Lens Dilema

fhibbs12

Senior Member
Well I got money to spend and an addiction to satisfy....

Background

I don't get paid and don't want to. I would consider myself to be an advanced amature. Taking portaits/jobs for friends/family that can't afford otherwise. I enjoy taking pictures and enjoy helping others so together this is a great hobby of mine.

Current Lenses

24-85g - walk around
50 1.8 and 85 1.8 - Job specific.

As you can see I am missing out of the wide and long ends. My budget is roughly $1400 dollars and I have been killing myself in reviews for over a month. My options are as follows.

Option 1.

Nikon 70-200 f/4. This will pretty much limit me to one lens purchase and still be limiting me in the 200-300 range which I beleive I need for youth sports. Cropped to 300mm I guess would it be just as good as the Tamron 70-300 or the nikon 70-300 in the 200-300 range which I am concerned with.

Total Cost $1400

Option 2.

Nikon 70-300 VR , for youth sports, and a nikon 28 f/1.8g, to shoot low light/indoor wide angle. It also finishes off my G prime set.

Total Cost $1300

Option 3.

Tamron 70-300 VC, I have read over and over this lens is sharper at the +200 range than the Nikon version. I would like to stay nikon but also want the better of the two. Pairing that with the nikon 28 f/1.8 also.

Total Cost $1050
 

§am

Senior Member
My personal opinion would be option 2.

The 70-300 would complement your 24-85, and as you said, the 28mm will complete your trinity of primes.
I've no experience of the Tamron 70-300mm so couldn't say whether option 3 might be better or not, but if you've done your homework and you think it is, then again IMO, that's a good option too.

However, you're not getting the true wide end that you may need, and I would say maybe consider throwing a few hundred more $ into the equation and get yourself a Tokina 11-16mm too once you have the extra money :)
 

fhibbs12

Senior Member
Dave,

Are you happy with the sharpness mainly in the center from 250-300 with the Nikon. The reviews of it being soft are the only thing that has me worried.

Thank you
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I've read those words too but to be completely honest, I've not once had an issue with this lens. In fact, it's really the only reason I've not opted for the much more expensive 70-200mm f/2.8.

Here's an example of a shot I took at 300mm at a moving object with the lens wide open (f-5.6), seems pretty sharp to me especially considering it was a moving object and I had seconds to pop off this shot.

_D8A0774.jpg
 

Dave_W

The Dude
Here's another shot that may be a better comparator. I took these all at 300mm at f-6, maybe if you did some pixel peeping you might find another lens to be sharper but I'm okay with it.

Edit - I think this may be too small to really see the sharpness, unfortunately the other version of this is too large to post.


skimboard triptych 1-sm.jpg
 
Last edited:

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Option 1 would be my personal choice. If my family and friends requires me to shoot between 200 - 300mm, then maybe I need to move much closer.

Shooting on the long end, the prime rules, so get the 300mm f4 AFS for future purchase.

That's just my two cents.
 
Top