that old chestnut, im down to two lens choices

Have your say on issues related to using a DSLR camera.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
Please ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.

that old chestnut, im down to two lens choices

Postby striking on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:24 pm

well im think i am down to two lens choices,
70-200VR or 80-400 Vr

both have strong points. i like the fact that the 70-200 is fast glass

but i like the reach that the 400 offers especially for the price

i mainly take landscapes but like a nice zoom for some nice wildlife etc so the ill mainly be shooting in good light conditions, so the zoom range of the 80-400 is appealing

i have read the equipment reviews and both are great lenses just thought id pose the question before openning my wallet :)
striking
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:19 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Postby kipper on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:27 pm

Get the 70-200VR + TC1.7, you'll get the reach when you want it but lose a few fstops, and when you don't want the reach you can have a fast lens.
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
kipper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Postby Greg B on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:33 pm

The 70-200 VR is a bit hard to get at the moment, maybe that will assist the decision making process.
Greg - - - - D200 etc

Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
User avatar
Greg B
Moderator
 
Posts: 5938
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:14 pm
Location: Surrey Hills, Melbourne

Postby striking on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:36 pm

200+1.7 is only 340 is that close enough u think ??? kipper ?
striking
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:19 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Postby kipper on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:54 pm

The extra 60mm imho doesn't really give you that much extra reach. Really depends on what you're going to use it for. I my opinion is purely bias because I have the 70-200VR with TC1.7. I've held Gary's 70-400VR or seen it in person. But I can't say what that extra 60MM does in terms of getting the shot you want. The only downside I've really noticed is trying to shoot small birds with the 70-200VR with a TC1.7. To me you seem to have to get too close, to the point they realise you're there and go.

I mean a 70-400VR might not even get you that shot either, and in lower light situations it won't be as good. Btw, if Small Bird Photography is your game then a Sigma 300-800MM probably is the way to go but that'll cost you as much as a small car :)
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
kipper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Postby kipper on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:55 pm

Greg B, I'm sure there will be a heap of them on the market as soon as Nikon announces a new betterer version :)
Darryl (aka Kipper)
Nikon D200
kipper
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Postby striking on Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:57 pm

small birds arent really the game i am chasing :)
looking for a good general zoom

and i wouldnt mind doing a whale wathcing boat cruise so a zoom for the whales and dolphins kinda is what im looking for :)
striking
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:19 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Postby birddog114 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:06 pm

kipper,
May I correct? it's the 80-400VR which Gary, PW, mudder, Nicole, BBJ and myself have.

Nikon release the new zoom in this range, I doubt it :?: It's only 2.1/2 year old on Nikon board, lens won't much be changed as camera body and the 70-200VR is most sought with the Nikon fan.
Perhaps 70-300VR/ f.4 or something close by.
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby birddog114 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:08 pm

striking,
If you're after the 80-400VR for a good compact size zoom and handy in bright light then you're in the right track. Otherwise chasing small bird and fast subject or lowlight is not an ideal.
The 80-400VR is an ideal of travel light lens in comparison with the Bigma 50-500 where tripod or monopod is required.
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby striking on Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:14 pm

what is better in terms of quality vs th 80-400vr and the 50-500 bigma ??

i dont mind have to use a tripod
striking
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:19 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Postby birddog114 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:20 pm

striking wrote:what is better in terms of quality vs th 80-400vr and the 50-500 bigma ??

i dont mind have to use a tripod


Striking,
Go to the Equipment Review section and you'll find few thread of both lenses.

Yes, I don't mind to use tripod or monopod either but in some situation tripo or monopod is not permitted or slowly setting up then the 80-400VR get the first shot without tangle with the legs, if you neeed "to cut and run" :lol: the 80-400VR help you fast but the Bigma got caught with the legs :wink:
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby striking on Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:34 pm

after i posted a checked the reviews section again and found the bigma...must have missed it reading all the 70-200 and 80-400 reviews :(

i am leaning towards the 80-400 atm and its range seems more versatile


birddog your 200-400 vr would have been the price of a small car wouldnt it ???
striking
Member
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:19 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Postby birddog114 on Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:36 pm

striking wrote:after i posted a checked the reviews section again and found the bigma...must have missed it reading all the 70-200 and 80-400 reviews :(

i am leaning towards the 80-400 atm and its range seems more versatile


birddog your 200-400 vr would have been the price of a small car wouldnt it ???


The 300VR is on its way to the "land of toys" :wink:
Birddog114
VNAF, My Beloved Country and Airspace
User avatar
birddog114
Senior Member
 
Posts: 15881
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Belmore,Sydney

Postby gstark on Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:27 pm

striking wrote:what is better in terms of quality vs th 80-400vr and the 50-500 bigma ??


That's a silly question. :)


Sorry ...
g.
Gary Stark
Nikon, Canon, Bronica .... stuff
The people who want English to be the official language of the United States are uncomfortable with their leaders being fluent in it - US Pres. Bartlet
User avatar
gstark
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22918
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Bondi, NSW

Postby stubbsy on Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:48 am

striking

In the reviews section there's Nikon 70-200mm VR AF-S ED (phew!) from cricketfan and Teleconverter 1.7 attached to 70-200 VR - comparison shots from Glen and 80 - 400 VR - put through its paces from me. Surprised you missed them.

And FWIW I ended up buying the 70-200 + TC 1.7. The slow focus of the 80-400 on fast moving birds nailed it for me, but I know Gary has had no problems with the 80-400 at the F1 GP
Peter
Disclaimer: I know nothing about anything.
*** smugmug galleries: http://www.stubbsy.smugmug.com ***
User avatar
stubbsy
Moderator
 
Posts: 10748
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW - D700


Return to General Discussion