Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8D, 300 f/4

Brian_S · December 17, 2010

help
i would like to step up my lenses a bit and having been researching like mad, i am looking for a nice sharp lense to hopefully grab some pics like i see in the forums here
the 70-200, from what i have seen is a beauty but its price is a bit much for me to justify the purchase,
the 80-200 is getting more in my price range from what i have seen
and also the 300 is in my price range
only problem is i already have the 70-300 VR so these lense seem a bit redundant except to add a teleconverter to it to get some extra reach over the 70-300
the 70-200 and 80-200 with teleconverter isn't going to give me much more than what i already have unless i step up the converter, but if its going to be sharper than the 70-300
i am really leaning towards the 300 with 1.4 converter but am afraid of getting stuck in a fixed focal length
would like to hear some thoughts on these lenses and my wanting of some reach over the 70-300

btw...my body is the d300s and my pics mostly consist of wildlife and landscapes

Mike J · December 18, 2010

Hard question to answer. But I'll answer with some questions:

What do you like about your 70-300? What don't you like?

Do you want more reach with the TC or do you want the constant f/2.8 of the 80-200 and the f/4 of the 300?

Do you use the 70-300 through its entire range? I have both the 80-200 and the 300 f/4 and love both of them. For me, the constant aperture of these two lenses is what I wanted. The 80-200 is my substitute for the 70-200. I couldn't justify the price of the 70-200. The 80-200 has been dropping in price. Just be aware that there are several variants of it. I would love to have the 300 f/2.8 but again the price was too steep. The f/4 is a nice compromise for me.

I use both of these lenses for ski racing. This is with the 300 at f/4:

This is the 80-200 at f/3.2:

Think of this way: pick up a used 80-200, a used 300 f/4 and a 1.4 TC for about the price of a new 70-200 VRII.

ARKreations · December 18, 2010

I have both the 80-200 and the 70-300. While they are both very nice lenses, I use the 80-200 about 10 times as much as the 70-300. It really all comes down to what you shoot and what you are looking for. The 80-200 is fantastic for lower light situations and times where you really want to separate the background from the subject. It's also much sharper than the 70-300. However, for cases where I need a longer reach in decent lighting the 70-300 is perfectly adequate. But in situations where I have an equal choice, I'll take the 80-200 in a New York Minute.

Having said all that, I'm looking to upgrade to the 70-200 in the (hopefully not too distant) future and would trade/sell both of them to make that happen.

jonh68 · December 18, 2010

Like others have have said, it depends on what you shoot. If you need more reach than the 70-300, then it is a no-brainer to get the 300 f4 and a TC. If you are shooting sports, which doesn't take place in the best of light at times, get a used 70-200 VR I and a TC, or the 80-200 AFS and a TC. You can also get the 80-200 AFD, but it will not work with a Nikon TC.

Don't worry about duplicating focal lengths. The 70-300 and 70-200 serve different purposes. I have both of them and consider the job when choosing them.

Also, don't worry about getting stuck at one focal length if you get the 300 prime. With a 1.4 TC you have 300 and 420 covered. When shooting wildlife, you are going to be at the longest end of your reach anyway. Besides, you have the 70-300.

Brian_S · December 18, 2010

WOW
Mike...Thanx...those shots are beauties!!! thats exactly what i am looking for, nice clear sharp images
i have the 70-300 VR and my kit lense that came with my old D70, the 18-70
what i like about the 70-300..it has a good range for me, i use it through the whole range but it tends to be soft at 300, i shoot wildlife that comes through my yard and the 300 most times tends to fall just a bit short, hence why the 300 with a TC would be sweet, i also can't really justify the cost of the 70-200, a friend has this lense and we did a very minimal comparison of the 70-200 VRI versus my 70-300 and i was surprised that the 70-300 for the price was not that far off of what the 70-200 produced but as i said, we didn't really put it to much of a test

the nice thing about the 2.8 lenses is that with a TC it would put me back into the F range of my 70-300 but again, the prices of any of the 2.8's is going to be my drawback except for the 80-200
i don't shoot much of anything like indoor sports anyways that i need the low lights capabilities
i do like the way you think though about getting both the 300 AND the 80-200

...that way, with the 80-200 f2.8 if i do run into a situation that a low aperture is needed i would have it covered

Ross...Thank you...about the 80-200 being sharper than the 70-300...that is what i am really interested in, you nailed exactly why i want to get one of these lenses...but now...maybe both of the suggestions

John...Thank you also, the 80-200 AFS is the lense i am thiking of
Thank you all for your comments and ideas and Merry Xmas!

jonh68 · December 19, 2010

i also can't really justify the cost of the 70-200, a friend has this lense and we did a very minimal comparison of the 70-200 VRI versus my 70-300 and i was surprised that the 70-300 for the price was not that far off of what the 70-200 produced but as i said, we didn't really put it to much of a test

That is more a testament to the quality of the 70-300 than a knock on the 70-200. The 70-300 cannot do 2.8 and that is what you are paying the extra price for. The price of a used 70-200 AFS and 80-200 AFS are not that far removed. Since the 70-200 is a newer lens and will have more parts available in case of repair, I would spend the little extra for the VR.

Since you say you don't shoot much sports in low light, I would get the cheaper 80-200 AFD, which is still production, and a 300 f4 with TC for wildlife.

Brian_S · December 20, 2010

Thanks John
yes, i understand and higher price for the f/2.8

and no way knocking the 70-200....i have seen the pictures it produces

right now, i am looking at a used 300 f/4 on kijiji

DsrtVW · December 21, 2010

Sounds like you need a Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3, that would cover just about everything plus give you some extra reach. For the price it is a very versatile lens
The teleconverter will add a stop to any lens you put it on. I have a old Nikon 300mm f4 ED which is a great sharp lens but for most wildlife it leaves me a bit short. I have a Sigma 170-500mm but wish I had bought the 50-500mm.
My main lens is a 200mm f2 with a tce2 III teleconverter which gives me a 400mm f4 but the cost on that is a bit more.
You can always rent some lenses to see which you really like

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8D, 300 f/4

Comments