Primes Vs Zooms

whitey

whitey

Messages
6,252
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
Alittle Dilemma i find myself having now

i thought a while back to myself whats the point in no zoom, but the more i think about it the more i seem to want to own some lol

i currently have a 50mm but was thinking along the "long" end of things. as in get rid of my sigma 120-300 for say the 70-200 VR plus a 300mm prime, does that sound silly or logical?
 
I guess that a question you could ask yourself is: how many photos are taken at full zoom on the 120-300? If it's a major proportion, then perhaps the prime would make a lot of sense. A 300mm f/2.8 prime is not going to be cheap, though, but the IQ should be better than a zoom.
 
most of the shots i would say are taken between 120-200

with occasional use at 300mm (Donington is one i remember)
 
I can recommend the 300mm f4 AF-S, as will puddleduck if he sees this thread.

Not as expensive as the 2.8 but is still sharp as a tack.

If you're looking for 2nd hand, then good luck, as a they are few and far between, i think that is a testament to how good they are for the money!

Jonathan
 
I'm in the same boat, choice's are, Nikon 300mm 2.8VR or for less :)

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR +1.4X + Nikon AFS 300mm prime F4, which will leave about 700 for up >70mm

which way to go ?? already using a sigma 120-300 on my Canon setup.

90% of my shots are @250- 300mm

choice has to be made by monday AM :thinking:
 
i am not so much in that kind of rush

and if i was to sell the 1`20-300 is the 300mm Sigma F2.8 an option to rule out?
 
300 f4 is a cracking lens for the money.
 
fracster said:
300 f4 is a cracking lens for the money.
Click to expand...

Kerso had 2 up on fleebay last week for £715 new, probably get one for £700 delivered out of fleebay. thats a 2k saving over the 300 2.8.

2k extra to spend on glass :), but No VR, and my problem is trying to hand hold @ 250-300mm with a shutter speed of 160-200 for Propeller aircraft. :thinking:
 
Works excellently with the 1.4x, good but needs stopping down with the 1.7x and with a 2.0x its only to be used if Elvis reincarnates and you MUST get the shot.

I'd use a 1.4x personally (Kenko or Nikon, I've used both, no difference)
 
"most of the shots i would say are taken between 120-200

with occasional use at 300mm (Donington is one i remember)"

Surely this answers your question? If you rarely use 300mm, then why limit yourself to that? I would consider renting one for an event and trialing it.

Mike

Edit - missed that your would get the 70-200 too. Still, a 300 2.8 would be a big investment for rare use.
 
true.

i have a Sigma 1.4x atm, worth selling and getting the Nikon 1.4 and 1.7x

some food for though to be done on this one
 
The Sigma TC works on the Nikkor, I've tried it, no problems.
 
Whitey, depends how you value the VR ? + Nikon prices are going to go up by the end of the month :(

Question for you, how does your 120- 300 handle very bad daylight, mist, low cloud, just very very bad light, I find mine struggles to get a pin sharp focus, probably just asking to much of it :)
 
I've not had many problems with it tbh, not used it in really low light

i am more thinking now of the 70-200 VR and the 300mm F4
not to concerned aboue the lack of VR with it
 
If you're not fussed with VR, go with the 300 F4 and 70-200VR.

Hmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wonder what sort of deal we could get on 2 X 70-200 2.8 VR and 2 of the 300mm afs F4 off Kerso ?
 
decisions decisions lol
my only thought is i may regret selling the sigma 120-300 if i was to go down the other route
 
If you have 2 bodies then a 70-200 and a 300 prime is a great combo! If you only have one body then I would stick with the zoom for now.
 
Glad to see you coming round to the 70-200 and 300 prime motorsport bag combo :D

Its pretty much the way to go... especially when you add some TC's.

I'vd just got my Nikon 300 f4... used it for the first time yesterday and its a cracker, even with a 1.7x TC on it.

The 300 2.8 is very nice, but very, very big and very expensive... try the 300 f4 first is my suggestion.

Getting a second hand 300 f4 is hard though. I bought mine from a friend and I had to find a sensible price to offer him - only found one item listed ANYWHERE. Rare beasty, not sure if its that its so good or that Nikon don't actually sell that many. Certainly Canon ones are more common.
 
I am still thinking but it looks like the logical way to go i would say

i have a Sigma 1.4x but would sell that i think and go for the Nikon version and the 1.7x
 
desantnik said:
Rare beasty, not sure if its that its so good or that Nikon don't actually sell that many. Certainly Canon ones are more common.
Click to expand...
It is a little odd. We have a Nikon 300 f/4 and nobody wants to hire it. But we have a whole bunch of Canon 300 f/4s and 400 f/5.6s and they're quite popular.

I think there might be a bit of self-selection here. If you do a lot of shooting that requires decent telephotos, it makes sense to use Canon because you get so many more options - IS on the 300 f/4, the incomparable 400 f/5.6, and the 100-400 which is so much better than Nikon's 80-400. In other words, Nikon 300 f/4s are rare because most people who want that sort of lens will be using Canon.
 
Not sure about compatibility, I've got the Nikon 1.7x and when I want a 1.4x I will buy the Nikon one... not sure if there is any logic behind that, but...
 
Stewart, the other thing it could be is that certainly Nikon in the world of Motorsport photography was quite a rare thing... until late 2008 season, when suddenly it was everywhere!

Prior to that, most Nikon users I saw didn't seem to be in the market for long primes at all...

Chicken and egg kinda thing really, Canon made the best high performance bodies and people bought the expensive lens to go with them. Once you have expensive lenses you tend to not change on a whim, unless the whim becomes very compelling!
 
I shoot mainly golf and last year (2008) after trying out first got a Canon f/2.8 prime which was my first prime. I also use it with a 1.4 extender which I lose a stop but still retain AF.

Using both alternative I can say after taking 5,000 + images in all sorts of light and situtations I have a mere handful of unacceptable shots. I will always now buy prime lenses.

I use a Canon 1D MkIII and the combination is devastatingly brilliant.

Best of luck !!

Chris Gill
 
whitey said:
my only thought is i may regret selling the sigma 120-300 if i was to go down the other route
Click to expand...

Regardless of what you do, if your 120-300 is giving good results you will regret selling it.
I looked at my 120-300 shots and made a decision based on a few factors to trade for a 70-200 with IS.
I found myself wanting to go beyond 200mm a lot more than I realised - although I didn't have the money to buy a 300 prime to go with it.
 
Well at least you have 2 potential customers for hiring it now :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top