Looking for a lightweight telezoom.

dipstick

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
My 17-55mm is my workhorse, but every now and then a telezoom is nice to have. So far I've been hauling around Nikons 80-200 2.8, but on some assignments its simply too big to drag around all day, especially when I know that I'm not gonna use it.

So I'm looking for a lightweight telezoom that I can carry on me at all times. So far I found Tokinas 50-135mm 2,8, Sigmas 50-150mm 2,8.

Does any of you guys have experience with any of these, or other suggestions?
 

Sideburns

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
2,796
Reaction score
0
Location
Windsor, Ontario
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
The problem is the 2.8
If you get a slower lens, it'll be much smaller and lighter.
 

photogincollege

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Ok this is solely going on photozone.de so just a disclaimer i have no experience with these lenses. They both seem pretty decent, though they say the tokina is made with more metal and is heavier if thats still a concern. The 80-200 2.8 is part of their pro glass correct? If so you might notice a drop in image quality but cant say for sure. Like i said this is purely info from photozone not my personal experience.
 
OP
dipstick

dipstick

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Sideburns: Yeah, I know 2,8 makes the lens bigger, slower could work as long as it's sharp. 2,8 would of course be nice

photogincollege: Nikons 80-200 is heavier than both the Sigma and Tokina, so I don't think either of them would be a problem when it comes to size and weight. I did my reading on photozone too, but I find it a bit hard to judge just from "lab" tests and not real life experience.

Big Mike: Yeah, I was just looking at that...

Is the 70-300 a pro lens in build quality? I read the photozone review and it looks quite interesting. I'm mainly concerned about how slow it is, but maybe the VR would make up for it?

Like I said, the 17-55 is my workhorse, and I guess having a slow tele lens in the pocket is better than a fast tele lens left in the car. :wink:
 

sabbath999

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
69
Location
Missouri
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Is the 70-300 a pro lens in build quality? I read the photozone review and it looks quite interesting. I'm mainly concerned about how slow it is, but maybe the VR would make up for it?

No, it is not. It is sharp, excellent resolving power, the VR works great, but the build quality is definitely a consumer lens with lots of plastic (metal mount though).

On the other hand, you want a heavy fast lens made of metal or you want light?

As bicycle component manufacturer & guru Keith Bontrager says:

Light
Cheap
Strong

Pick two.
 
OP
dipstick

dipstick

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
sabath999: I want light! I asked about the build quality cause I never saw one myself, and a consumer build is fine as long as the optical quality is good.

Do u got one yourself? How many steps would you say you gain using the VR?
 

Big Mike

I am Big, I am Mike
Staff member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
33,900
Reaction score
1,864
Location
Edmonton
Website
www.mikehodson.ca
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I saw some actual test results from Pop Photo, where they tested the effectiveness of VR & IS and some of the in-body systems.
I can't find the link though.

I do remember that the Nikon 18-200 VR had the best performance at around 3.5 to 4 stops of extra hand-holdability. The 70-300 VR is probably closer to three stops but that's not too bad.
 
OP
dipstick

dipstick

TPF Noob!
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Sounds like I need to get my hands on one to try it out myself...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Top