[Brightcolours]

[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1300792137' post='7012']

Frank, I had similar "case" myself I did a trip recently and took a Nikkor 55-200 VR to travel light, it worked quite fine and my only gripe was slow AF, so if you plan on shooting animals you might want to check AF performance of the 70-300 you think about.. Then again, a far more important issue as I found out is reach, I thought 200mm on APS-C would be enough - but this wasn't the case.. so maybe (not lightweight) an option to consider is a 100-400 lens .. ? Just a thought.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

Hmmm... When looking for a more travel friendly alternative for a 80-200mm f2.8... and then looking at a 80/100-400mm lens? I think that is not really viable <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[mst]

Plus (again): we're not talking about APS-C, but FX <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[wojtt]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300793205' post='7015']

Plus (again): we're not talking about APS-C, but FX <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus

[/quote]





Sorry <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I meant not to adress a APS/FX issue but rather the potential issues of a fast/slow AF and "right" reach for a given application, since 200mm on APS equals 300mm on FX <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> My own decision after my last travel is that next time I'll bear with the added weight.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Marc]

Hmm, I have the Nikkor 80-200/2.8 Dn, an old AF 180/2.8 and a D700.



The 80-200/2.8 is a bit longer (~190mm), but the 180/2.8 is the better lens (sharper, better contrast, better bokeh).



If I want to go really light, I take the tiny manual Nikkor 200/4 AiS (510g), that's optically slightly less sharp than the 180/2.8, but "wide open" still sharper than the 80-200/2.8 at 200mm/4.

Quite a feat for a €80,- lens from Ebay, but the 200/4 is known to be that good.



Marc