Telephoto rationalisation thoughts? (Nikon DX)

[GravelBen]

I've been thinking about my lens selection, and whether its worth making a change.

In the telephoto department I currently have a Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8 and Tokina AF 400 f5.6. Typically I've shot a lot of motorsport (mostly rallying), but in the last year or so its probably more in the way of nature, birds etc. On a D7000 FWIW.

The thing I'm finding is that I don't often take a big lens (and definitely don't take both of them) when I head for the hills hiking/mountaineering/hunting etc due to the weight and bulk, instead just taking the 18-105 as a lighter all-rounder. So I've started thinking about selling the 80-200 and/or 400mm and picking up a second hand 70-300VR instead - about half the weight so I'm more likely to take it with me, presumably faster focus being AF-S, VR might help make up for the smaller aperture?

I've read some good reviews of the 70-300VR, but can anyone advise how it compares to the old 80-200 f2.8 in real world use? Or suggest any other options to consider.

[Golaboots]

I'd never sell my nikkor 80-200 f2.8 even though it's the 1st gen one with the supposedly slow AF. Like you I went through a period of not taking it with me due to its weight.

Only after looking though most of my highest rated images and noticing that the majority were taken with this lens did I resolve to keep on carrying it.

In practice a Dslr with a heavy lens on it isn't really any less convenient to carry than a Dslr with a lighter lens on it. Perhaps invest in a decent strap if you've not got one.

I don't think there's anything truely pocketable with much reach on the lens aside from small sensor bridge camera which are generally pretty woeful and I would imagine even worse for Motorsport.

From an image quality point of view I had the nikon 18-200 prior to the 80-200 and the latter is miles better even though it's 20 years old.

[Simpo Two]

The 70-300VR is a good lens but VR won't always make up for the smaller aperture - it can't freeze moving objects.

I think of the 70-300 as a top amateur lens and the 80-200 as a more 'pro' lens, ie when results are more important than weight/size.

[K12beano]

Thoughts?

At some point you'll regret parting with any top quality lens. I miss parting with a 180mm f/2.8, although not so much the Mk1 70-200mm f/2.8 I replaced it with (rather oddly). But either was ahead of the 70-300 ED (the pre VR version) in terms of build and optical quality.

Whether you get more use or not might balance out that regret....

[CVP]

I'll balance this up by saying I'd been in the same dilemma at a point in the past. The 80-200 f2.8AF, whilst of superb image quality, was just so damn heavy it often got left behind. It certainly didn't come out hiking. That made it mainly useless. It got used for shooting sports where I could park within a mile or so of the location and so not too much carrying around. For birding I found it too short a focal length.

Conversely Mrs CVP has one of the new gen 70-300 f5.6 AFS VR telephotos and that does often get thrown in the bag. So at least it's there if she ever wants it. It seems fine for general birding on a crop sensor body. Yes it's f5.6 but she just gets the ISO up to 400/500 and everything seems OK. At the top end of the range she finds the local length a bit limiting but she's happy with the overall compromise that's being made.

I'd balance up what you want the lens for. If it's general use with a bit of sports / rallying then the 70-300 might be a compromise you could live with. If you're seeking out and out image quality at all times, then you'll likely have to bear the weight of the heavier lens.

Chris

[browno]

I don't know if it's any help, but I have recently gone the other way and bought a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (as I got a deal I couldn't refuse from my brother who is a pro, and wasn't really using the length). Before that I had a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, which I rate as a really nice lens - it was really sharp, and being a dx lens was smaller, and crucially about half the weight of the 70-200.

If you don't quite need the full 200mm, then it could be an option worth looking for - I got mine used from MPB for a very reasonable price (under £350), and really rated it, although it does seem to be quite a rare lens, with most people seeming to go either with an 18-200, or a fast 70-200...

[Mr Will]

Is it worth picking up either the 55-200 or 55-300? Both are DX lenses so cheaper and lighter than the FX telephotos.

[furtive]

I've got the 70-300VR and although it's great value for money, it's still a budget lens really. It is slow to focus and often seeks when focusing on fast moving subjects. You can get some great shots with it though:

DSC_9403 by furtive, on Flickr

Bentley Blower 4.5L Supercharged (1931) in the rain by furtive, on Flickr

More examples from mine here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/furtives/sets/721576...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/furtives/sets/721576...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/furtives/sets/721576...

[GravelBen]

Thanks folks, food for thought.

Hadn't thought about the 55-300 until now, reviews seem to say IQ is ok but the AF is very slow compared to the 70-300.

Those who have used both the AF 80-200 and AF-S 70-300VR, how does the AF speed and accuracy compare between those two on the same body?

The Tokina 400 focuses as slowly as a slow thing on slow Tuesday and needs plenty of light to give good results. Its fairly light for a 400mm lens at ~1kg, more compact than the 80-200 and didn't cost me much though. If I decide 300mm is long enough then I might be better off replacing that one instead.

As far as the weight goes, I agree that it doesn't make much difference in use but when you're carrying a 20-30kg pack for a few days its more of a factor. Everything is a compromise of some sort.

Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 31st March 23:46

[Simpo Two]

furtive said:

I've got the 70-300VR and although it's great value for money, it's still a budget lens really. It is slow to focus and often seeks when focusing on fast moving subjects.

Mine focuses fast enough (it's AF-S), and seems accurate, no complaints. But the body makes a difference too, because that's where the AF system is. Where you will notice AF difference though is in low light, simply because of the max aperture.

[CVP]

Simpo is spot on with his conclusion - it's about the compromise you are prepared to make. In low light you just can't beat that f2.8 max aperture but it does come with the associate weight penalty.

[furtive]

Simpo Two said:

Mine focuses fast enough (it's AF-S), and seems accurate, no complaints. But the body makes a difference too, because that's where the AF system is. Where you will notice AF difference though is in low light, simply because of the max aperture.

Ah ok. I bought a D7100 yesterday to replace my broken D80 but haven't tried it on that yet.

[Monty Python]

Why not get a superzoom bridge camera like the Nikon P610?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120469-REG/...

[Golaboots]

Monty Python said:

Why not get a superzoom bridge camera like the Nikon P610?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120469-REG/...

Super zooms offer the worst of all worlds don't they? Dlsr size, compact image quality.

[Mr Will]

Golaboots said:

Monty Python said:

Why not get a superzoom bridge camera like the Nikon P610?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1120469-REG/...

Super zooms offer the worst of all worlds don't they? Dlsr size, compact image quality.

Pretty much. If your top three requirements are zoom, zoom & more zoom then they might fit the bill but for most people there is a better alternative.

[Monty Python]

Mr Will said:

Pretty much. If your top three requirements are zoom, zoom & more zoom then they might fit the bill but for most people there is a better alternative.

If you want to carry both a body and a lens around with you, then that's fine - clearly a bridge camera isn't for you. But, if you want a decent camera that removes the lens then there's nothing wrong with them, and you don't have to go the extremes of the Nikon - there are plenty that have shorter focal length lenses.

https://www.parkcameras.com/p/L012582K/bridge-came...

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_cybers...

Edited by Monty Python on Friday 3rd April 07:31

[9.3]

55-300 on a D7100, compressed image of course for message boards, but plenty sharp enough for me.

[GravelBen]

Took the 80-200 into the bush with me over the weekend... I might have to keep it. Don't think I would have had much success in that light without f/2.8 goodness.

NZ Bush Robin by gravelben, on Flickr

NZ Bush Robin by gravelben, on Flickr

[Jonsv8]

I've been going round the houses with a variation of the question. Currently thinking of something like the Sigma 150-500 but it looks heavy for your needs. ....or the Sigma 80-400 maybe?

Update: after much reading and watching reviews I've ended up with a Tamron 70-300 which has had a Motorsport workout today and was great.

Edited by Jonsv8 on Sunday 26th April 22:06