Lens choice

Dangermouse

Dangermouse

Squeaky Clean
Messages
10,164
Edit My Images
No
I am looking for a lens for myself and one for the missus, in the past we have had Sigma and Tamron 70-200 f2.8 which never went anywhere near 2.8 as we do most of our photography with the lenses pointing into the sky so f12-f16 is normal for us on a slow shutter speed, what's the best lens out there for my Canon and Eileen's Nikon, I have been eyeing up Tamron's latest 70-300 f4 VC lens for myself but it may be too heavy for Eileen to hold for long (arthritis in her hands) so if anyone has any suggestions..............fire away.
 
Last edited:
If the tammy 70-300 may be too heavy I'm fairly sure the 80-400 will be too ;) - it weighs around 1.5Kg

Is Eileen's Nikon FX or DX? and what reach does she require?
 
Would the 80-400 not be too heavy or is it similar to the 70-300VR in weight.
I have been thinking about the 70-300 f3.5 VR for her.
 
Also Paul, we normally go to airfields, or we did many years ago and a 200 was adequate, but we wont be able to get as close as we used to nowadays so I am leaning towards the 70-300vr for her as the one I havd a few years ago was pretty light
 
There are a number of decent DX zooms she could use - the 55-300 is decent and weighs around half a kilo (or 1lb in old money) - it isn't quite as good IQ wise as the 70-300 VR that weighs around 750g. Is a tripod or mono pod and option at all?
 
Just seen the airfields post, the 55-300 won't AF quick enough (in anything but very good light) - either the tammy or Nikon 70-300 would be good.
 
She can use a mono I suppose as she did use one before, some how I don't think the weight may be as big an issue as I may be thinking as she has used a D200 and D2X with no problems.......maybe the Tamron may be fine for her, best thing is to let her handle my camera with it on and see if she feels comfortable.
 
Anyway, thanks for the help, will see what she thinks is a good choice for her
 
Hmm, I consider the 80-400 to be "light." It's about the same as the 70-200/2.8.
The 70-300VR is about 1/2 the weight as is the 70-200/4. The 70-300 looses sharpness beyond 200mm, but stopped down to f/8-11 it's quite usable. It can't accept TC's. The 70-200/4 is sharp at 200 and can accept TC's.

If you need "reach" and even less weight, I'm not sure what to suggest. In good light a Nikon 1 with the 70-300 (190-810) can do quite decent...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top