70-200mm f2.8 vs 28-300mm f3.5-5.6

[Lightsped]

I am considering either the 70-200mm f2.8 or the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6. The lens would be used mostly for wildlife such as birds and maybe the occasional car race. I have handled the 70-200mm f2.8 and like it a lot, but that extra 300mm reach on the 28-300mm might be nice. Of course the 300mm would be slower....

Which lens is recommended for wildlife and a car race or two? Currently the only long lens I have is the 55-300mm 4.5-5.6 but I have to use DX mode when using this lens on my D800....

 

[D-B-J]

The 70-200 is a much much much better lens, even with the limited reach. I'd grab that and a 1.4TC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

No question, get the 70-200 mm F/2.8. I use a Sigma F/2.8 70-200 mm OS version myself. Originally I bought a used 2x teleconverter to use with it, and I was extremely impressed and frankly pleasantly surprised by the results. So I now have a 140-400 mm F/5.6 with the teleconverter attached, and on my crop sensor D5200 I don't see any appreciable loss in image quality, nothing that can't be easily fixed in post. I just recently ordered a 1.4x teleconverter as well, so I will have 70-200 mm F/2.8, add the 1.4 and it's a 98-280 mm F/4, or the 2x and it becomes a 140-400 mm at F/5.6. That's a ton of versatility and I only have to carry the one lens and the two small teleconverters instead of 3 different lenses.

This is just a quick sample of one taken with the 70-200 mm with the 2x teleconverter attached:


20140209_166 by robbins.photo, on Flickr

 

[Coasty]

The 70-200 is a much much much better lens, even with the limited reach. I'd grab that and a 1.4TC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This times 2.
The 70-200 with a x 1.4 TC becomes a 98-280 f/4, if you use a x2 TC it becomes a 140-400 f/5.6

 

[480sparky]

The 70-200 is a much much much better lens, even with the limited reach. I'd grab that and a 1.4TC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard the 1.4TC is specifically designed for the 300/2.8, the 1.7 is for the 70-200/2.8, and the 2.0 is for the 400/2.8.

Not that they won't work on other lenses, but they work best on their particular 'mate'.

 

[ruifo]

No doubt about it: get a 70-200mm f2.8

I use a "Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD" lens. Very sharp and good. I also have a 2x TeleConverter, that turns it into a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens.

Here are two shots to illustrate it:



Zoológico de Chapultepec por ruimc77, no Flickr
Nikon D5200, Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, @200mm, 1/250 sec, f/4, ISO 2000



And another one using the 2x TeleConverter:


Zoológico de Chapultepec por ruimc77, no Flickr
Nikon D5200, Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, 2x TC, @400mm, 1/750 sec, f/5.6, ISO 100


More here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...on-70-200mm-f-2-8-sp-di-vc-usd-opinion-2.html

 

[goodguy]

The 70-200 is a much much much better lens, even with the limited reach. I'd grab that and a 1.4TC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry dude but I must completly disagree with you, its not much, much, much better.
Its much, much, much, much, much, much, much better!!!!! :mrgreen:

I wouldn't touch the 28-300mm, its a super zoom and all super zoom lenses are very practical to use because of their wide focal range but you pay for it with sharpness and the fact its a much slower lens is just another nail in the coffin.
For me sharpness in lenses is most important and then secondly comes how wide they are, I mean whats the point of having a very wide lens if it aint sharp right ?
The only telezoom lens I would consider owning not instead the 70-200mm 2.8 but with it is the 70-300mm VR.
The 70-300mm VR is a very sharp lens has the extra reach, is smaller and lighter, is much cheaper compared to the 70-200mm 2.8 its good if lighting conditions are good so why not own both if you can afford it.

 

[jaomul]

28-300 is better than the 70-200 at 28-69 and 201-300. These are not really comparable lenses. They are to different

 

[oxmav3rickxo]

what about the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x converter (140-400mm f5.6), they are comparable in price? I guess it would be more versatile having the 70-200 with a 2x converter huh?

 

[robbins.photo]

what about the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x converter (140-400mm f5.6), they are comparable in price? I guess it would be more versatile having the 70-200 with a 2x converter huh?

Well I've never shot the 80-400 mm, so I can't speak specifically to the differences you might see in IQ, but the 70-200 with the teleconverter would be a lot more versatile. You'd have the 2.8 at 200 mm for low light situations, and 400 mm at 5.6 when you have a decent amount of light, all with just one lens. Works great for me, and I find the IQ with the teleconverter to be more than acceptable. I was very surprised, most of what i read lead me to believe that the TC would degrade the image quality significantly but honestly i can barely tell the difference, other than the fact that the lens goes from 2.8 to 5.6.

As to price it varies quite a bit, I got a great deal on my Sigma, picked up a used one with the OS for a little over $700 which was just way to good of a deal to pass up. Most of the other ones I've seen used are usually in the $900 ish range, new they generally run around $1200 for the sigma.

 

[ruifo]

what about the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vs. the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x converter (140-400mm f5.6), they are comparable in price? I guess it would be more versatile having the 70-200 with a 2x converter huh?

Here's a direct comparison. See it for yourself:

Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on Nikon D800 versus Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D800 versus Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR on Nikon D800 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark