02-25-2011, 03:26 PM
[quote name='rudolf' timestamp='1298644571' post='6364']
Thank you for the reply!
That's not 70-200, that's just 200mm VR1. I should have said BULKY
I thouht about 150mm Sigma a while ago, I should re-consider that agian.
The most tempting thing about 70-180 is that it is a zoom. So a tele zoom, a macro and a macro zoom. Three in one - and a very good compromise.
Speaking of inexpensive, that is always good, but if I do not pay for a 70-180 more than it is worth, I have a good chance to get my money back (if I ever want it); and I can also sell my 80-200, as I already have fast lenses in that range, -- on a condition that at f/4.5-5.6 70-180 matches 80-200 for picture quality. And it seems that they are close enough.
[/quote]
Oh sorry, strange that I "read" 70-200mm VR in that. So you have the 200mm f2 VR, nice lens.
Still the 70-180mm micro/macro, while being a nice concept, has no virtues over a 80-200 f2.8 with extension tubes. It is not better optically for close by photography.
The 802--mm f2,8 will keep its focal length close to 200mm, where the 70-180mm will show serious focal length breathing (meaning it will have a lot shorter focal length at close ranges).
It is a bit less heavy, but at over 1kg it still is a heavy lens and the difference to the 80-200mm f2.8's weight is almost negligible. While it has a long focus path, nice for MF, it is slow with AF as normal zoom tele.
The 80-200 is also a bit sharper at the long end.
In short, I only see downsides to the 70-180mm micro compared to the 80-200mm f2.8 + extension tubes.
The 80-200 is sharper, will actually offer a long focal length at close up distances, focusses faster, and still opens up to f2.8.
It will deliver superior results, also for close up stuff. Just get an extension tube set for it.
Is there any way you can try out your 80-200mm f2,8 with a set of extension tubes?
Thank you for the reply!
That's not 70-200, that's just 200mm VR1. I should have said BULKY
I thouht about 150mm Sigma a while ago, I should re-consider that agian.
The most tempting thing about 70-180 is that it is a zoom. So a tele zoom, a macro and a macro zoom. Three in one - and a very good compromise.
Speaking of inexpensive, that is always good, but if I do not pay for a 70-180 more than it is worth, I have a good chance to get my money back (if I ever want it); and I can also sell my 80-200, as I already have fast lenses in that range, -- on a condition that at f/4.5-5.6 70-180 matches 80-200 for picture quality. And it seems that they are close enough.
[/quote]
Oh sorry, strange that I "read" 70-200mm VR in that. So you have the 200mm f2 VR, nice lens.
Still the 70-180mm micro/macro, while being a nice concept, has no virtues over a 80-200 f2.8 with extension tubes. It is not better optically for close by photography.
The 802--mm f2,8 will keep its focal length close to 200mm, where the 70-180mm will show serious focal length breathing (meaning it will have a lot shorter focal length at close ranges).
It is a bit less heavy, but at over 1kg it still is a heavy lens and the difference to the 80-200mm f2.8's weight is almost negligible. While it has a long focus path, nice for MF, it is slow with AF as normal zoom tele.
The 80-200 is also a bit sharper at the long end.
In short, I only see downsides to the 70-180mm micro compared to the 80-200mm f2.8 + extension tubes.
The 80-200 is sharper, will actually offer a long focal length at close up distances, focusses faster, and still opens up to f2.8.
It will deliver superior results, also for close up stuff. Just get an extension tube set for it.
Is there any way you can try out your 80-200mm f2,8 with a set of extension tubes?