| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2008 10:06:57 PM · #1 |
I have the Nikon 70-300mmVR lens. I am going to get a new one perhaps early next year. I was considering the Sigma 150-500mm but I am hearing a a lot about spotty quality control. You either love that lens or hate it and it often takes two or three exchanges to get a good one.
Now I am leaning much more toward the 80-400mmVR. Is it really any better than my 70-300? Getting a prime is out of the question for me as they are priced out of my range. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 10:14:39 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 10:27:15 PM · #3 |
Read the reviews. I have the 70- 300mm and think it is great (sometimes wish it was faster but that costs about three times as much). What I read about the 80- 400mm is that it sometimes has trouble locking in on focus and it has a very narrow depth of field. Yes it does have a longer range. The BigMa I have not tried but a lens with a ten times multiplier is a compromise and will not be as sharp as a lens with a smaller range of zoom. I believe it is also a lot heavier.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2008 12:04:51 AM · #4 |
Thanks faidoi, I was looking for something with IS/OS/VR because of my shooting style and often my locations. I shoot a lot while at work. I almost bought the Bigma when I got the 70-300.
I do need more reach, it's what needed for small birds which I am limited at shooting. However I feel if I'm going to get a new lens it should have at the very least the same image quality as the one I have. Preferably I would like better quality. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:34:26 AM · #5 |
| I don't know the lenses specifically but check www.photozone.de as there are loads of reviews |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 02:36:41 AM · #6 |
| I have the 70-300VR and love that lens. I had a D300 a little under a month and bought that over the 28-200. Wanted the extra reach. I liked it on the D300, however I love it so much more on my D700. It is sharp as a tack for me, my sharpest lens, (I haven't quite figured out how to use my 50mm prime and get the picture quality that I've seen some get with it.) |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:17:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
What I read about the 80- 400mm is that it sometimes has trouble locking in on focus and it has a very narrow depth of field. |
DOF is entirely independent of the particular lens/manufacturer. It is strictly a function of the physical size of the aperture and how close the lens is focused. Note that this is NOT the same as f/stop, which is defined as the ratio between the size of the aperture and the focal length of the lens: f/2.0 on a 50mm lens is a 25mm aperture. The same 25mm aperture on a 400mm lens is f/16. Focused at the same distance, the 50mm at f/2.0 has the same DOF as the 400mm at f/16, pretty much. There are other variables, but that's the basic picture.
R. |
|
|
|
10/17/2008 08:43:46 AM · #8 |
My two cents: If you are leaning toward the 80-400mmVR, I would suggest getting the 300mm f4 instead. It is much more versatile. I know you said the prime is more expensive, but it is nearly the same price as the 80-400VR. While the 300mm f4 is not a zoom, it has better control of the defocused background, better made, plus adding a teleconverter will yield better results than the 80-400VR.
Otherwise I would get the 70-300. You are not going to get a lot of bang for the buck with the 80-400 over teh 70-300, but I still would recommend the 300mm f4 even though it does not have VR. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/30/2025 01:38:23 PM EDT.
