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
Help decide between 2 lenses - URGENT
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="Mycenius" data-source="post: 168424" data-attributes="member: 14714"><p>No - I guess not, but it is slightly heavier than either 70-300, and more important the f/2.8 is of course significantly heavier than the other 3... I've read a lot about the weight being noticeable over time (i.e. when you've carried it around on your camera for half a day or had it slung around your neck. On a related note I see the 70-200 f/4 is looking to be a very very good telephoto-zoom lens by all accounts - I think it sounds a bit underrated compared to the f/2.8 from what many people have told me...</p><p></p><p>Nikon 70-300: 0.745kg 143mm</p><p>Tamron 70-300: 0.756kg 151mm</p><p>Nikon 70-200 f/4: 0.850kg 178mm</p><p>Nikon 70-200 f/2.8: 1.540kg 206mm</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well on a DX camera it is 105mm-450mm of course <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> - so you should actually get up to 300mm equivalent before the softness hits (i.e. the same as if you had a 70-200 zoom) - and as mentioned the Tamron is rated to be a bit sharper in that top end (so not quite as soft as the Nikon). Either way on a DX you'd probably rarely need to push right out to the 300mm (as that's 450mm) which is the weakest area of performance according to several people (incl. Thom Hogan). I'd love a 70-200 f/4 but it's almost 4x the cost of the Tamron 70-300 here, and I just don't know if I'd use the zoom range enough to justify the investment. And Thom Hogan rates the Nikon 70-300 when used in the 70-200 range (105-300 equivalent) as basically optically faultless.</p><p></p><p>But anyway, yes if you mean by a DX Travel Lens that it's a good companion to a DX body for light weight travel and long zoom - definitely - I hope so as it's where I am planning to head... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>Appreciate the response...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mycenius, post: 168424, member: 14714"] No - I guess not, but it is slightly heavier than either 70-300, and more important the f/2.8 is of course significantly heavier than the other 3... I've read a lot about the weight being noticeable over time (i.e. when you've carried it around on your camera for half a day or had it slung around your neck. On a related note I see the 70-200 f/4 is looking to be a very very good telephoto-zoom lens by all accounts - I think it sounds a bit underrated compared to the f/2.8 from what many people have told me... Nikon 70-300: 0.745kg 143mm Tamron 70-300: 0.756kg 151mm Nikon 70-200 f/4: 0.850kg 178mm Nikon 70-200 f/2.8: 1.540kg 206mm Well on a DX camera it is 105mm-450mm of course :) - so you should actually get up to 300mm equivalent before the softness hits (i.e. the same as if you had a 70-200 zoom) - and as mentioned the Tamron is rated to be a bit sharper in that top end (so not quite as soft as the Nikon). Either way on a DX you'd probably rarely need to push right out to the 300mm (as that's 450mm) which is the weakest area of performance according to several people (incl. Thom Hogan). I'd love a 70-200 f/4 but it's almost 4x the cost of the Tamron 70-300 here, and I just don't know if I'd use the zoom range enough to justify the investment. And Thom Hogan rates the Nikon 70-300 when used in the 70-200 range (105-300 equivalent) as basically optically faultless. But anyway, yes if you mean by a DX Travel Lens that it's a good companion to a DX body for light weight travel and long zoom - definitely - I hope so as it's where I am planning to head... :) :D Appreciate the response... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Help decide between 2 lenses - URGENT
Top
