Another Telephoto Recommendation Thread

[gckless]

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!

 

[tirediron]

I have all of these (Well, okay, 70-200 VR I not the II) The 70-200 will be markedly better than the 70-300, the 300 will be slightly better than the 200-500.

Given your kit and stated purpose, I would opt for the 70-200. The 300 prime will show an IQ improvement, but I think it might be a bit limiting, in fact both my 300s (f4 & 2.8) tend to spend more time gathering dust than in use simply because I find that particular FL not all that useful. I love it for court sports, but to be honest, not much else. For anything where there's a lot of distance, I'd much prefer the flexibility of a good zoom.

 

[Derrel]

The NEW Nikkor 300mm f/4 VR is also a diffractive optics type of lens like Canon has had for 15 years in a couple of lenses--so the NEW Nikkor 300/4 has occasionally issues with weird flare effects when shot right toward the sun--buuuuuut on the other hand, the PF or phase fresnel optical design makes this an ULTRA-miniatuyrized 300mm lens....which is almost the same size length and weight of the Canon 135/2-L...and it feels the same in terms of lightness and balance on a camera. The new 300/4 Nikkor is the worlds smallest, lightest, shortest all-glass 300mm lens (I have a 300/5.6 Celestron catadioptric that weighs less and is shorter overall in length). If you see and handle the new 300mm PF Nikkor, you will be ***astounded*** by how tiny it is! It is simply astoundingly small! It has a super-high covet factor. I demo'd it six months ago and cannot stop wanting one.

Anyway you asked
- Is the 70-200 a huge upgrade from the 70-300, getting past the obvious speed advantages?
---Yes. The 70-300 is a slow, indecisive focuser,with only very good optics as opposed to the very fine optics of the 70-200 VR-II. The 70-300 is f/4.5~5.6, so aperture-wise it is very slow and consumer grade in every way, and is also prone to weird failure to initiate focus when moving far/near, near/far; it fails to initiate focus, or hunts for focus, way,way,way,way more than any zoom I've ever used. I keep mine for day hikes. Any AF-S Nikkor can better it for focusing fast, and with both authority, and with reliability. I've shot the 70-300 VR since 2012...it has its place, but it is a lens that has failed to initiate focus under many different circumstances, as well as doing weird focus hunting. The 70-300 VR is also not very crisp at the longer focal length settings. I cannot imagine relying on this lens for motor sports.

- Is the prime noticeably better than the 70-200?
***Define noticeably. Okay--for motorsports, I doubt the prime is better by much that matters; The zoom gives focal length flexibility, which can be valuable in fixed-position shooting scenarios where you MUST be at X or Y positions, and there's no way to move closer or farther, and so on. 300mm may be too long,m or too short, the zoom will allow different angles of view from a fixed shooting spot; in that case, the zoom would be far,far "better". Optically, I really do not think there's that much advantage for a 300mm prime lens over a new, modern, $2,400 pro-grade Nikon tele-zoom--at least in an endeavor like motorsports, as opposed to say shooting for large-format landscape printing purposes.

- Would I be better off getting the prime lens, and be alright with the 70-300?
***You know, I really do not think so. I would migrate the 70-300 OUT of the shooting rotation as soon as I could, and move to the 70-200 VR-II to begin, and later, add the 300 prime.

 

[gckless]

Derrel, I'm often amazed at the amount you write. It's great stuff. I'm not sure I have the same experience with the 70-300 as you do though, mine seems pretty decent, it doesn't hunt quite that much out on track. I've missed a couple shots due to it though. No doubt the 70-200 will be an upgrade simply in the AF.

You guys are right. I had planned on the 70-200, I mean that's a lens almost anyone can love. Plus resale value is about as good as you're going to get I think. I just started searching around, and saw the "primes are better than zooms," and started looking at the 300mm. While it's no doubt a great lens, I think I would get more use out of the 70-200. Thanks!

 

[astroNikon]

I had that 70-300 VR lens. As Derrel mentions I had very weird issues that we discussed in an old thread. My shooting hits went from high % to dismal % just from that lens. Switch back to 80-200 and back to high accuracy rates. It seems to have real issues with contrast detection and liking to change your "focus point" based on what it thinks is a better contrast target, or simply not able to focus fast enough. But anytime there was a better contrast target near my real target more likely than not it focused on the other target.

I replaced it with the 300/4 AF - older screw driven lens. I found that lens very limited (as mentioned above). Good if the subject is a fixed +/- distance So it kinda went aside and the 80-200 maintained the heavy duty work. I've since added the tamron 150-600 and sold off the 300/4.

But a 70-200/2.8 would be my choice to add to your current lens lineup as you then have 200-500 covered.

I would really love a 50-300/2.8 lens that is light and inexpensive and super high IQ ... but that's why you then go to using 2 bodies/lens combo.

 

[Derrel]

The 70-300 VR's focus issue is mostly when you have the lens focused at a decidedly different distance than a subject that say, pops up, out of the blue...you raise, aim, press to initiate focus...and...NOTHING....lens just sits there. Or, alternately, racks itself to an extreme, then initiates a slow focus hunt. I have missed a bald eagle maybe 50 feet overhead out of the blue, two large hawks similar range, and a lot of beach shots where I went from near to far...but the lens just stalled. Same with soccer--another sport where the action can vary from 15 feet from your shooting position, to 250 feet away, in seconds...in most cases, I've had to grab the focus ring, and get the lens close to the distance, and then it's good. It's not that this happens all the time--but for me, it happens so often that I just will not use this lens for any kind of "action" work.

But at one basic, longer, or closer distance, yeah, it's okay. As long as the new target range and the focus already set ranges are "similar" it does okay. That's my experience. It's a lens that needs more manual "assist" than any AF-S Nikkor I've owned. However, at longer distances, like afternoon at the beach, the f/5.6 max aperture can lead to some bad hunting on people targets. I recall a number of great photo opps where the lens just went apes*** on me and just go not lock on.

I think astroNikon states it well: issues with contrast detection, and actual target versus competing possible targets; the bigger and bolder the target, the more this lens seems to want to lock onto that--so motorsports might actually be pretty good with this lens, especially if the focus range is "similar", and not wide-ranging and all over the place.

One thing the big tester at Rob Galbraith.com mentioned has stuck with me: in all of his testing of pro-Canon and pro-Nikon lenses and cameras, he mentioned that it was his opinion that Canon and Nikon's absolute FASTEST AF and the "best-optimized" AF is typically in their 70-200/2.8 zoom lenses. I had a LOT of great experience at super fast focus and good tracking with the 70-200 VR1 and the D2x...super-fast AF, and so,so reliable at tracking! THis makes sense, since the 70-200 is a bread and butter pro lens.

One of the better things about motor sports is the drivers/cars/bikes typically have STRONG contrast (decals,colors,etc) that make for superb AF targets to lock onto. So, yeah, I would expect that motorsports would be better for the 70-300 than the people I usually photograph.

 

[gckless]

Ah ok, I know what you guys are talking about, and you described it perfectly. Yes, I experience that as well. And I have had a couple times where it just hunted back and forth, right past in-focus, and could never lock on. But for the most part, probably because of the aforementioned higher-contrast subjects, it was decent for motorsports just tracking cars. I'll sell that off though, and it's still worth the ~$300 it goes for IMO.

Local store doesn't have the 70-200 unfortunately, but that's fine because I'm not too fond of their dismal 5 day return policy. However, I've got $55 in rewards from B&H, so it will be mine!

 

[gckless]

Just bought a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, along with a UV filter (I know some people's thoughts on them, but I like it for protection for the nasty stuff race cars sometimes throw), lens case, and Blackrapid strap. Biggest chunk of change I've spent on a lens, still kinda uneasy about it, but I'm excited to get it. Good thing is I can use it for a few years and sell it for not much of a loss if I really wanted to.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[fmw]

The solution to lenses that hunt is to use manual focus. Too bad we no longer have split image focusing features in our finders. I'm guessing your new lens is spectacular as far a telephoto zooms go. I haven't used one but I do own an AF Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 EDIF zoom that is an excellent performer. In order to do better you would need a fast fixed focus telephoto and you wouldn't gain much other than a little contrast and a slight improvement in corner sharpness.

 

[shadowlands]

I have the 70-200 VR1 and I love it. Before, I had the 80-200 2.8D and it's awesome, especially for the lesser price.
Both outperform the 70-300.

 

[manaheim]

If the 70-300 was anywhere near the quality of the 70-200 VRII... why would anyone pay $2K+ for the VR2?

The difference between them is VERY significant. I'd say "staggering", but that's a little dramatic.

BTW, I have both of those lenses. The 70-300 hasn't seen the light of day since I got the 70-200 VR2 several years ago.

 

[gckless]

If the 70-300 was anywhere near the quality of the 70-200 VRII... why would anyone pay $2K+ for the VR2?

The difference between them is VERY significant. I'd say "staggering", but that's a little dramatic.

BTW, I have both of those lenses. The 70-300 hasn't seen the light of day since I got the 70-200 VR2 several years ago.

Yep, it is. Had the 70-200 out for the first time this weekend at the Ferrari Challenge, and it's great. Love it. I'll be selling the 70-300 very shortly, since I won't be using it any longer between this 70-200 and the 200-500.