[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1300186394' post='6796']

Frank, I don't understand you! You have a 16-35 f4, a 24-85 and a 80-200. If you buy a 70-300 Tamron, which is sharp through the range (check the tests), you get a lens weighing 750g instead of you your 80-200 at 1400g. Bingo!!<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> IMO much better and much more practical than a 105 with an extender. Also half the price. You already have the 85mm, so a 105 seems pretty marginal in terms of usability.

[/quote]

I tend to agree with you, vieux loup. the 200-300 range is clearly still sharp, and it is contrasty even, so it would be my preferred choice too for travel tele.



A 105mm macro with 1.7x TC is more adventurous, of course... but I have not caught myself shooting macro on vacations, and that while I shoot a lot of close up stuff normally. I wish Frank a lot of wisdom with his decision! And a lot of joy with his final choice.



And then, still, I think of the APS-C only Nikon 55-300 VR which is again 200 grams lighter!

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300190418' post='6802']

And then, still, I think of the APS-C only Nikon 55-300 VR which is again 200 grams lighter!

[/quote]



Won't be much fun on the D700 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



And so far I'm not impressed by the 55-300 VR. Even on DX, I'd probably choose the (more expensive and larger) 70-300 VR.



-- Markus

[frank]

Hm....the decision is hard. It is always tuff to made decision between convenience and IQ. In terms of convenience, the 70-300 of either nikon or tamron will be the best. In terms of IQ, primes are best choice.



In fact I just want to go a bit farther beyond the 85 limit just in case that I need a FL beyond 85. I noticed that the 105 is somewhat close to the 85, but it is a macro. So I thought with a TC it would solve my problem, although not perfectly.



If only consider the FL, I would more prefer a 135mm. There is a AF 135 2DC which is an excellent portrait lens but I do not know how it will behave when being used for general purpose. In addition, it is much more expensive than the others.



Frank

[frank]

If not 105 macro, then the other prime might be the 180 2.8. It is two times the distance of 85, seems approprite. The only uncomfortable thing is that its FL and F are covered by the 80-200.



Frank

[Guest]

The Voigtlander 180mm f4 SL1 is great on the D700, I know as I have this combination <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1299906083' post='6685']

(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.

[/quote]

But won't a lens that you'll have with you be better than one you'll leave at home? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Also why not consider the following lens:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro-sigma



It's based on one of the best Sigma lenses (150mm f/2.8 macro) and now it has stabilisation too. Plus it'll focus 1:1 if you need macro. And 150mm is a good focal length between your 80-200.



GTW

[backcountryskier]

That Sigma 150/2.8 is 1.2 kg, only 200 g lighter than his big zoom.



I'd go for the Tamron 70-300 VC.

[frank]

I look over the reviews on the Tamron SP 70-300 again. Frankly, I am not impressed by the IQ in the 200-300 range. For example, on the Lenstip site, at 300mm the Tamron does not look better than the Nikkor. If Tamron and Nikkor are similar and I have to choose one from the two 70-300s, I would prefer the Nikkor over the Tamron: When fully extended the tamron is longer and, when the lens hood is reversely mounted, the focus ring cannot be touched (I heard that).



The new Sigma 150 macro looks charming, but it is weighty (from a another site I read that it weighs 1400g instead of 1200g; either is not light), and pricy.



Frank

[backcountryskier]

Not sure if I'm supposed to be posting links to the competition, or if this is even a valid comparison. But here we go:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=622&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1



Looks like the Tamron edges out the Nikon at 70 mm, but the Nikon clearly does better at 200 mm and 300 mm resolution-wise.

The Nikon does seem to purple-fringe a bit.

[Steinar1]

Frank, look at the resolution chart for the Tamron made with a D700!! It is excellent through to 300 in the center and "very good" otherwise. This test is done with DXO. The test also claims tat the Tamron is better from 200mm on than the Nikkor.

[url="http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-pique,5059.html"]http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Le-pique,5059.html[/url]



Now, I don't have shares in either, but I own a Tamron with the D700 and find it super. That being said, the Nikon would be very good as well, but buy a 70-300. From what you say and the lenses you have, it is the best choice in my humble opinion. Over and out <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />