BF Hammer
Senior Member
My current lens situation is relevant here. Have both a D750 FX and D7000 DX body. My other telephoto lenses are the 24-120mm f/4 kit lens from the D750, Tamron 18-270mm Dx format (PZD version), Sigma 150-600mm C, and one of the subjects of my question: Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED.
I've had the 70-300mm for a long time. I have not shot photos with it pretty much since getting the Sigma 150-600mm in 2018. While it was my longest reach lens for many years, I never was really happy with the slow screw-drive autofocus, soft images, and prominent coma and fringing. Optically the Sigma just outperforms in all ways. But... size is an issue sometimes.
In FX format, I have a small gap between 120mm and 150mm. Nothing really, but it would be nice to have a smaller size and lighter lens to cover a range I would likely want to handhold at 70-200mm. Mainly for wildlife, but could be applied for astrophotography too. I don't see many options here for under $2K. I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget. But the older design 80-200mm f/2.8 lens is still out there. Affordable enough to me, does anybody think it would be worth trading in a 70-300mm and replacing it with the 80-200mm? Is the lack of VR going to drive me nuts? (none on the current 70-300mm as is).
I've had the 70-300mm for a long time. I have not shot photos with it pretty much since getting the Sigma 150-600mm in 2018. While it was my longest reach lens for many years, I never was really happy with the slow screw-drive autofocus, soft images, and prominent coma and fringing. Optically the Sigma just outperforms in all ways. But... size is an issue sometimes.
In FX format, I have a small gap between 120mm and 150mm. Nothing really, but it would be nice to have a smaller size and lighter lens to cover a range I would likely want to handhold at 70-200mm. Mainly for wildlife, but could be applied for astrophotography too. I don't see many options here for under $2K. I would love to see a constant f/4 option in this range as I've been pleased with the 24-120mm lens. But nobody offers that. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR just not going to happen in my budget. But the older design 80-200mm f/2.8 lens is still out there. Affordable enough to me, does anybody think it would be worth trading in a 70-300mm and replacing it with the 80-200mm? Is the lack of VR going to drive me nuts? (none on the current 70-300mm as is).