Lens decision

C

Chumpalot

Messages
669
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon all,

I would like some advice if possible. I'm thinking about purchasing a lens (2nd hand or new, doesn't matter too much) and would like to go for either of the following:

Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 AF-S VR
or
Nikkor 70-300 F2.8 AF-S VR

I've noted that a lot of people praise the 70-200. Is the 70-300 as good?

I only ask this because I have a play with the 70-200 yesterday and would prefer a bit more zoom. I realise this would bump the price up quite considerably but this isn't too much of an issue.

Are there any other similar lenses I need to consider?

Many thanks for your help.

Dave
 
Chumpalot said:
Afternoon all,

I would like some advice if possible. I'm thinking about purchasing a lens (2nd hand or new, doesn't matter too much) and would like to go for either of the following:

Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 AF-S VR
or
Nikkor 70-300 F2.8 AF-S VR

I've noted that a lot of people praise the 70-200. Is the 70-300 as good?

I only ask this because I have a play with the 70-200 yesterday and would prefer a bit more zoom. I realise this would bump the price up quite considerably but this isn't too much of an issue.

Are there any other similar lenses I need to consider?

Many thanks for your help.

Dave
Click to expand...

They do not make a 70-300 f2.8, they do make a 70-300VR which is f4.5 - f5.6, and about a third the cost of the 70-200VR f2.8, about half the weight also.

The 70-300VR f4.5-f5.6 does get very good reviews.
 
Thanks for the reply, I did think I got the aperture wrong.

Out of interest, why is the 70-300 a third of the cost of the 70-200? Is it an inferior lens? Seems strange.

What about some of Sigma's lenses?
 
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is very popular @ £575
Nikon 70-300VR is ok, but cheap (pay as your money - take as your choice)
Nikon 70-200 F2.8 is the nuts, but expenive
 
Chumpalot said:
Thanks for the reply, I did think I got the aperture wrong.

Out of interest, why is the 70-300 a third of the cost of the 70-200? Is it an inferior lens? Seems strange.

What about some of Sigma's lenses?
Click to expand...

sure somebody will add some more reasons to this, but basically you're paying the extra for the fast consant apperture and for the bomb proof build.

The 70-300 vr is an excellent lens and probably a better choice with a D40x

Cheers

Hugh
 
SEPkent,

Thanks for the reply.

I would ideally like to pick up the 70-200 f2.8 second hand given the prices of them brand new. I realise this is quite unlikely though.

How about the 55-200 f4-5.6 G VR DX? Seems a quite reasonable lens for the money?
 
Chumpalot said:
I would ideally like to pick up the 70-200 f2.8 second hand given the prices of them brand new. I realise this is quite unlikely though.

How about the 55-200 f4-5.6 G VR DX? Seems a quite reasonable lens for the money?
Click to expand...

unless you're very lucky you'll not find a 2nd hand 70-200 for much less than new.

The 55-200 vr is a great lens for the money but IMO not in the same boat as the 70-300

Cheers

Hugh
 
Hugh,

Thank you for your advice.

It's basically between the Sigma f2.8 70-200, the Nikkor 70-300 VR and the 55-200 VR.

I'm edging towards the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. At £426 it seems quite a reasonable price.
 
Chumpalot said:
Hugh,

Thank you for your advice.

It's basically between the Sigma f2.8 70-200, the Nikkor 70-300 VR and the 55-200 VR.

I'm edging towards the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. At £426 it seems quite a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

no problems - I think of the three the 70-300 seems the best choice

Hugh
 
Chumpalot said:
Hugh,

Thank you for your advice.

It's basically between the Sigma f2.8 70-200, the Nikkor 70-300 VR and the 55-200 VR.

I'm edging towards the 70-300 f4.5-5.6. At £426 it seems quite a reasonable price.
Click to expand...

That would be my choice, 70-300VR Nikkor.

Fast glass (f2.8 constant aperture) zooms are always going to be two to three times the price of variable aperture zooms, they will also be a lot heavier.
 
Thank you both for the recommendation. I will keep an eye out on the forums for one :)

Out of interest Martyn, I had a play with my dad's D300 yesterday and was very impressed if not a little bewildered. A lovely piece of kit from what I could see. How are you liking it?

Dave
 
a 70-300mm f2.8 does not exist. If it did it would be quite heavy!!!!

Sigma 120-300mm f2,8 is the closest.
 
Chumpalot said:
I've seen this one on Amazon but the lens aperture is 4.5 - 5.6. Not 2.8?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct - it has a maximum aperture of f/4.5 at 70mm and a maximum aperture of f/5.6 at 300mm.

Nice lens - better when it was cheaper but nice all the same. :)
 
Chumpalot said:
Thank you both for the recommendation. I will keep an eye out on the forums for one :)

Out of interest Martyn, I had a play with my dad's D300 yesterday and was very impressed if not a little bewildered. A lovely piece of kit from what I could see. How are you liking it?

Dave
Click to expand...

Bewildered :D it is easier than the D40 as it has the two command dials, one for aperture one for shutter speed ... simples :). I got it as soon as they came out, so it has been with me a while, and I love it.
 
Martyn... said:
Bewildered :D it is easier than the D40 as it has the two command dials, one for aperture one for shutter speed ... simples :).
Click to expand...

Have to agree there Martyn. :)

I had a play with a D40 the other week and felt completely lost without my two command dials....I only moved from the D40 in December as well! :shrug:
 
Hi Martyn, I have the 70-200 2.8, it is all I wanted in a tele lens until I got interested in birds. It is no where near long enough even with a X2 behind it.
Last week I almost bought a Bigma when someone told me about the OS system, they said get the 150-500 instead.
Started to read up everything again and was told it was soft at 500.
It is a minefield out there, I need long glass at 2.8 but I am not prepared to pay the silly money.
I will probably end up with the Bigma, a lot of folk use them and I would be happy with the results that I have seen on here.
Good luck with your quest and let us know how you get on.
 
Having read a few reviews on the 70-300 VR, I'm worried about it's performance at 300mm. Is this something I need to be worried about being a D40x owner.

Would I be better off going for the cheaper 70-200 VR and putting the difference towards a macro lens perhaps?
 
Chumpalot said:
Having read a few reviews on the 70-300 VR, I'm worried about it's performance at 300mm. Is this something I need to be worried about being a D40x owner.

Would I be better off going for the cheaper 70-200 VR and putting the difference towards a macro lens perhaps?
Click to expand...

Do you mean the 55-200mm VR?
 
Chumpalot said:
Having read a few reviews on the 70-300 VR, I'm worried about it's performance at 300mm. Is this something I need to be worried about being a D40x owner.

Would I be better off going for the cheaper 70-200 VR and putting the difference towards a macro lens perhaps?
Click to expand...

As already mentioned the 70-200 is not cheaper it is over £1k????
 
Sorry, meant the 55-200. The 70-200 is way out of my budget :(

After reading yet more reviews I've come to the conclusion that this particular review was being extremely critical with the lens and I have nothing to worry about. It is a great lens for the money and I'm going to get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top