User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: which telephoto zoom?

  1. #1
    Member super duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Nov 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    which telephoto zoom?

    I would like to add a 300mm zoom lens to my little collection (eventually). The 2 lenses I am comparing are the Nikkor 55-300mm dx lens, and the Nikkor 70-300mm fx.

    I already have the 18-200mm, so I'm not worried about the difference in zoom ranges. Both lenses have identical apertures and similar minimum focasing distances. The FX lens has IF-ED, while the DX lens is missing one of these acronyms.

    The FX lens isn't *too* much dearer, but I normally steer clear of FX lenses, as I think you're paying for something you're not using (ie a larger sensor, larger glass).

    I would be using the lens to take pics of my kids in situations where you cannot get in close (eg, sports, parks etc). For this reason I don't want a large aperture (and decreased depth of feild-I wanna capture the whole image), but I still want nice sharp images.

    Your thoughts are greatly appreciated

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    70-300 VR

    Ther's no such things as a fx lens that's bad for DX
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    super duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Nov 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ther's no such things as a fx lens that's bad for DX
    I never said it was
    I normally steer clear of FX lenses, as I think you're paying for something you're not using (ie a larger sensor, larger glass).

  4. #4
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,874
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another vote for the 70-300 VR, it is THE bargain lens in the Nikon tele zoom line up and will be streets ahead of the 55-300 in resale value down the track.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,361
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by super duper View Post

    The FX lens isn't *too* much dearer, but I normally steer clear of FX lenses, as I think you're paying for something you're not using (ie a larger sensor, larger glass).
    True, if you're concerned about the extra size/weight/cost.
    But using DX, you're using the best bits of glass in the middle. The differences may only show up pixel peeping but that's up to you to decide whether the difference is worth it.
    Nikon FX

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I really like the new AF-S Nikkor 28-300 FX lens better on my D7000 than the 18-200 or 70-300 VR

  7. #7
    Member Geoff3dmn's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 2010
    Location
    Central Victoria
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was considering the same issue 55-300VR or 70-300VR until I actually went to the shop and had a close look at them.

    The 70-300 just feels better built (no not pro level but not plastic kit lens level either) whereas the 55-300 feels like the budget 18-55/55-200 lenses that came with my D90.

    I see the 70-300VR as a 'keeper' lens (given that my budget will never stretch to a Nikon 70-200!) and the 55-300VR as a lens that I'd want to upgrade (like I wanted to upgrade the 55-200).
    Last edited by Geoff3dmn; 01-02-2011 at 8:40pm.

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter
    super duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Nov 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have no ruled the 55-300mm off my list as it doesn't have IF and is slow to autofocus. I'm now tossing between the 70-300 and the 28-300. I'm half inclinded to save my bucks and go the 70-300, but RRoger, your posts about your lens are making me think about it. Aside from the great versatility of the 28-300mm, why is it better?

  9. #9
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,759
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    Another vote for the 70-300 VR, it is THE bargain lens in the Nikon tele zoom line up and will be streets ahead of the 55-300 in resale value down the track.
    Agreed.

    I have shot with the 70-300 VR and it is excellent. Up to about 220mm it is almost as good as any of the pro grade Nikon zooms in that particular range IQ wise and it ain't too shabby right to 300mm. The best bargain Nikon zoom, IMO. For the price, highly recommended.

    However, if you want to use a TC with your zoom to extend it's range, then you really need to opt for one of the pro grade zooms like the 70-200 f2.8 VR and add a 1.4x TCII - which gives you 98mm-280mm @ f4, or 2x TCIII - which gives you 140mm - 400mm f5.6. I highly recommend the latter combo as this is what I use regularly and the IQ is amazing. Fitting a TC to the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR you will lose too much light for efficient AF and IQ will suffer too much.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Aug 2010
    Location
    Richmond
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 70-300 VR is an excellent lens and in my view a pretty clear choice over the plasticky 55-300VR.

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter
    super duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Nov 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    However, if you want to use a TC with your zoom
    I think I read in my manual that my camera (D3000) isn't compatible with a TC. I'm going to have to go back and have a good re-read.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by super duper View Post
    I have no ruled the 55-300mm off my list as it doesn't have IF and is slow to autofocus. I'm now tossing between the 70-300 and the 28-300. I'm half inclinded to save my bucks and go the 70-300, but RRoger, your posts about your lens are making me think about it. Aside from the great versatility of the 28-300mm, why is it better?
    So often it really comes down to personal choice.
    If you don't use the 28-70 range much, you might like the 70-300 better.
    I like the image quality I get with the 28-300.
    I have used it only with the D7000 so far.
    Indoor video, walk around and for landscape picture taking on hikes.
    I've even used it in a non professional way to take macro shots of flowers.

    I also have a 28-70, 70-200, and 80-400. On hikes, I prefer to carry one smaller and lighter lens.

  13. #13
    Member
    Threadstarter
    super duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Nov 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for that RRoger, you've left me with a lot to think about.

  14. #14
    Member greenpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have been using the 55-200mm for some years and have just upgraded to the 70-300mm on a DX
    only major difference i have noticed is the weight, the 55-200 is alot lighter. and of course the extra 100mm on the 70-300
    also noticed the 70-300 is slightly soft from about 250>300mm
    Let us know which one you end up getting
    D7000
    D40X
    10.5mm f/2.8
    12-24mm f/4
    35mm f/1.8
    70-200mm f/2.8 OS
    www.flickr.com/green_pea

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Regular J.davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Dec 2008
    Location
    Willowbank
    Posts
    1,089
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, on a croped body it is 105-300 and the images are tack sharp and not a lot of $ for the non OS version. HSM is VERY quick and the lens produces very good colour rendition.
    Regards
    John
    Nikon D750, Sigma 105mm OS Macro, Tokina 16-28 F2.8, Sigma 24-105 Art, Sigma 150-600C,
    Benro Tripod and Monopod with Arca plates

  16. #16
    Member
    Threadstarter
    super duper's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Nov 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    93
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, on a croped body it is 105-300
    My understanding of this is that the angle view would be equiv to that of 105-300mm, but you don't get any closer to the action. I want to be able to zoom in to 300mm, wouldn't a 200mm zoom give the same size picture on any size sensor?

  17. #17
    Member fastr1red's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have both the 70-300 and the 55-200. I like the 300 most as it seems sharper. How about something bigger?
    The Sigma 50-500 (bigma) is a great lens as well, but only thing it's just so heavy.
    I think out of the lot I like the 300 and will end up selling the 55-200 for a 200/2.8.
    Currently using;
    Nikon D7000
    Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRII, 85/1.4G, 70-300VR
    Sigmas 50/1.4EX, 17-50/2.8, 50-500 Bigma
    Tokina 11-16/2.8

    Lotsa other bits.

  18. #18
    Member fastr1red's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by J.davis View Post
    Have a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, on a croped body it is 105-300 and the images are tack sharp and not a lot of $ for the non OS version. HSM is VERY quick and the lens produces very good colour rendition.
    JOhn, do you know how the Sigma 70-200/2.8 compares with the equiv Nikon?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Perhaps I can help as I've used both, and have seen literally dozens of side by side reviewed

    They both have very fast and accurate focus
    Nikon vr is slightly better, one stop, than sigma os
    The nikon is slightly sharper at 2.8

    So, sigma represents very good value

  20. #20
    A. P's Culinary Indiscriminant mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Cronulla, Sydney
    Posts
    8,329
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mongo disagrees with all of it !

    For what you want to use it for, and given that you already have a good zoom to 200mm, Mongo would much rather buy a very good used 300mm f4 for the same money and really have reach, speed and image quality with the added ability to add a X1.4 converter one of these days if you need it.

    PS - or a used 100-300mm f4 sigma
    Last edited by mongo; 04-02-2011 at 9:12pm.
    Nikon and Pentax user



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •