Nikon 70-300 or?


TonyOng

New Member
Apr 6, 2009
341
0
0
SK
www.facebook.com
#1
Hi,

would like to ask.. is it better to get a nikon 70-300 or get a sigma/tamron 70-200 f2.8 den later add on a TC?
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#2
Depends what you are shooting. Do you need the f2.8? And is the extra reach necessary? Teleconverters degrades image quality and is costly. I'm pretty sure you're on a tight budget.

Needed for low light and image quality:
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Nikon 70-200 f2.8

Needed for the extra focal length reach:
Nikon 70-300mm
Nikon 80-400mm
Sigma 150-500mm
 

TonyOng

New Member
Apr 6, 2009
341
0
0
SK
www.facebook.com
#3
Depends what you are shooting. Do you need the f2.8? And is the extra reach necessary? Teleconverters degrades image quality and is costly. I'm pretty sure you're on a tight budget.

Needed for low light and image quality:
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Nikon 70-200 f2.8

Needed for the extra focal length reach:
Nikon 70-300mm
Nikon 80-400mm
Sigma 150-500mm
yea.. i am on very tight budget..

would like to have better image quality and also increase the focal length when needed..
as when so far.. when i am shooting, i feel that the current 55-200 that i have is still not close up enough...
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#4
TonyOng said:
yea.. i am on very tight budget..

would like to have better image quality and also increase the focal length when needed..
as when so far.. when i am shooting, i feel that the current 55-200 that i have is still not close up enough...
You have to decide between larger aperture or longer focal length. The above lenses are all ff lenses so their focal length according to what you see is already more than what is shown i.e 70-200 is now 105-300
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#5
If weight is an issue then you should know that the f2.8 lenses are all nearly 1.5kg heavy :)
 

luckyorange

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2011
2,840
0
36
Ang Mo Kio
#6
TonyOng said:
yea.. i am on very tight budget..

would like to have better image quality and also increase the focal length when needed..
as when so far.. when i am shooting, i feel that the current 55-200 that i have is still not close up enough...
If you think 55-200 is not close enough, and the 70-200 also 200 just that its 2.8,

Just get the 70-300 if u need more close up.
 

Last edited:
Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#7
luckyorange said:
If you think 55-200 is not close enough, and the 70-200 also 200 just that its 2.8,

Just get the 70-300 if u need more close up.
I thought he's using a crop sensor? Then won't the 70-200 be 105-300?
 

luckyorange

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2011
2,840
0
36
Ang Mo Kio
#8
Fudgecakes said:
I thought he's using a crop sensor? Then won't the 70-200 be 105-300?
I'm saying the focal length, if x 1.5 both also 300?

So 70-300, at 300mm x 1.5 = 450? If I'm not wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Last edited:
Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#9
luckyorange said:
I'm saying the focal length, if x 1.5 both also 300?

So 70-300, at 300mm x 1.5 = 450? If I'm not wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yaya that's correct. Haha. Was it me who read wrongly?
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#11
TonyOng said:
so u think 70-200 with tc is not as good as 70-300?
Can't say. Is iq important to you? Or is the aperture more impt? The 70-300 is no doubt the cheapest as the 70-200 may cost u 2k for local set with OS, 1500 withou Os. And not counting a TC that supports AF. A 70-300 costs only around 800 dollars
 

TonyOng

New Member
Apr 6, 2009
341
0
0
SK
www.facebook.com
#12
Can't say. Is iq important to you? Or is the aperture more impt? The 70-300 is no doubt the cheapest as the 70-200 may cost u 2k for local set with OS, 1500 withou Os. And not counting a TC that supports AF. A 70-300 costs only around 800 dollars
ohh.. sigma one got so ex ar? looks like only can go for 70-300 then..
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#17
TonyOng said:
yea.. like wat fudgecakes said.. i cannot afford the nikon 70-200.. at least not now..
Dun worry. We in da same boat brother!, haha. I'm considering the old Nikon afd 80-200 or the sigma OS version now
 

N-user

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2006
2,459
2
38
TPY
#18
TonyOng said:
yea.. like wat fudgecakes said.. i cannot afford the nikon 70-200.. at least not now..
If u don't mind non VR... can look at BNS for the older 70-200 2 touch or the 80-200 push pull... both optically very good... But got to have steady hand... Like u, no moolah to get VR, so I got the push pull one.... Find way and mean to steady the body, picture come out okay lar...
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#19
N-user said:
If u don't mind non VR... can look at BNS for the older 70-200 2 touch or the 80-200 push pull... both optically very good... But got to have steady hand... Like u, no moolah to get VR, so I got the push pull one.... Find way and mean to steady the body, picture come out okay lar...
What is the push pull one like??
 

Oct 1, 2011
1,799
0
0
Planet Earth
#20
N-user said:
If u don't mind non VR... can look at BNS for the older 70-200 2 touch or the 80-200 push pull... both optically very good... But got to have steady hand... Like u, no moolah to get VR, so I got the push pull one.... Find way and mean to steady the body, picture come out okay lar...
Do u think the push pull version is better for the hem 2 version is better??
 

Top Bottom