Pick a Telephoto

[taylorwilsdon]

I would like to buy a dedicated telephoto.

I am currently between the Nikon 70-300mm VR and the 80-200 f2.8. If I got the 80-200, then my max aperture would be 2.8 across the whole range, but its heaver, and I would have to buy the old (pre-afs) version to stay in my budget.

I would prefer to spend no more then $500.

edit - I would buy this:
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...BC=NA&BCC=1&CC=&CCC=&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=80-200
For $415 if I were to get the 80-200.
I'm also open to other suggestions (3rd party is fine but must be well regarded)

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Make your choice based on whether or not you need that extra 100 mm of focal length that the 70-300 will give you. I'm not familiar with either of these lenses (Not a Nikon shooter anymore) but I'd base my choice on my needs.

For me personally, I'd go with the 80-200 f/2.8, but you may have a different idea of what you would get the most use out of. I just like fast glass and shallow DOF.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the non AF-S version (unless you have a D40 or D40X and are opposed to manual focusing it). You should look at the lens from an optical perspective rather than a focusing mechanism perspective.

SLC

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Make your choice based on whether or not you need that extra 100 mm of focal length that the 70-300 will give you. I'm not familiar with either of these lenses (Not a Nikon shooter anymore) but I'd base my choice on my needs.

For me personally, I'd go with the 80-200 f/2.8, but you may have a different idea of what you would get the most use out of. I just like fast glass and shallow DOF.

Also, there's nothing wrong with the non AF-S version (unless you have a D40 or D40X and are opposed to manual focusing it). You should look at the lens from an optical perspective rather than a focusing mechanism perspective.

SLC

I recognize the superior optics in the 80-200, but the extra 100mm would be nice (but not crucial). I've been fine 90% of the time with my 18-200mm VR but its not fantastic so I'm looking to spread my range over some higher quality glass.

I have crackhead hands but I'm sure I could handhold the 80-200 at a higher shutter. I was fine with the Canon 70-200 F4.. VR might be nice though.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I recognize the superior optics in the 80-200, but the extra 100mm would be nice (but not crucial). I've been fine 90% of the time with my 18-200mm VR but its not fantastic so I'm looking to spread my range over some higher quality glass.

I have crackhead hands but I'm sure I could handhold the 80-200 at a higher shutter. I was fine with the Canon 70-200 F4.. VR might be nice though.

Sounds like you've got it under control then! I've given you my example of what I'd do. You may just get more use out of the 300 mm end of the 70-300 so maybe you should go that route!

Others will chime in soon too!

SLC

 

[JNB]

2.8 across the entire zoom range? No contest. I'd give up the extra 100mm for that in a heartbeat, assuming cost were equal. Does Nikon have a tele-extender along the lines of the Canon 1.4x/2.0x? Those only cost one f-stop, so a (guessing) 1.4x would give you a 112-280 @ f/3.5 (plus any crop factor for the camera, typically another 1.6). Still a great range with a very usable aperture at distance.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

2.8 across the entire zoom range? No contest. I'd give up the extra 100mm for that in a heartbeat, assuming cost were equal. Does Nikon have a tele-extender along the lines of the Canon 1.4x/2.0x? Those only cost one f-stop, so a (guessing) 1.4x would give you a 112-280 @ f/3.5 (plus any crop factor for the camera, typically another 1.6). Still a great range with a very usable aperture at distance.

I've never used them, but there are some nikon tcons. However, the Nikon brand ones only work with newer lenses (I just learned this). However, I could get an off brand (sigma, tamron etc)

You're right, a 1.4 only loses 1 stop of light so that would still make it faster then the 70-300 @ 280mm. I'm thinking about that, but I'm not so sure about the teleconverter hurting IQ.

Nikon crop bodies are 1.5 (as opposed to canon's 1.6) but your point is well made.

Hmmm...

 

[seany916]

80-200 2.8

2.8 across the range is NOT a bad thing.

 

[ChrisA]

I would like to buy a dedicated telephoto.

There is no question every version of the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is excelent. More then Excelent. It has always been one of the best lenses in Nikon's line.

You really do want an f/2.8 lens. With used models so afordable you do not have to compromise and get a lesser lens.

 

[buddhahacker]

Sensor Size

Don't forget about your sensor size. For me, I have a Nikon D80, the sensor is not full frame so I have a 1.5x multiplier. Therefore, my 18-200mm is really a 27-300mm lens.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Ahh, but that's just a little misleading. It still has the magnification of an 18-200 mm lens, but the field of view is pre-cropped so to speak so that you have the same angle of view as a 27-300 mm lens.

This claim that a 200 mm lens on a APS-C camera is really a 300 mm lens has a lot of people fooled!

SLC

 

[Abstract]

I recognize the superior optics in the 80-200, but the extra 100mm would be nice (but not crucial). I've been fine 90% of the time with my 18-200mm VR but its not fantastic so I'm looking to spread my range over some higher quality glass.

I have crackhead hands but I'm sure I could handhold the 80-200 at a higher shutter. I was fine with the Canon 70-200 F4.. VR might be nice though.

Go to the store, and pick up a Nikon body and 70-300 mm lens. Take a look through the viewfinder with the lens set at 200 mm, then adjust to 300 mm. Do you see a big difference?

Try this website to actually SEE the difference in focal length.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

While some people need all the reach they can get, I don't believe you do. The difference between 200 mm and 300 mm seems quite small for most people. It really depends on your needs.

I'd choose the 80-200 mm f/2.8, although I like constant aperture lenses. All my current lenses have a constant aperture.

On the other hand, this lens is heavier than the 70-300 mm. However, the 70-300 mm is only sharp from 70-200 mm. The 55-200 mm VR lens is arguably better value, as it's rather sharp through its entire range (ie: through the same range as the 70-300 mm is sharp, and is half the price.

 

[compuwar]

I've never used them, but there are some nikon tcons. However, the Nikon brand ones only work with newer lenses (I just learned this).

You can still get TC14A adn TC14B teleconverters on the used market in great condition if you're not willing to file the AF-S tab off of a new TC14EII. I believe the TC-14B is the correct teleconverter for the non-AF-S version of this lens.