pictures
With the sigma you really do need a reasonably good light to help with the focus speed, it works far better on the
D7100 then it does on the D300
As it seem you aren't that far from me, judging by the Wisley thread then if you fancy trying them give me a shout
and we can arrange to meet up somewhere, I' about 98 miles south of guildford and happy to travel
 
Thanks Ingrid for the offer, very kind. I'll be back to you when I've thought a bit more about it :)

It might be worth me hiring a lens from Stewart for a few days I guess
 
Last edited:
Gremlin said:
I have both a nikon 70/200 and the sigma 150/500, I do shoot primarily wildlife and zoos
I find that the 70/200 is my most used lens, it's fast and pin sharp so there is an option to crop the pictures
With the sigma you really do need a reasonably good light to help with the focus speed, it works far better on the
D7100 then it does on the D300
As it seem you aren't that far from me, judging by the Wisley thread then if you fancy trying them give me a shout
and we can arrange to meet up somewhere, I'm about 8 miles south of guildford and happy to travel
Click to expand...

oops that should have said 8 or 9 miles :(
 
Last edited:
analyse your shots with the 70 - 300mm VR
If you find that you are taking most at the long end, i.e. 300mm ……….. the Nikon AF-S 300mm f4 is a stellar lens and wide open it produces some marvellous images well up in IQ that the 70 300mm VR.. you'll certainly notice the difference ……… the Nikon 70 300mm Vr is good but the prime is one of the best around for the money

Buy a good used one for £700 in mint condition and you can't go wrong
 
Hi Bill

I do use it at 300mm for drag racing but as the cars come down the track, I move to around 100-130mm. With a 300mm prime, I couldn't do that so that lens wouldn't suit unfortunately.
 
I had the same dilemma a few weeks ago. Finally decided upon a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x converter. Gave me the same reach and f-stop as my old sigma 120-400 f5.6, but much better IQ. My final decision was also affected by the fact that I also want to eventually buy a lens with a 600mm reach, so now have the option of either a 600 f4 prime, a 300 f2.8 prime with converter, or as Chris suggests, a 120-300 f2.8. Decisions decisions.
 
When I was researching selling my 70-300 and buying a nikkor 70-200 I found an example shot from both at the long end and you could crop the 70-200 further than the 70-300 before losing IQ.


Music is a bit annoying but:
 
Last edited:
It's the prime versus zoom choice

I have a 70 300mm VR and a 70 200mm f2.8VR plus a 300mm f4 and (on it's way a 300mm f2.8 VR) and x 1.4TC and x 2 TC's - all Nikons
I have found all TC's work better with primes and that I tend to use the longer ends of zooms far more than the shorter ends

What you choose really depends of what your main interests are …. and that the great thing with DSLR's - if you have the budget, there is a prime for every occasion.

Plus you could get into the FX v DX debate and crop versus focal length

with Bird photography, which is my main interest you can never have too much reach
 
Last edited:
Will have a look at the video when I get home as streaming media is banned it work :(

I will still need a zoom I think - whilst I've sold a few bits this week, I'd need to sell the 70-300 and add a bit to buy whatever I decide on. I'm left with a 17-50 at the moment so I'm not sure that a 100/120-something would suit :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top