Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BF Hammer" data-source="post: 751410" data-attributes="member: 48483"><p>My current lens situation is relevant here. Have both a D750 FX and D7000 DX body. My other telephoto lenses are the 24-120mm f/4 kit lens from the D750, Tamron 18-270mm Dx format (PZD version), Sigma 150-600mm C, and one of the subjects of my question: Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED.</p><p></p><p>I've had the 70-300mm for a long time. I have not shot photos with it pretty much since getting the Sigma 150-600mm in 2018. While it was my longest reach lens for many years, I never was really happy with the slow screw-drive autofocus, soft images, and prominent coma and fringing. Optically the Sigma just outperforms in all ways. But... size is an issue sometimes.</p><p></p><p>In FX format, I have a small gap between 120mm and 150mm. Nothing really, but it would be nice to have a smaller size and lighter lens to cover a range I would likely want to handhold at 70-200mm. Mainly for wildlife, but could be applied for astrophotography too. I don't see many options here for under $2K. I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget. But the older design 80-200mm f/2.8 lens is still out there. Affordable enough to me, does anybody think it would be worth trading in a 70-300mm and replacing it with the 80-200mm? Is the lack of VR going to drive me nuts? (none on the current 70-300mm as is).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BF Hammer, post: 751410, member: 48483"] My current lens situation is relevant here. Have both a D750 FX and D7000 DX body. My other telephoto lenses are the 24-120mm f/4 kit lens from the D750, Tamron 18-270mm Dx format (PZD version), Sigma 150-600mm C, and one of the subjects of my question: Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED. I've had the 70-300mm for a long time. I have not shot photos with it pretty much since getting the Sigma 150-600mm in 2018. While it was my longest reach lens for many years, I never was really happy with the slow screw-drive autofocus, soft images, and prominent coma and fringing. Optically the Sigma just outperforms in all ways. But... size is an issue sometimes. In FX format, I have a small gap between 120mm and 150mm. Nothing really, but it would be nice to have a smaller size and lighter lens to cover a range I would likely want to handhold at 70-200mm. Mainly for wildlife, but could be applied for astrophotography too. I don't see many options here for under $2K. I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget. But the older design 80-200mm f/2.8 lens is still out there. Affordable enough to me, does anybody think it would be worth trading in a 70-300mm and replacing it with the 80-200mm? Is the lack of VR going to drive me nuts? (none on the current 70-300mm as is). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Any opinions on Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 vs 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED?
Top