Blade Canyon
Senior Member
Well I'm on my way to buy the 70-200mm 2.8 VRi right now, so there's no turning back unless it's chipped or something. You guys really helped me make a big decision here, and I'm thankful for it.
Too many choices!!! Help with new telephoto selection, please.
- Thread starter Blade Canyon
- Start date
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
Holy cow this 70-200 2.8 mother is heavy! 1.395 kg. I'm afraid it's going to rip the mount off the face of my D600.
I'm supporting the rig by the lens when shooting and carrying, but when I try to review the shots (and zoom in on the detail), both hands have to be on the camera body, and the lens is hanging straight down which puts the least amount of levered-stress on the mount. Even then, I'm nervous the lens will pull out of the camera.
I'll spend the weekend learning the best ways to handle this combo. The glass really is superb, I could tell as soon as I looked through the viewfinder. Thanks for all the advice.
My D600 is set to back button focus, but it sounds like the VR also kicks in when focusing. I thought one power-saving advantage of BBF was that VR didn't activate until the shutter button was pressed?
I'm supporting the rig by the lens when shooting and carrying, but when I try to review the shots (and zoom in on the detail), both hands have to be on the camera body, and the lens is hanging straight down which puts the least amount of levered-stress on the mount. Even then, I'm nervous the lens will pull out of the camera.
I'll spend the weekend learning the best ways to handle this combo. The glass really is superb, I could tell as soon as I looked through the viewfinder. Thanks for all the advice.
My D600 is set to back button focus, but it sounds like the VR also kicks in when focusing. I thought one power-saving advantage of BBF was that VR didn't activate until the shutter button was pressed?
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 I have weighs the same so I know what you're talking about. If it's any reassurance my '7100 is holding up just fine even though this lens has been my favorite walkabout for a while now. Still, I'd be really, REALLY happy if it magically shed a couple pounds.
Well... Um... I think you just misunderstood something then.
...
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
My newly ordered 70-200 VRII should be here this afternoon....getting excited, but from the sounds of it, I better start lifting weights in order to carry it around!
Yea, sure, that will prepare you.... It is heavy, so don't be shocked when the delivery person uses a fork lift to carry it to your door.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
yep....my shoulder still hurts from lugging the 14-24 around last weekend....now I'll have two monsters in my bag!
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
You guys won't believe this, but after buying the 70-200mm 2.8 yesterday, I got a message today from the owner of the 28-300mm lens (over $1k new, $800 refurbed, and over $700 on ebay used). He was desperate for cash and offered to sell it for $375, so I bought that, too. I couldn't pass up that good price because I'm worried the 70-200 is just too darned heavy and impractical to lug all over Manhattan in August. The 28-300 is 1.3 pounds lighter.
For now I have both, and will use both. Test pics coming tomorrow afternoon.
For now I have both, and will use both. Test pics coming tomorrow afternoon.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
My 70-200 VR II showed up a few minutes ago....right along with some nice edibles from our son for Mother's Day....how can she get mad? With the chocolate and flowers she'll be getting...she'll be in heaven (and so will I). lol
Are you sure the 28-300 is the newer AF-S model? There used to be an AF-D 23-300 I think... If it's the newer one, then you really made a deal if it works as promised.
With heavy lenses like that, you are supposed to hold the combo by the lens not the camera. It does put undo stress on the lens mount. I read or heard that somewhere but can't find it.
Congratulations and enjoy!
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. That's the one.
That's why I couldn't say no, even after buying the heavier 70-200 the day before. It's going to be a fun weekend playing with both. If I could just get the dogs to hold still...
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
I need to do a more controlled test before posting any pics, but so far I agree with you that the 70-200 2.8 at full zoom produces a better image than the 28-300 at full zoom, even after cropping to produce the same view. The 28-300, however, for it's portability and expanded wide-range convenience, still produces very acceptable images for those times you don't need the 2.8 extra light. The bokeh on the 70-200 is smoother, even when both lenses are at the same aperture.
I think it really comes down to this. The 70-200 is about as good as it gets in terms of clarity and bokeh on a zoom. However, it's heavy and expensive by comparison to a 28-300 and the best lens is the one you have and actually take out. I often use my 24-120 rather than 70-200 because the former is convenient and easy, so it's the best lens in that situation. On the other hand, when I do use the 70-200 I ask myself why I ever take it off the camera.
In a few weeks we are doing a 3 week trip in the states. I did think about getting the 28-300 and I'm sure I would have had some great results, but I would always have wondered what they would have been like with the 70-200 given that this is one of those trips we probably won't repeat. I ended up buying a bigger bag rather than the other lens.
I know this ramble of mine probably doesn't help, it's just my thoughts on the pros and cons.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Blade Canyon
Senior Member
Okay, here's the payoff. As stated in my original post, the problem and search for a solution started when my wife's orchestra was playing in a fairly bright church, which had daylight coming in through clear windows, but I had problems getting sharp handheld shots. Thus my search for VR and more light in a zoom. Thanks to everyone who offered advice and helped convince me that it was time to shed some coin for a more serious lens.
The first pic is from the first concert, Sigma 70-300mm 5.6 with no VR. This photo is typical of most of the shots that day. The second pic is from a later concert in a much darker auditorium with the 70-200mm 2.8 with the VR turned on. These images are not directly comparable due to much higher ISO in the second one, but I am satisfied with the results from the new lens. The second pic is actually cropped to about 60% showing from the original image.
The first pic is from the first concert, Sigma 70-300mm 5.6 with no VR. This photo is typical of most of the shots that day. The second pic is from a later concert in a much darker auditorium with the 70-200mm 2.8 with the VR turned on. These images are not directly comparable due to much higher ISO in the second one, but I am satisfied with the results from the new lens. The second pic is actually cropped to about 60% showing from the original image.
Last edited:
I notice that in both the shots you have used the maximum reach of your lense. If most of your shots are going to be at the longer end, then a fast prime may give you better results. The images will be sharper and the lense much lighter.
I myself prefer smaller apertures (F4 - F7) for such shots as that gives me better DOF, unless the light is low when I have to shoot with the lense wide open.
The Nikon will handle contrast better than the Sigma, and it definitely looks like the second photo has better contrast. I tweaked the first photo slightly by increasing the contrast just a little then darkened the brightness a hair. Not sure it's what you are after, but there is no doubt that the Nikon is the better lens. Congratulations!
Congratulations!