Lens Question

LBC

New member
So i'm considering buying the Nikkor 70-300mm lens. I shoot a lot of outdoor wildlife shots, birds, landscape etc. All reviews indicate that it is a great lens.

What i have right now is this:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/80-200mm-f28-d/80-200mm-f28-d-950.jpg

What i'm looking at buying is this:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens 2197 B&H

OR this:

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED 2161 B&H

I want more zoom for outdoor wildlife but I can't get over the fact that the newer version of the 80-200mm lens costs 2 or 3 times more than the 55-300 and twice as much as the 70-300mm.

I'm very new to photography still and so I don't know what the difference is between the 55-300mm and the 70-300mm that makes one cost so much more than the other? And what is the difference between those and the 80-200mm that costs much more than either?

Am I going to get any more reach with either 300mm lens over the 200mm I already have? The 80-200mm I have is a hand me down, but in great shape and takes great pictures; I feel like I am missing the true value of the lens I have and am worried that either of the 300mm lenses won't give me any additional reach over my current 200mm.

Any help and advice you can offer will be greatly appreciated! The body I have is the Nikon D7000 btw. Thanks!
 

Tobrew

Senior Member
The lens you currently have is a fast f2.8 lens and will most likely be superior to both the 55-300 and the 70-300 which are slow lenses. The equivalent to what you have now would be the highly regarded 70-200 f2.8 which is quite expensive but worth it. The 300mm lenses will give you a little more reach but sacrifice the ability to shoot in lower light and at higher apertures that your f2.8 gives.
 

westmill

Banned
If you are after a walk around lens I highly recomend the 70-210 F4-5.6 D
I will point out the differance between 200 or 210 to 300mm is smaller than you might think in reality.
If you seriously beleive you need more reach, I would aim at 400mm :D


Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 Review
 

pedroj

Senior Member
Welcome...I have the 80-200mm and it is great....Buy yourself a Nikon 1.4 tele-converter gives you over 300mm and cheaper then buying another lens that wouldn't be as good as this combo...
 

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
Welcome...I have the 80-200mm and it is great....Buy yourself a Nikon 1.4 tele-converter gives you over 300mm and cheaper then buying another lens that wouldn't be as good as this combo...

^^This sounds like a better option. I like my 70-300, but if I had a 80-200 f2.8, I would stick with the 80-200.
 

westmill

Banned
I have the 80-200 F2.8 too. And I agree with Pedroj here.... a good idea lol.
With me though, i just never use it, other than for the horse racing. It's simply too big and heavy to cart around anywhere.
It won't even fit in my bag lol. Using the converter would add another stop, effectively making it an F4 which isn't bad.
You obviously lose a bit of quality, too, using a converter. The 80-200 is a bit soft and lacks contrast used wide open so it needs stopping
down anyway. I've not used it with a converter so I don't know how it would affect focus speed.
Weighing everything up, I would say this is the way to go... IF.... you already carry this lens around with you. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gfinlayson

Senior Member
The main issue I see with the 70-300 is that it's not a fast lens. Although it has VR, which will let you use low shutter speeds for static subjects, you'll struggle to get a fast enough shutter for moving subjects such as birds in flight in less than ideal lighting. The 80-200 with a 1.4TC (you'll need a Kenko Pro to retain AF on the screw drive 80-200) gives you a 280mm f/4. The 70-300 is f/5.6 at 300mm which is a full stop slower.Wide open isn't ideal with a TC on the 80-200, but it's perfectly useable, and at f/5.6 it improves somewhat. Bear in mind too that the 70-300 isn't that sharp at 300mm, and is best at about f/8.I've often thought of adding a 70-300 to my bag as a good walk-around telephoto due to it's relatively small size, but I'd never give up my 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S for it!My serious wildlife lens is the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 EX DG HSM, but that's in a whole different league and despite costing £2000 less than the Nikon, still required very in depth negotiations with Mrs. F!:couple_inlove:
 
Last edited:
Top