DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Which telezoom 8020028 or 7020028VR

I have a very nice budget lens (budget to me is anything under $500 US)- AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6 D - I shoot the D1X & D2x. For a general all around lens this one does really well - and did I mention it is very reasonable in price - I think B&H has it for around $310 US. I highly recommend the lens for anyone - pro or hobbyist, for many events outdoors I use this lens with great results.
 
Many thanks. I have tried the tripod approach with alternative settings but the possibility of the monitor is new to me. I will try printing some shots that look out of focus on the monitor and see what happens. Richard
 
Keith Skinner (Digital_demon) wrote on January 16:

' 2007 - 2:57 am,AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6 D '

Hi Keith,

as far as I could research on the web, this AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6 D is the predecessor of the brand new VR version which came 2 months ago to the dealers (Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 mm/4.5-5.6G IF-ED). It is more expensive, but has VR and AFAIK als better in image quality then the old one.

So the Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 mm/4.5-5.6G IF-ED would be an option, if it would be on the same level in terms of image quality like the 80-200/2.8 IF ED or the 70-200/2.8 VR.

This could be possible because the lens design for f-stops 3.5-5.6 are easier to design. Unfortunately they increased also the zoom range to 300mm, so this contradicts this a little bit...

My experience with the Zeiss lenses was, that the more expensive Zeiss N70-300/4.5-5.6 was not better than the cheaper Zeiss N 70-200/3.5-4.5. I had both, compared them and kept the 70-200 because it was 300-400g lighter then the other one and this means for me lower shutter speed possibility with handhold shots.

So if something similar exist in the Nikon range, it would be interesting.

The advantages of the Nikon 80-200/2.8 is currently (IMHO), price, weight and fullframe capabilty compared to the Nikon 70-200 VR. The latter has VR on his plus side.

Here are the specs of the new Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 mm/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2161

It seems also to be for fullframe.


Thanks by the way for all your help. It is funny & nice to see how many people are still active here...
 
I own the 70-200 2.8 VR on a D200. I have found that my copy does not auto focus properly if I use a cheap circular polarizer. I get outstanding results wihtout any filters. There will also be out of focus conditions if the VR is not turned OFF when using a tripod. I also own the 18-200 VR & find this to be a superb lens that I use for 80% of the time but the VR must be turned off when using a tripod. For either lens I find I must use very fast shutter speeds or a remote shutter release or delayed timer to achieve razor sharp photos at 200MM even with a very solid tripod.

SKIBUM2
 
Many thanks. I am about to buy the 18-200 and am now using the 28-120 (or is it 130) VR. I have turned the VR off when using the tripod. I will try taking the filter off (skylight) and turning off the VR. Many thanks, RW
 
Actually to answer Dirks original question, I used to own both the 80-200 f2.8 2 ring zoom (non-AF-S) and the 70-200 AF-S VR G.

I've done a lot of side by side work with both and in general my feedback is as follows,

70-200 AF-S VR f2.8 (does work on full frame film - I use it on my F100 without issue)
- ever so slightly sharper.
- better bokeh (noticeable)
- faster focus (due to AF-S)
- VR really works and makes a 3 stop difference)
- Replaced tripod leg with new LCF-10 QR from RRS.
- AF-lock on lens is useful for me

80-200 non-AFS f2.8 2 ring
- Main reason I kept it was because I still use film full frame cameras like the original FM2 which requires an aperture ring. Currently thinking of getting an FM3. Also works on my F100.
- slow to focus on D70 - the screw driven AF on the F100 is much stronger.
- Nicer crinkle finish reminiscent of the old pro-line Nikon lenses, like the 28mm f1.4, 105 DC F2, 85mm f1.4, etc....
- better tripod leg
- switching between AF/MF not as easy.

I ended up selling the 80-200mm f2.8 for the same price I bought it for so that is another data point to consider, since they hold their value well. I know that won't happen for the 70-200 which has more electronics and may not last as long at over double the price. I ended up getting the 80-400 VR 3.5-5.6mm to fill in the needs when I need more range and an aperture ring
happy.gif
For manual full frame camera use the extra speed I get with f2.8 is not necessary since I don't use it for sports so the 80-400 fits well there.
 
Hey friends,

could you please stop to hijack other's threads? This makes it really uncomfortable to read. It is so easy to open a new thread for a new question. Please do so. Others with similar questions will find it then later also easier. Thanks.

@Almon

Thanks for this information. I did not know that the 70-200VR is also compatible with fullframe. I just would love to have less KG and lower price tag
happy.gif


1.4KG on a D80 looks kind of dangerous...

I will wait also to see first how the result of Janez comparison will be.

Maybe later on we find also someone, who used also the new 70-300VR compared to the 70-200VR or 80-200....

P.S. The server provider has some technical difficulties since Monday. So the e-mails of the forum did not get through or with 3-8 hours delay. They promised me that this will be better tomorrow. So please rather check online for the next days for new postings intead of waiting for the e-mails out of the forum...
 
Back
Top