Thanks useful information: 
Not so much 'rubbish' .. but more aptly described as "not quite as good" focus response, image quality .. durability, etc.Originally Posted by BeatleJohn
I'm sure it'll capture some OK images, but the f/4 lens would capture much better images. You'll only really see this when you zoom into the image to view more detail in it.
If you shoot and never crop, I doubt you'd complain about the quality of the kit telephoto lens.
But when you're shooting small birds at only 200mm, they're very hard to get close too to fill the frame. So at that focal length you're more than likely to be cropping images heavily.
The more expensive lens will give you that possibility more so than the cheaper lens of the same focal length.
The accepted wisdom with lenses is that as you approach the longer end of a zoom lens focal length, IQ slow deteriorates.
So a cheaper 70-300mm lens(such as the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 option) at 200mm will most likely give you similar IQ to the 70-200/4 lens at 200mm.
I'm not well versed on non Nikon camera pricing, as I don't search for them much.
But I know that a Nikon D7200 + 70-300/4.5-5.6 combo could be had for $2K at a local real store. And I'm sure a deal could be negotiated for a bit of a discount on that price(or a few added extras thrown in) under the guise of good customer relations
An FYI on kit lenses:
You may well be quite happy with the image quality of the kit telephoto lens at the long end ... but you definitely wouldn't be the first person to subsequently seek out a better lens after a bit of use of that kit telephoto either. Which then relegates the kit tele lens to the confines of a shelf or a drawer at home.
Reply With Quote
