70-300mm F4.5-5.6 or 80-200mm F2.8


May 11, 2004
100
0
0
#1
Hi,

I'm looking at a lens to compliment my 18-105 for my D90. Using it to do landscape and wildlife shoots. Any advice for the above mentioned lens? Tks for your help in advance.
 

mayhemics

New Member
Apr 28, 2009
763
2
0
#2
one is 750g, the other is 1300g... presumably you know why...
 

Numnumball

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2009
13,899
0
0
Central
#3
Hi,

I'm looking at a lens to compliment my 18-105 for my D90. Using it to do landscape and wildlife shoots. Any advice for the above mentioned lens? Tks for your help in advance.
Have u ask urself this?

Do u need VR?
Do u prefer lightweight or heavy when shot handheld?
Do u prefer longer reach or more light constantly throughout the entire focal length?
Do you intend to use this more for daylight shooting or both?
Do u need tripod collar (for mounting on tripod/monopod) etc etc?


Actually the answer to ur solutions is easily on the web..
Just google for both reviews and compare.. :)
 

TroyP

New Member
Dec 23, 2008
1,822
0
0
#4
Last edited:

TroyP

New Member
Dec 23, 2008
1,822
0
0
#6
Was this taken by a tamron 70-300mm?
My shots are Nikon lens. It's cheap, around $700 I think.
Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F4.5-5.6G IF-ED (67mm)
 

May 11, 2004
100
0
0
#8
Have u ask urself this?

Do u need VR?
Do u prefer lightweight or heavy when shot handheld?
Do u prefer longer reach or more light constantly throughout the entire focal length?
Do you intend to use this more for daylight shooting or both?
Do u need tripod collar (for mounting on tripod/monopod) etc etc?


Actually the answer to ur solutions is easily on the web..
Just google for both reviews and compare.. :)
I did read on the reviews on the lens from
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45

and both gives good reviews.. thus i'm confused:sweat:

The only issue tt is holding me back is the weight of the 80-200.

It will be used for day n nite shoot.
 

mod101

New Member
Dec 7, 2009
179
1
0
Singapore
#9
I did read on the reviews on the lens from
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45

and both gives good reviews.. thus i'm confused:sweat:

The only issue tt is holding me back is the weight of the 80-200.

It will be used for day n nite shoot.
Bro, cant have best of both worlds... ie light weight and constant aperture for that type of FL. Personally, I shoot 80% in daylight in that type of FL hence 70-300mm VR works great for me. Sharp enough from 70-200 but a tad soft at 300 and I am ok with that. On top of that, I am no masochist - don't like lugging 1.3kg lens around ;) but that's just me.
 

May 11, 2004
100
0
0
#10
Bro, cant have best of both worlds... ie light weight and constant aperture for that type of FL. Personally, I shoot 80% in daylight in that type of FL hence 70-300mm VR works great for me. Sharp enough from 70-200 but a tad soft at 300 and I am ok with that. On top of that, I am no masochist - don't like lugging 1.3kg lens around ;) but that's just me.
Tks bro.. good advice... i must consider if i wanna walk ard carrying 1.3kg.. tks mate!!!
 

#11
Hi,

I'm looking at a lens to compliment my 18-105 for my D90. Using it to do landscape and wildlife shoots. Any advice for the above mentioned lens? Tks for your help in advance.
In the first places, won't the prices be a big diff?
One is over a range of aperture, the other one is a fixed aperture of F2.8..

Depending on what you're going for, to choose either one lens. ;)
 

thenomad

New Member
Nov 17, 2008
448
0
0
Singapore
#12
If you haven't already done so, try out both lenses and physically handle them, in addition to considering which features from each lens that you need. That will let you know whether the 70-300 is light enough, and whether you find the 80-200 too heavy. One point which has not have been mentioned so far, the 80-200 2.8 gives much nicer bokeh due to its constant aperture; something that you may want to consider for your wildlife shoots. A lot of people find the 80-200 weighty at first, but the more you use it, the more you'll get used to the weight.

Just my $0.02 :)
 

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#13
70-300
- lighter
- extra 10mm wide and 100mm tele
- cheaper
- VR (if you are refering to the VR version
- Faster focus (if you are refereing to the AF-S version)
- f4.5-5.6
- Filter thread (62mm non-VR version) (67mm VR version)
- IQ - no comments, have not used one before

80-200
- heavier
- lacking the 10mm wide, and 100mm tele
- more costly
- no VR
- AF-D (slower focusing, will improve on higher end body) [unless you are referring to the AF-S version which is no longer in production]
- constant aperture f/2.8
- Filter Thread 77mm
- IQ - Great

when you mentioned wildlife, i suppose it isn't those wildlife in Singapore?
if so, you might want to consider something longer than 300mm with fast focusing.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom