Hi Guys:
I am looking for a long focus lens for travel for my D700. I already have an AF 80-200mm f2.8 ED. It is a very good lens in terms of image quality, but it is a little bit heavy for travel. So, I am considering some alternative.
I have been considering for three lenses:
(1) AF 180mm f2.8 IF-ED. Its optical quality is super, the weight is reasonable. It cannot zoom, but this is probably not a big problem. However, the 180mm f2.8 is already covered by the 80-200mm f2.8, so having the 180 appears not to add anything to my lens set except a relatively light long focus prime.
(2) AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR II. I heard that this is a very good long zoom lens in terms of both image quality and flexibility. Although it is not a fast lens, it has a VR. 200-300mm is also an add to my 80-200. The price and weight are all reasonable. However, from several sites (including the test here) I read that the optical quality of this lens is not so good in the range of 200-300mm.
(3) Tamron SP 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC. There are only a few reviews on this lens on the website. Although overall this lens seems to be good, but it appears that its resolution is not as good as the Nikkor 70-300 VR. On this site I have not seen a test on Nikon cameras yet.
Any comments and advices are welcome.
Best regards,
Frank
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1299906083' post='6685']
Hi Guys:
I am looking for a long focus lens for travel for my D700. I already have an AF 80-200mm f2.8 ED. It is a very good lens in terms of image quality, but it is a little bit heavy for travel. So, I am considering some alternative.
I have been considering for three lenses:
(1) AF 180mm f2.8 IF-ED. Its optical quality is super, the weight is reasonable. It cannot zoom, but this is probably not a big problem. However, the 180mm f2.8 is already covered by the 80-200mm f2.8, so having the 180 appears not to add anything to my lens set except a relatively light long focus prime.
(2) AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR II. I heard that this is a very good long zoom lens in terms of both image quality and flexibility. Although it is not a fast lens, it has a VR. 200-300mm is also an add to my 80-200. The price and weight are all reasonable. However, from several sites (including the test here) I read that the optical quality of this lens is not so good in the range of 200-300mm.
(3) Tamron SP 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC. There are only a few reviews on this lens on the website. Although overall this lens seems to be good, but it appears that its resolution is not as good as the Nikkor 70-300 VR. On this site I have not seen a test on Nikon cameras yet.
Any comments and advices are welcome.
Best regards,
Frank
[/quote]
Not sure where you got from that the resolution is not as good as the Nikon, every user account and review I have read states that the Tamron is a bit or a lot better at the long end, sharpness wise.
I would recommend the Tamron, as it is lighter than your 80-200, and more compact, yet gives you more reach. A nice travel companion. The Nikon 180mm f2.8 is nicer as longer portrait lens or something, but does not strike me as a typical travel lens.
There is indeed not much difference regarding sharpness between the Tamron and the 70-300 VR. The Tamron has higher contrast, though, so the images can give an impression of better sharpness compared to the Nikkor.
Both are ok, but not outstanding towards the long end of their focal range. The Tamron is a bit larger, which might be an important difference for your purpose.
One alternative to the mentioned 180/2.8: Nikkor AF-S 105/2.8 VR with TC-17E II. Gives you two focal lengths to choose from, less brightness with the converter, though.
-- Markus
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299933964' post='6689']
Not sure where you got from that the resolution is not as good as the Nikon, every user account and review I have read states that the Tamron is a bit or a lot better at the long end, sharpness wise.
I would recommend the Tamron, as it is lighter than your 80-200, and more compact, yet gives you more reach. A nice travel companion. The Nikon 180mm f2.8 is nicer as longer portrait lens or something, but does not strike me as a typical travel lens.
[/quote]
I got this impression from the DXO lab test: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/262/%28lens2%29/281/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikkor/%28brand2%29/Tamron
I did not find a direct comparison between the two 70-300 lenses. Lenstip tested both lenses and says that "The comparison to the Nikon 70-300 mm VR is a bit unfavourable for the Tamron", but the two tests were with different cameras: one with D200 and the other with D3x.
Frank
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1299934502' post='6690']
There is indeed not much difference regarding sharpness between the Tamron and the 70-300 VR. The Tamron has higher contrast, though, so the images can give an impression of better sharpness compared to the Nikkor.
Both are ok, but not outstanding towards the long end of their focal range. The Tamron is a bit larger, which might be an important difference for your purpose.
One alternative to the mentioned 180/2.8: Nikkor AF-S 105/2.8 VR with TC-17E II. Gives you two focal lengths to choose from, less brightness with the converter, though.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Thanks, Markus. I appreciate your suggestion of AF-S 105/2.8 VR with TC-17E II, which sounds very interesting. Indeed I like the AF-S 105/2.8 VR very much. So I will consider your suggestion seriously.
In any case, I would love to see a test of the AF-S 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR on a full-frame Nikon camera to appear on phtozone. I hope this will not be very long time.
Best,
Frank
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1299937860' post='6692']
I got this impression from the DXO lab test: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/262/%28lens2%29/281/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikkor/%28brand2%29/Tamron
I did not find a direct comparison between the two 70-300 lenses. Lenstip tested both lenses and says that "The comparison to the Nikon 70-300 mm VR is a bit unfavourable for the Tamron", but the two tests were with different cameras: one with D200 and the other with D3x.
Frank
[/quote]
the dxomark tests appear to be quite nonsensical, as they give the strangest outcomes all over the lens spectrum. Not sure of the WHY, but I would suggest to not put much weight into their "results".
Photozone.de, lenstip.com, fredmiranda.com are sources I value. Some like slrgear.com too, and dpreview also can be considered as one of the sources to get an idea of how a lens performs.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1299938433' post='6693']
I appreciate your suggestion of AF-S 105/2.8 VR with TC-17E II, which sounds very interesting. Indeed I like the AF-S 105/2.8 VR very much. So I will consider your suggestion seriously.[/quote]
A similar useful combination could be Sigma's upcoming 150/2.8 OS, combined with their 1.4x APO converter. Gives a little more reach.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1299938433' post='6693']
In any case, I would love to see a test of the AF-S 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR on a full-frame Nikon camera to appear on phtozone. I hope this will not be very long time.
[/quote]
Coming soon.
Oh, and if you still consider a 70-300 zoom, avoid the Sigma 70-300 OS <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
-- Markus
Frankly, for such a purpose, I would recommend the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR for the D700. It has the flexibility of focal range and with the D700 the (relatively) slow lens is not a problem. Just boost it to 6400 and you have all the speed you want. I have several friends who use the lens and have nothing but good to say.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1299951680' post='6696']
Frankly, for such a purpose, I would recommend the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR for the D700. It has the flexibility of focal range and with the D700 the (relatively) slow lens is not a problem. Just boost it to 6400 and you have all the speed you want. I have several friends who use the lens and have nothing but good to say.
[/quote]
Now there is another option for travel lens. Twice the price of the 70-300's though.
And of course a lot of focus breathing because it is a superzoom.
I'd go with the Tamron.
If you're a crop shooter you might want to look at 55-200 VR. A lot of bang for your buck. And also bang per gram!
I've gone traveling with 85/1.8 in the past. Great of you're gunning for portraits, not wildlife.