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
Too many choices!!! Help with new telephoto selection, please.
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="Krs_2007" data-source="post: 303370" data-attributes="member: 12948"><p>I own both the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 VRII. Both great lenses and the F4 never let me down. I just upgraded to the 2.8 to gain the extra stop of light for night games and wrestling matches. I will say that there are slight differences between the 2 and I give the edge to the 2.8. It is faster in the aperture sense, the focusing seems slightly faster and the bokeh at 2.8 is what I am really excited about. If you have shot youth sports then you know you can't pick your backgrounds, well at 2.8 it doesn't matter because its blurred/blown out and not as distracting as it was F4.</p><p></p><p>I had the 70-300 VRII, nice lens never let me down but was slower than the 70-200's and it was soft at 300 which drove me crazy when shooting distances hand held. Shooting my sons sports does not allow a tripod and a monopod is slow, so I hand hold and maybe the 70-300 would have been better on the long side with a tripod/monopod, maybe not. Anyway I sold the lens because the 70-200 f4 replaced it and it wasn't needed anymore. Also the 70-300 5.6 at night was not fun to deal with all of the noise.</p><p></p><p>If you have high enough resolution from your camera you can get by with the 200 focal length and crop on the computer which is what I do most of the time and the pictures are nice and clear.</p><p></p><p>I also wanted the 2.8 so I can use a TC, which I just got and its the 2.0 so I have yet to play with it. The way I see it is if the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2.0 TC results in better IQ over the 70-300 then its a win win for me as it will be a 400 focal length at f5.6 on the long end. I know some report softness on the long end but that remains to be seen.</p><p></p><p>At this point between the Nikon lenses I would rate them like this. 70-200 f2.8 VRII, 70-200 f4, 70-300 VRII. I can't speak to the TC yet and nor can I speak about the other lens choices.</p><p></p><p>I would suggest renting if you still are not sure but I will say that I dont regret the 70-200 f2.8 even though it was huge chunk of change. It should last me a lifetime if I take care of it.</p><p></p><p>Hope some of this helps because it took me a little over a year to finally get the f2.8.</p><p></p><p>Also, this reminds me I need to get the f4 posted to sale on here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Krs_2007, post: 303370, member: 12948"] I own both the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 VRII. Both great lenses and the F4 never let me down. I just upgraded to the 2.8 to gain the extra stop of light for night games and wrestling matches. I will say that there are slight differences between the 2 and I give the edge to the 2.8. It is faster in the aperture sense, the focusing seems slightly faster and the bokeh at 2.8 is what I am really excited about. If you have shot youth sports then you know you can't pick your backgrounds, well at 2.8 it doesn't matter because its blurred/blown out and not as distracting as it was F4. I had the 70-300 VRII, nice lens never let me down but was slower than the 70-200's and it was soft at 300 which drove me crazy when shooting distances hand held. Shooting my sons sports does not allow a tripod and a monopod is slow, so I hand hold and maybe the 70-300 would have been better on the long side with a tripod/monopod, maybe not. Anyway I sold the lens because the 70-200 f4 replaced it and it wasn't needed anymore. Also the 70-300 5.6 at night was not fun to deal with all of the noise. If you have high enough resolution from your camera you can get by with the 200 focal length and crop on the computer which is what I do most of the time and the pictures are nice and clear. I also wanted the 2.8 so I can use a TC, which I just got and its the 2.0 so I have yet to play with it. The way I see it is if the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2.0 TC results in better IQ over the 70-300 then its a win win for me as it will be a 400 focal length at f5.6 on the long end. I know some report softness on the long end but that remains to be seen. At this point between the Nikon lenses I would rate them like this. 70-200 f2.8 VRII, 70-200 f4, 70-300 VRII. I can't speak to the TC yet and nor can I speak about the other lens choices. I would suggest renting if you still are not sure but I will say that I dont regret the 70-200 f2.8 even though it was huge chunk of change. It should last me a lifetime if I take care of it. Hope some of this helps because it took me a little over a year to finally get the f2.8. Also, this reminds me I need to get the f4 posted to sale on here. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
Too many choices!!! Help with new telephoto selection, please.
Top
