Middle length nikon for D3

[Morgan_Moore]

I got my 300 2.8 stolen - now my 80-200 is falling apart
 
So I have a bit of a gap between my 50mm and 600/4

Basically I dont like 80-200s - the focal length does little for me BUT on commercial/royal/press/pr jobs an 80-200 is handy pandy

I am not going to get another 300 2.8 - too heavy and not worth it with the fine ISO performance of the D3

So

Do I get

A 300 f4 which looks like (real value and nice portable weight) and some piece of junk cheapo mid range zoom (if so which one)

or an 70-200 (2. and a 1.4 converter

considering that my main joy is shooting at 300 but I do need coverage of some nature between 50 and 300

I think the 70-200 and a 1.4 is an attractive proposition giving VR, zoom and 300 at f4, and one lens in the bag

my budget wont stretch to a 300 and a 70-200

I cant ever see having a 300 and an 70-200 in my bag - too heavy - that is another argument for the 70-200

But does the 70-200 work well with a 1.4 conveter

TIA

SMM

[Morgan_Moore]

Or do I get a D300 and a 180 !

I dont think a second body is a good idea because Im allready sniffing a D3X or whatever

money is safer in glass

S

[Jost von Allmen]

Hi Morgan
In anticipation of the Nikon D3x (or whatever name) I'm actually considering selling my 2,8/70-200mm VR!
Most Nikon shooters love that lens, it has served me extremely well for many years, including using it with the TC 1,7x!
BUT I have found that while it's been great on the D2X (and still is on the D300), it's not completely satisfactory on the D3 (which I love - have sold my D2X).
Sharpness decreases towards the edges and there's quite strong vignetting (at f2,8, f4 and even f5,6 - can be dealt with in post processing though).
I'm absolutely sure it will not be up to it's reputation on a future full frame Nikon with higher pixel density (eg with a variant of Sonys 25MP chip).
So I actually tried the 70-300mm VR and have found it to be equal or better than the 70-200! Of course it's build quality and focussing speed is not up to the 70-200, and it's much slower (f5,6 at 300mm), but that extra reach is very welcome on the D3, it's much lighter, and I find the VRII a definite improvement over the older VRI (in the 70-200): VRII is more effective and results are generally better. Sometimes I get unsharp results in series shot with the 70-200 with VR turned on, even at short shutter speeds, they disapear with VR turned off.
So I actually ended up buying the 70-300mm as a solution in the meantime, until the rumoured new 70-200mm (with VRII!) will be available, as well as an updated 80-400mm AF-S VRII.....

Nikon shooters might find these findings surprising, but I have confirmed this behavior with three different samples and on several bodies.

Hope that helps!

[Morgan_Moore]

Nikon shooters might find these findings surprising, but I have confirmed this behavior with three different samples and on several bodies.

Hope that helps!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.

I most likely will ingore your advice however.

Reasons I think the 70-200 and 1.4 converter is the way to go..

f4 at 300,

Consistent aperture

through zoom will not mess with use of studio/manual flash

The focus lock button

I tend to use focus and recompose - locking the button with my left hand is something that I am used to with the 300 2.8 and 600 f4

Locking focus with the right hand sucks - and I have pretty long thumbs - although I just assigned that to the d3 preview button though

That alone is enough to put me off the 300/4 too

Minimum focus distance..

  is improved with the use of a converter too ?

And 24-70 and 70-200 has to be a great combo to aspire to when the body market has settled down


SMM

[oriwo]

...

Nikon shooters might find these findings surprising, but I have confirmed this behavior with three different samples and on several bodies.

Hope that helps!

Hello Jost,

I've done equal and sold my 2,8/70-200mm because of edge unsharpness at D700. On my D2X, D200 and D300 the 2,8/70-200mm was a wonderful telezoom but it's not made for FX  .

I also bought the 70-300mm VRII ans wait for an AFS 2,8/70-200mm VRII and an AFS 80-400mm VRII.

B.r.

oriwo

[Philip Weber]

I got my 300 2.8 stolen - now my 80-200 is falling apart
 
So I have a bit of a gap between my 50mm and 600/4

Basically I dont like 80-200s - the focal length does little for me BUT on commercial/royal/press/pr jobs an 80-200 is handy pandy

I am not going to get another 300 2.8 - too heavy and not worth it with the fine ISO performance of the D3

So

Do I get

A 300 f4 which looks like (real value and nice portable weight) and some piece of junk cheapo mid range zoom (if so which one)

or an 70-200 (2. and a 1.4 converter

considering that my main joy is shooting at 300 but I do need coverage of some nature between 50 and 300

I think the 70-200 and a 1.4 is an attractive proposition giving VR, zoom and 300 at f4, and one lens in the bag

my budget wont stretch to a 300 and a 70-200

I cant ever see having a 300 and an 70-200 in my bag - too heavy - that is another argument for the 70-200

But does the 70-200 work well with a 1.4 conveter

TIA

SMM

I have the 70-200 & the 1.4 TC and have used them on my D700 (primary body) and D300 (back up) and have found the combo on both to be excellent. I have no reservations about recommending them together on an FX or DX body.

I know many on the net have had issues corner sharpness issues with the 70-200 on an FX body and while I am certain some truly have had problems in this area, I can't say I have. For much more info, I'd suggest looking through the Nikkor lens forum on nikonians.org where you'll find a ton of threads regarding the topic of your post.

All the best,
Phil

[NikosR]

Extreme corner sharpness and vignetting issue disappears when using a TC on the 70-200 (because the center of the image circle is magnified throwing the extreme corners out of sensor coverage), as it mostly does when using focal lengths up to about 180mm on that lens without TC btw. So you will have to deal only with the resolution decrease the TC inevitably brings. I find TC1.7 quite acceptable when used with the 70-200 on the D700 so I guess TC1.4 will be even better, I would not be so sure about the D3x though due to its icreased pixel pitch.

[BJL]

Morgan Moore asked (in pieces over two posts)
 

I am not going to get another 300 2.8 - too heavy and not worth it with the fine ISO performance of the D3

So
Do I get

A 300 f4 which looks like (real value and nice portable weight) and some piece of junk cheapo mid range zoom (if so which one)

or an 70-200 (2. and a 1.4 converter
....
Or do I get a D300 and a 180 !

Doesn't the 70-200/2.8 @ 200mm on the D300 do about what the 300/4 does on the D3, with zoom as a bonus?

This raises a question: once you are using lenses f/4 or slower in 35mm format, including using an f/2.8 lens with 1.4x TC, maybe using a lens one stop faster with a lens, sensor, and pixels about 1.4x smaller is a good option. Using the same lens on a body with higher sensor resolution (in l/mm) is a lot like adding an optically perfect 1.4x TC, still allowing the use of a real 1.4x with better results than using a 2x TC on the larger format body I would expect. Longer lenses like the 600/4 could likewise be swapped for shorter, brighter alternatives like a 400/2.8.

Using a D3X and cropping is another option, but that is one heavy and expensive "TC"!

[Morgan_Moore]

Morgan Moore asked (in pieces over two posts)
 
Doesn't the 70-200/2.8 @ 200mm on the D300 do about what the 300/4 does on the D3, with zoom as a bonus?

This raises a question: once you are using lenses f/4 or slower in 35mm format, including using an f/2.8 lens with 1.4x TC, maybe using a lens one stop faster with a lens, sensor, and pixels about 1.4x smaller is a good option. Using the same lens on a body with higher sensor resolution (in l/mm) is a lot like adding an optically perfect 1.4x TC, still allowing the use of a real 1.4x with better results than using a 2x TC on the larger format body I would expect. Longer lenses like the 600/4 could likewise be swapped for shorter, brighter alternatives like a 400/2.8.

Using a D3X and cropping is another option, but that is one heavy and expensive "TC"!

This is an ancient thread (pre D3x 5dii)

I already had a D3 before the lens purchase so 'keeping my money in glass' seemed to be correct and has proved so because not buying a D300 has put some money in my D3X piggy bank

A newb interested in extreme tele work can get good value from an APS chips

My 400 2.8 is depressingly short (for surfing) on the D3

But if you 'lens up' around APS you are alway not going to have the best overall solution which is FF (beter noise and wide and LOOK)

The 70-200 is not great at the edges on FF, I dont really have love for that lens but is a fantastic solution when operating commercially to client demands and restrictions

(Im an ultrafast prime fan, Ive always call zooms 'Royal Visit' lenses because on a Royal jobs you are often penned into one spot and expected to produce a wide variance of images in a short time)

I will try it with the 1.4 converter which is a cool idea with the D3

S

[brianrpatterson]

I'm still using my 70-200 VR on a D300 and appreciate the insights on its performance with the D700 (which I will get later in 2009), but with a Kenko Pro 300 1.4X converter it still shoots beautifully. There isn't another lens to take its place on FX bods so wonder what others are doing to get around that gap? Older AI-S zooms have good covering power but lack all the modern amenities, the new 24-70 is a tad short overall, and the 200-400 is totally rich for most folks.  The new 70-300 VR is a bit slow for my taste and can't equal pro glass but works in many situations where lens speed isn't an issue - it's probably the best solution for now...