snubbr.com

Lens Alternative Suggestions
Can anyone suggest an alternative to the 70-300 f/4.5-4.6 ED G IF AF-S VR?.

It looks to be a great lens, but should I shoot for less range and a faster stop and maybe a tripod collar?.

I've been looking around but only sime sites have some lenses reviewed, either way I like hearing peoples opinions..

So whats your favorite zoom lens?.

Oh I have about 400-500 to spend, so maybe that is my best bet...

Comments (11)

Sezone wrote:.

Can anyone suggest an alternative to the 70-300 f/4.5-4.6 ED G IFAF-S VR?.

It looks to be a great lens, but should I shoot for less range and afaster stop and maybe a tripod collar?.

I've been looking around but only sime sites have some lensesreviewed, either way I like hearing peoples opinions..

So whats your favorite zoom lens?.

Oh I have about 400-500 to spend, so maybe that is my best bet..

Less range?Faster stop?Tripod collar?.

You know that what you're beginning to describe is the 70-200mm VR, don't you? LOL!.

Btw, the 70-200mm VR is an awesome lens..

There's also a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 that I've heard good news about. It seems to be in the $600-$700 range. If you're looking for an f/2.8 long range zoom, get ready to pay more than $400-$500. So it'll probably help to save a little more cash first. Best wishes!!!.

Brandon..

Comment #1

For the amount you state you have to spend, it is a very good lens. If you want all the extras you mention, the 70-200VR runs about $1,600, so keep on saving!.

You could lose the VR and go with the 70-300 ED, about $350 or less..

Or save even more and go for the 55-200VR..

The rest of the longer zooms cost more. Some, cost lots more!.

Crime Scene PhotographyA small gallery of personal work: http://picasaweb.google.com/PID885..

Comment #2

Less range?Faster stop?Tripod collar?.

You know that what you're beginning to describe is the 70-200mm VR,don't you? LOL!.

There's also a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 that I've heard good news about.It seems to be in the $600-$700 range. If you're looking for anf/2.8 long range zoom, get ready to pay more than $400-$500. Soit'll probably help to save a little more cash first. Best wishes!.

Yeah, I do know... sigh... but 1600... It'll be a lot longer than I can possibly wait for 1600. I'm basically looking at the next best thing... I guess...



See my other reply..

Comment #3

Caoedhen wrote:.

For the amount you state you have to spend, it is a very good lens.If you want all the extras you mention, the 70-200VR runs about$1,600, so keep on saving!.

Well I need something now though. What about the Nikon 18-135?..

Comment #4

Sezone wrote:.

Well I need something now though. What about the Nikon 18-135?.

Hmmm....

You started out wanting a 70-300. The 18-135 is a completely different range. What do you REALLY need?.

Charlie DavisNikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300HomePage: http://www.1derful.infoBridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/..

Comment #5

I do want 70-300. I want a full range really. Someday I want as far out as 500mm. I know I want as wide as 10mm. The sigma 10-20mm is a lens I'm considering in the future. But I have to consider quality, and I only have so much right now, and I need a lens for right now.

What's the best quality in that range, what do I give up but gain with each lens, etc etc?.

I'm no pro, but I'm not new yesterday either. I read the reviews, I read Thom, slrgear, Nikonians, and here, and I like to ask to get user opinions. I call it making an informed and educated decision. I don't go about, nor make my decisions in a manner or method to get there, that most people consider normal. I'm at peace with it, but I get alot of questions from people like that one. I just want the opinions...

Comment #6

If I didn't get the 70-200 VR, then I probably would've bought the 70-300mm VR instead..

Great job at doing your research. I research many things for days, even weeks before making a final buying decision. However, if you want more opinions on this, then try asking in the Nikon Lens Forum: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1030.

Brandon..

Comment #7

I wish someone could move this over there for me.... heh.

Well I have one more question for you fine folks....What about the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8?.

Now it doesnt have VR, the model I can afford isnt the newer AF-S, it's not even the slightly older AF Tripod mount version, It's the one thats just AF no tripod mount. On KEH it's right about my price range, a bit more than the 70-300. But it's stopped wider by far, isnt such a reach... I dont know the performance differences between the newer and older versions, I looked everywhere for a comparison to no avail...

Comment #8

Sezone wrote:.

I wish someone could move this over there for me.... heh.

Well I have one more question for you fine folks....What about the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8?.

Now it doesnt have VR, the model I can afford isnt the newer AF-S,it's not even the slightly older AF Tripod mount version, It's theone thats just AF no tripod mount. On KEH it's right about my pricerange, a bit more than the 70-300. But it's stopped wider by far,isnt such a reach... I dont know the performance differences betweenthe newer and older versions, I looked everywhere for a comparison tono avail..

Actually, the 80-200 f/2.8 would've been the first (and probably the only) lense I'd recommend to you if it wasn't for your $400-$500 price range. It was the first lense that I thought of when I read your original post. But the best, legit deal you would've been able to get on that lense "new" is $900. But since you're in the market for a used one, I'd definitely recommend it if you can find it in excellent condition from KEH..

I'm pretty sure you'll love the depth of field and low light capability of an f/2.8 lense. And if you consider the 1.5x crop factor of a DX (digital) camera (I assume that you have one), then the 80-200m will be more of a 120-300mm compared to what it would be on a full frame (FX) camera..

If you're shooting close ups, portraits, and medium-range subjects, then you'll have more than enough focal length. If you're planning on shooting subjects that are really, really far away, then you'll be slightly disappointed. But, you'll just have to suck it up and move in more close..

If you haven't already done so, check out pbase's 80-200mm gallery, and see how you like the images: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/80-200_28d_afs.

Brandon..

Comment #9

Actually, the 80-200 f/2.8 would've been the first (and probably theonly) lense I'd recommend to you if it wasn't for your $400-$500price range. It was the first lense that I thought of when I readyour original post. But the best, legit deal you would've been ableto get on that lense "new" is $900. But since you're in the marketfor a used one, I'd definitely recommend it if you can find it inexcellent condition from KEH..

Looks like it's there, the original AF D non tripod mount model for just about 600 or so....

I'm pretty sure you'll love the depth of field and low lightcapability of an f/2.8 lense. And if you consider the 1.5x cropfactor of a DX (digital) camera (I assume that you have one), thenthe 80-200m will be more of a 120-300mm compared to what it would beon a full frame (FX) camera..

Oh yeah, thats right I forget the difference, though it's been since the 80's on my dad's film nikon so I only really know what the lengths look like on Digi's...

If you're shooting close ups, portraits, and medium-range subjects,then you'll have more than enough focal length. If you're planningon shooting subjects that are really, really far away, then you'll beslightly disappointed. But, you'll just have to suck it up and movein more close..

Both... sort of... I mean ... Well, till know I've been stuck with the 18-55 that came with my d70, I sold the one fro my D70 with it, and just took the newer one that came with the D80. I find myself outdoors often all the way out at 55mm, wishing I had some more length. I mean I love wide shots, we go to New Mexico and through the Pagosa Springs area you gotta have a wide lens, so I got the Sigma 10-20mm...

I dont expect it to be magic but I want to get out past 55mm.

If you haven't already done so, check out pbase's 80-200mm gallery,and see how you like the images:http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/80-200_28d_afs.

I think I'm going to love that lens...

Comment #10

You could always look on Fred Miranda http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ to see what other users think.......

Comment #11

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.