Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Heading down to Orlando and making my way north to Birmingham at the beginning of next month.
I want to travel light. I'm leaning towards taking my 7100 and a few lenses.
The DX 35mm 1.8 is a no brainer - too sharpe and takes up next to no room. May also tuck my 50mm 1.8 AF lens into a corner of my bag.
My main walk about lens will be the Nikkor 16-85, I like it's performance, and range - and it is not that big or heavy.
The stickler for me is the long lens. I'm not taking the 200-500mm ... Just too big (and too costly to risk on an airplane)
My options:
Tamron 70-300 the "F 4-5.6 Di VC USD" version. It is an FX lens and weighs in at 1735 grams, it is the one mounted on the camera
The smallest is the Nikkor DX 55-300 (1470 grams) and the 'tank' is a 70-200 2.8 VRI which came in at 2396 grams, or two pounds more than the smallest one.
I took all three for a test run today shooting birds in my backyard (it was 25 below - my fingers were numb).
I also tried all three with my Kenko 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. I double checked first to make sure no chance of glass to glass contact when the 55-300 was at 55 - it was fine. Both T.C.'s worked on all three lenses. Performance varied. The 2.0 on the 55-300 had too hard of a time focusing to be useful, better but still a bother on the 70-300, but the 70-200 took on the 2x TC without batting an eye and performed well at 400mm.
So I can get to 400 or 300x1.4 or 420mm on all three lenses with at T.C. or two.
T.C.'s are small (well the 2x is smallish) and I can find a corner for them in my luggage. It is just a bother to put them on and off.
Of course they do degrade I.Q. and speed (both in F stops and focus speed).
I wasn't surprised to find the 2.8 Tank out performed the other two easily. It also cost as much as the other two put together.
But it is heavy.
The surprise was in the marginal if any difference between the 55-300 and the 70-300. I had expected the Tamron to be better, but not really. It is an FX lens.
So based on that do I go for the 55-300, enjoy a bit more room at the wide end and only have to slap on the 1.4 if really need to get to that 420mm?
Or do I take the tank and get the best pictures I can get?
Here are three samples from my trials today
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 with Kenko 2x TC
Tamron 70-300 with Kenko 1.4 TC
+
Nikkor 55-300 -
This one is cropped a lot
All three can do the job.
I just need to pick one.
The Tank - and say I just wanted to build some muscles while walking around the zoo, or the 55-300, enjoy the range and the light weight, and stop telling myself the pictures are 'good enough'.
"Have you ever had to make up your mind, take one and leave the other behind??" hum it with me you oldies out there.
I want to travel light. I'm leaning towards taking my 7100 and a few lenses.
The DX 35mm 1.8 is a no brainer - too sharpe and takes up next to no room. May also tuck my 50mm 1.8 AF lens into a corner of my bag.
My main walk about lens will be the Nikkor 16-85, I like it's performance, and range - and it is not that big or heavy.
The stickler for me is the long lens. I'm not taking the 200-500mm ... Just too big (and too costly to risk on an airplane)
My options:
Tamron 70-300 the "F 4-5.6 Di VC USD" version. It is an FX lens and weighs in at 1735 grams, it is the one mounted on the camera
The smallest is the Nikkor DX 55-300 (1470 grams) and the 'tank' is a 70-200 2.8 VRI which came in at 2396 grams, or two pounds more than the smallest one.
I took all three for a test run today shooting birds in my backyard (it was 25 below - my fingers were numb).
I also tried all three with my Kenko 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters. I double checked first to make sure no chance of glass to glass contact when the 55-300 was at 55 - it was fine. Both T.C.'s worked on all three lenses. Performance varied. The 2.0 on the 55-300 had too hard of a time focusing to be useful, better but still a bother on the 70-300, but the 70-200 took on the 2x TC without batting an eye and performed well at 400mm.
So I can get to 400 or 300x1.4 or 420mm on all three lenses with at T.C. or two.
T.C.'s are small (well the 2x is smallish) and I can find a corner for them in my luggage. It is just a bother to put them on and off.
Of course they do degrade I.Q. and speed (both in F stops and focus speed).
I wasn't surprised to find the 2.8 Tank out performed the other two easily. It also cost as much as the other two put together.
But it is heavy.
The surprise was in the marginal if any difference between the 55-300 and the 70-300. I had expected the Tamron to be better, but not really. It is an FX lens.
So based on that do I go for the 55-300, enjoy a bit more room at the wide end and only have to slap on the 1.4 if really need to get to that 420mm?
Or do I take the tank and get the best pictures I can get?
Here are three samples from my trials today
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 with Kenko 2x TC
Tamron 70-300 with Kenko 1.4 TC
+
Nikkor 55-300 -
This one is cropped a lot
All three can do the job.
I just need to pick one.
The Tank - and say I just wanted to build some muscles while walking around the zoo, or the 55-300, enjoy the range and the light weight, and stop telling myself the pictures are 'good enough'.
"Have you ever had to make up your mind, take one and leave the other behind??" hum it with me you oldies out there.
Last edited: