gckless
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2014
- Messages
- 325
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- South Korea
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
What's in my bag:
- Nikon D7200
- Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
- Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 VR
I have around $2k as a budget right now. I'm trying to decide between a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and a Nikon 300mm f/4 VR. My main goal here is a sharpness/IQ/speed upgrade, as I obviously have the reach I need. I primarily shoot motorsports, and either of these focal ranges would be fine, as different parts on the track I could use one and not the other.
There are a couple different questions running through my mind, and assume that these questions are geared towards sharpness/IQ and that light is great:
- Is the 70-200 a huge upgrade from the 70-300, getting past the obvious speed advantages?
- Is the prime noticeably better than the 70-200?
- Would I be better off getting the prime lens, and be alright with the 70-300?
I haven't shot through either of them, local store doesn't have either. I do have the 200-500 that I am keeping that covers the 300mm prime, but I am 100% positive the prime's images would be better. If I got the 70-200, I would be selling the 70-300.
I have done searches and read a lot, most of what popped up was only about the 70-200. I know that these threads can sometimes lead to more confusion, but I want as many opinions as possible. Someone spend my money for me!
- Nikon D7200
- Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR
- Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 VR
I have around $2k as a budget right now. I'm trying to decide between a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII and a Nikon 300mm f/4 VR. My main goal here is a sharpness/IQ/speed upgrade, as I obviously have the reach I need. I primarily shoot motorsports, and either of these focal ranges would be fine, as different parts on the track I could use one and not the other.
There are a couple different questions running through my mind, and assume that these questions are geared towards sharpness/IQ and that light is great:
- Is the 70-200 a huge upgrade from the 70-300, getting past the obvious speed advantages?
- Is the prime noticeably better than the 70-200?
- Would I be better off getting the prime lens, and be alright with the 70-300?
I haven't shot through either of them, local store doesn't have either. I do have the 200-500 that I am keeping that covers the 300mm prime, but I am 100% positive the prime's images would be better. If I got the 70-200, I would be selling the 70-300.
I have done searches and read a lot, most of what popped up was only about the 70-200. I know that these threads can sometimes lead to more confusion, but I want as many opinions as possible. Someone spend my money for me!