- Messages
- 6,428
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a Nikon 70-200 2.8. It’s a fine lens but heavy. Most of the time that is no issue but it seems silly carrying it up hills for landscape stuff only to turn off the VR and stop it down to f/8. Seems like overkill. I also have an older AF-D 70-210. It’s quite a nice lens and I bought it as a lighter option but it doesn’t really give me the results I’m looking for from a modern sensor. I thought about chopping both in for a 70-200 f4. Two birds with one stone and some money in my pocket. But I’m really concerned I’ll miss the 2.8 aperture for other things (motorsports, kids, pets etc). So having serious doubts. I guess I could make a case for buying the f/4 lens as well but seems a bit extravagant.
I’m wondering if the newer 70-300 afp (fx) lens might fit the bill. It’s a fair bit cheaper, maybe more versatile and therefore easier to justify. But I cannot really find any solid info for what this lens is like to shoot in controlled landscape like conditions. How far off the 70-200’s will it be when stepped down to f/8/11 etc? AF speed, VR, wide open IQ etc aren’t really important to me but it’s what reviews tend to focus on.
I guess I should also consider the older AFS version but Ive had loads of those in the past and always think of them as good rather than great.
I’m wondering if the newer 70-300 afp (fx) lens might fit the bill. It’s a fair bit cheaper, maybe more versatile and therefore easier to justify. But I cannot really find any solid info for what this lens is like to shoot in controlled landscape like conditions. How far off the 70-200’s will it be when stepped down to f/8/11 etc? AF speed, VR, wide open IQ etc aren’t really important to me but it’s what reviews tend to focus on.
I guess I should also consider the older AFS version but Ive had loads of those in the past and always think of them as good rather than great.
