[quote name='mst' timestamp='1299943319' post='6695']
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.
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
[/quote]
The upcoming Sigma 150/2.8 OS is probably too heavy for travel: it weights 1430g according to some website.
The Nikkor 105 macro vr looks more attractive to me than the AF 180 2.8D. If I get it then I will have in addition to the focal length: 1) a goog macro lens (I do not have a macro lens yet); 2）a long focal length with VR. According to some website the Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x converter supports both AF-s and VR. If this is true, then it might be an excellent combination of Nikkor 105 macro vr + Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x. But I have not seen a report on the quality of images produced by Nikkor 105 macro vr + Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x.
I have also considered the Nikkor AF 135 2 DC which is an excellent lens but might not work well with a tele-converter (just my guess) and it is significantly more expensive then the 105 2.8 vr and the 180 2.8D.
Frank
[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]
This sounds interesting but I will be suprised if the 28-300 VR bits the 70-300 VR　in the range of 70-300mm.
Frank
03-13-2011, 10:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2011, 11:06 AM by mst.)
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300000789' post='6704']
The upcoming Sigma 150/2.8 OS is probably too heavy for travel: it weights 1430g according to some website.[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn't aware the lens is that heavy.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300000789' post='6704']
According to some website the Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x converter supports both AF-s and VR.[/quote]
It does.
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1300000789' post='6704']
But I have not seen a report on the quality of images produced by Nikkor 105 macro vr + Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x.
[/quote]
I just checked for samples in my lib, but found only one image. So I cannot really comment on the quality of the combination. You can certainly expect a little drop in quality in general, especially wide open. Plus, usually AF speed is reduced by converters, especially longer ones.
Both combined will give you a 180mm/4.8, btw.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
I don´t how and where you want to travel - if you want a maximum of tele reach along with a minimum of size and weight consider the Pana GF1/Pana 100-300mm combination, or the more or less equivalent stuff from Oly.
Frank, the 28-300 was made with the D700 and D3's in mind. Try it out and read the reviews; it's an excellent lense and lots of professional photographers use it for half serious reportage. Here is a link to a test made by a very serious French magazine; [url="http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-pique,5171.html"]http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-pique,5171.html[/url] ! As you can see, the piqué (sharpness) is excellent or very good at all focal ranges. The only negative is some distortion that can be easily dealt with in Capture NX2!
Well, any super zoom is always a lens full of compromises. And sorry to spoil the party, the 28-300 VR is not one of the top super zooms available. Personally, I'd rather get a DX camera with 18-200 VR instead. At least that is my impression after using it on the D3x. The 12 MP FX sensor of course is more forgiving and the resolution will probably be ok here. But distortion is quite hefty through almost the complete zoom range.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300045414' post='6716']
Well, any super zoom is always a lens full of compromises. And sorry to spoil the party, the 28-300 VR is not one of the top super zooms available. Personally, I'd rather get a DX camera with 18-200 VR instead. At least that is my impression after using it on the D3x. The 12 MP FX sensor of course is more forgiving and the resolution will probably be ok here. But distortion is quite hefty through almost the complete zoom range.
-- Markus
[/quote]
He has a D700, so whether " you would rather get a DX" becomes somewhat irrelevant. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' /> The distortion is taken care of with 2 clicks in Capture NX2. The test referred to in my previous input was done with a D700 and the resolution was excellent. Now, are there better solutions for Frank? Quite possible, but let's give him useful advice, pls! I have the Tamron 70-300VC with the D700 and find the lens very useful and would reommend it highly, both for sharpness and contrast throughout the range. If travelling with only that, I would want to add a 24 or 35mm prime for the landscape and low light shots.
03-13-2011, 11:02 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-13-2011, 11:05 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1300054590' post='6717']
He has a D700, so whether " you would rather get a DX" becomes somewhat irrelevant. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' /> The distortion is taken care of with 2 clicks in Capture NX2. The test referred to in my previous input was done with a D700 and the resolution was excellent. Now, are there better solutions for Frank? Quite possible, but let's give him useful advice, pls! I have the Tamron 70-300VC with the D700 and find the lens very useful and would reommend it highly, both for sharpness and contrast throughout the range. If travelling with only that, I would want to add a 24 or 35mm prime for the landscape and low light shots.
[/quote]
It is true that you can counter distortion, but that always goes with a loss of resolution. It does not come for free. Of course, that may not really matter... but when people go on an on nowadays about how sharp e lens is/has to be, one should take the resolution loss due to distortion compensation into account too.
Personally I would prefer a D700 with 28-300 VR over an APS-C body with 18-200 VR anytime, since I have never been impressed by the performance of the 18-200 VR and the images I have seen from the 28-300 VR do not half bad. And you do over a stop advantage DOF wise with the full frame body.
Vieux loup, It might be interesting to travel with an 28-300mm VR and a Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, actually. How is that for a 2 lens set up...
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300057351' post='6719']
It is true that you can counter distortion, but that always goes with a loss of resolution. It does not come for free. Of course, that may not really matter... but when people go on an on nowadays about how sharp e lens is/has to be, one should take the resolution loss due to distortion compensation into account too.
Personally I would prefer a D700 with 28-300 VR over an APS-C body with 18-200 VR anytime, since I have never been impressed by the performance of the 18-200 VR and the images I have seen from the 28-300 VR do not half bad. And you do over a stop advantage DOF wise with the full frame body.
Vieux loup, It might be interesting to travel with an 28-300mm VR and a Tokina 16-28mm f2.8, actually. How is that for a 2 lens set up...
[/quote]
I think it would be a great setup, but for the weight of the 16-28 compared to a prime. However, in terms of flexibility it would be unbeatable.<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1300054590' post='6717']
He has a D700, so whether " you would rather get a DX" becomes somewhat irrelevant. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />
[/quote]
I know he has a D700. And that's how it was meant: if I needed such a lens (as a single lens travel solution), I would rather invest in a second (DX) body with 18-200 VR instead of a 28-300 VR.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
|
