| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|||||||
| 80-400 v 200-500 v 300+1.4tc. - Page 3 | |
| Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 05:47 |
|
21st Post |
jk
|
Eric wrote: jk wrote: What crystals do you have? 200-500 size or 300 size 
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 06:36 |
|
22nd Post |
Robert
|
jk wrote:Eric wrote:jk wrote: Agreed, Eric is being naughty, tantalising! LOL Does the 70-300mm f4.5 - 5.6 VR come into this equation? Or it the relatively slow, long end TOO slow @ 5.6. Also, perhaps not sufficient IQ to compete with the 300mm f4? http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm The way I see it is if you have a 300 and a half decent DX body, then that gives you the equivalent of a 450 (almost 500) on FX, which for most purposes is as long as you want to go hand held without a heavy tripod and a lot of preparation. While at the same time the 70-300 on FX gives a useful range without the bulk of the 80-200 f2.8 for less demanding situations. The trend towards better high ISO has the by product of making slower lenses more versatile. The biggest issue remaining seems to me to be the poor bokeh from these slower zooms but that can usually be dealt with in post process.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 12:05 |
|
23rd Post |
jk
|
From the article it seems that for fastest AF of the two then the 300mm seems faster but for reach the 200-500mm works better but the IQ from both is great.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 12:59 |
|
24th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote:jk wrote:  I decided neither....for the moment. I can achieve 400mm with the Fuji system and I want to make a decision on this system...once and for all. So I am leaving Nikon at home on my next trip. Incidentally I already have the 70-300 (which is a very competent little lens by the way), but no DX camera.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 15:58 |
|
25th Post |
Robert
|
Eric wrote:Incidentally I already have the 70-300 (which is a very competent little lens by the way). Do you use it instead of the 80-200 f2.8 in less demanding circumstances? I have the 18-35, 24-120 and the 80-200 f2.8, I feel that 200mm is a bit short on FX. The three lenses together would give me good coverage with useful overlap. AND effectively 450mm on DX if I need it, without the expense and bulk of a 500mm lens.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Sun Aug 28th, 2016 16:42 |
|
26th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote:Eric wrote: Haven't used it since I got rid of the D7000. You are welcome to borrow it and do your own evaluation.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 03:06 |
|
27th Post |
jk
|
I have a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AFS G VR and I use it on holiday. It is an excellent lens.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 04:17 |
|
28th Post |
Graham Whistler
|
I agree it's produces top quality results sorry I let mine go when I got the 80-400mm AF-S.This from my S African trip with D3X. Attachment: NyalaD3X1374.jpg (Downloaded 35 times)
____________________ Graham Whistler |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 04:33 |
|
29th Post |
Eric
|
jk wrote:I have a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AFS G VR and I use it on holiday. It is an excellent lens. Agreed. It's a useful lens but I wouldn't add a teleconverter to it! Works well on DX to give 450mm though. The whole question of which lenses to take with you on holiday is a nightmare...it's worse than selecting clothes. I am coming to the conclusion that 300mm is as big as you ever need to carry around. And establishing the lightest package to achieve (say) 18-300 with acceptable quality is my current goal. I could imagine an 18-105 with the 70-300 and a D500 might fit the bill, with the added advantage that the D500 would couple with longer, perhaps better, lenses on specific excursions. I only have the 70-300 of that trio. However the Fuji X system in my bag, covers 18-400. I just need to finally decide if that system is 'right' for me....watch this space.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Mon Aug 29th, 2016 04:43 |
|
30th Post |
jk
|
You need the Fuji 14mm, it is brilliant for IR as well as normal landscapes. I'm in a similar position to you regarding lens selection but I have the Fuji v Nikon FX/DX dilemna.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1320 Current time is 09:32 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Lenses > 80-400 v 200-500 v 300+1.4tc. | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0730 seconds (70% database + 30% PHP). 94 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0730 seconds (70% database + 30% PHP). 94 queries executed.