Telephoto rationalisation thoughts? (Nikon DX)
Discussion
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.
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.
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.
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
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
NZ Bush Robin by gravelben, on FlickrNZ Bush Robin by gravelben, on FlickrGassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff