Lens Comparison. Help me out?

[Markw]

Okay. I had another thread, which started out as a different topic, but transferred into this one. The title was misleading, so I decided to make a different thread on it.

Lets get to the point, shall we?

In about a month, I will be in the position to purchase another lens. I am limiting myself to a 2.8 aperture for quick shutter speed and all the obvious perks that come along with a large aperture. So, here are the choices:

Sigma 70-200 2.8
Nikon 80-200 2.8 (IF I can find one sub $750)
Nikon 180 2.8
Nikon 300 4 (I know, not 2.8, but still pretty okay, I think.)

I will also be purchasing a TC to help with the distance also. But that will be some time after the lens comes.

I shoot many things. I shoot ALOT of Macro, but that has nothing to do with this choice. I already have a dedicated macro lens. Other than that, I (would like to) shoot outdoor sports (once I have this lens, it will be possible.), I shoot alot of things, most things, actually. For landscapes, I have the 10-20mm. For macro, I have the 105mm. For portraits, I have the 105/2.8 and 50/1.8. This lens (if under the 300mm, but possibly that also) would be used for portraits as well. My list of equipment is in my signature.

Well, I think that covers all the fields. Let me know if you have any questions. I would love to hear some perks of getting one over the other if you can think of any. The choice is becoming a little overwhelming and confusing. I really could use any of them, but, in the end, I can only use one..for now..

Mark

 

[Derrel]

Well, I think the Nikkor 180/2.8 ED AF-D will be redundant in a complete kit. BTW, this lens can be bought used for a reasonably fair price from secondary market dealers, but the thing is, it suffers from slow AF. It's hard to get this lens to focus fast and reliably, and it has an A/M switch on the lens that needs to be engaged for focus touch-ups. If you have a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, the lens is redundant in most ways. The 180/2.8 can be used with extension tubes as a substitute for a 180mm macro, but it focuses slowly by hand.

The 300mm f/4 AF-S Nikkor has a very close minimum focusing distance, which makes it function "almost" like a long macro lens, and if you use an extension tube on it, it becomes almost in effect a 300mm macro lens. Its AF speed is not as fast as you might expect for the price and the specification...it's got some AF issues on action subjects, but it has good,sharp optivs, and works well with the TC14 E-II for a 420mm f/5.6 effective.

So...hmmm...the 300mm f/4 AF-S is a nice lens--head-to-head, one-or-the-other, I would much rather own it than the 180/2.8.

I don't know a lot about the Sigma 70-200/2.8--it has been through four or five iterations. There are plenty of Nikkor 80-200 AF-D lenses on the market. Surely you can find a $750 one.

 

[Markw]

If you know of anywhere I could look for any of these lenses, second hand, I would love to hear about it. As of now, I am relying on Craigslist, Amazon, and Keh.

Thanks for the input. I was considering the 70/80-200 2.8 for convenience for the focal length. That is something I could deal without if absolutely necessary. The way I figure it, with a crop sensor on my body, that puts me at 2702.8 and 450/4 before TCs, respectively. Not too shabby Id say. I know its a personal choice, but optics-wise, 180/2.8 or 300/4?

The price was another draw feature of the 180/2.8. Currently, I can find the 180/2.8 and 300/4 for about the same price. And a good one at that.

Mark

 

[Munky]

I dont know if this will help you....

You might find the following comparison review interesting if you are considering the 70-200mm f2.8 options on the market.
Juza Nature Photography

 

[Markw]

Honestly, not really. I have read the reviews and if I went 70-200, it would be Sigma. I cant deal with the AF issues said to come with the Tamron counterpart.

Mark

 

[Derrel]

I am talking specifically about the 300 f/4 AF-S Nikkor, not the older screwdriver 300/4 AF. Optically, I think the 300 f/4 AF-S has a slight edge over the 180/2.8 AF-D, which has some color fringing when shot against the light near bright areas, like water or sky. The 300/4 AF-S also has really,really close minimum focusing for a 300mm lens, at around 4 feet, not 7 feet or so. The 180/2.8 AF-D has a rather long minimum focus distance, so the 300 actually makes a much better close-up type lens.

The 300/4 AF-S also has the ability to work superbly with the Nikon 1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x teleconverters; the older 300/4 AF-D has screw driver focus, so it will need to be used with a Kenko teleconverter, or a manual focus Nikon converter. Same with the 180/2.8 AF-D--it too is screw driver focusing, not AF-S, so it too needs to be used with a Kenko TC unit.

 

[Markw]

I should have specified that, I suppose. I was considering the AF version, not the AF-S. That's still a little pricey for me at the moment. I dont mind using a Kenko TC, I have seen great results from them. And while on this note, I should specify that I am speaking of the two-ring 80-200/2.8 and the HSMII version 70-200/2.8

Mark