nikkor 70-200 2.8

[Vince.1551]

She's trying to upgrade to f/2.8 glass. The 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6 glass isnt going to help

The f2.8 ain't gonna help much either on her D5100. She might get better exposure but IQ remains relatively so so .

 

[Vince.1551]

I'll provide the correct info to those that don't already know it, since you were to focused on slamming Vince.1551 to do so yourself. Vince.1551 has it exactly backwards. What happens when Nikon DX lenses are used on Nikon FX camera bodies is what users need to be aware of. DX lenses are designed to project an image circle that works with the reduced size of the DX (APS-C) image sensor. FX is a full size image sensor and while DX lenses can be mounted and used on an FX camera body, a DX lens only illuminates the center DX size portion of the full size FX image sensor. FX cameras can detect that a DX lens is mounted and they then, as a default setting, FX cameras only use the central part of their bigger image sensor that is the same size as a DX image sensor. It costs about 4 times more to make the bigger FX image sensor than to make the smaller DX image sensor. It costs less to make a DX lens than it does to make the same lens an FX lens. Because the DX lens projects a smaller image circle the glass lens elements can be smaller in a DX lens. The lens body can be smaller too. Upgrading a lens is usually a quicker way to image quality improvement than upgrading your camera. However, good lenses often cost more than entry-level DSLRs do. Also, lenses do not need to get upgraded as often as camera bodies, from both a performance and a marketing perspective. In other words camera body upgrades are more about features and functions than they are about upgrading image quality.

True to a certain extend. What we should be focussing here is IQ. True that a 24MP FX cam like the D610 when attached with a DX lens IQ is rated at 10MP while if you use a DX camera say the D5300 you get 24MP on a APS-C sensor. For £600 is better to get a better cam with newer technology (better IQ) that allows improvements on all the current lenses then spend on a single lens that provides mediocre improvements on a D5100. It just don't make sense. If you just want the reach it's better to just get the 70-300 VR cause the resulting IQ wouldn't differ much anyway on the D5100 .., ps please read the practical test results of different lenses fitted with different cameras.

 

[sm4him]

She's trying to upgrade to f/2.8 glass. The 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6 glass isnt going to help

The f2.8 ain't gonna help much either on her D5100. She might get better exposure but IQ remains relatively so so .

I'll provide the correct info to those that don't already know it, since you were to focused on slamming Vince.1551 to do so yourself. Vince.1551 has it exactly backwards. What happens when Nikon DX lenses are used on Nikon FX camera bodies is what users need to be aware of. DX lenses are designed to project an image circle that works with the reduced size of the DX (APS-C) image sensor. FX is a full size image sensor and while DX lenses can be mounted and used on an FX camera body, a DX lens only illuminates the center DX size portion of the full size FX image sensor. FX cameras can detect that a DX lens is mounted and they then, as a default setting, FX cameras only use the central part of their bigger image sensor that is the same size as a DX image sensor. It costs about 4 times more to make the bigger FX image sensor than to make the smaller DX image sensor. It costs less to make a DX lens than it does to make the same lens an FX lens. Because the DX lens projects a smaller image circle the glass lens elements can be smaller in a DX lens. The lens body can be smaller too. Upgrading a lens is usually a quicker way to image quality improvement than upgrading your camera. However, good lenses often cost more than entry-level DSLRs do. Also, lenses do not need to get upgraded as often as camera bodies, from both a performance and a marketing perspective. In other words camera body upgrades are more about features and functions than they are about upgrading image quality.

True to a certain extend. What we should be focussing here is IQ. True that a 24MP FX cam like the D610 when attached with a DX lens IQ is rated at 10MP while if you use a DX camera say the D5300 you get 24MP on a APS-C sensor. For £600 is better to get a better cam with newer technology (better IQ) that allows improvements on all the current lenses then spend on a single lens that provides mediocre improvements on a D5100. It just don't make sense. If you just want the reach it's better to just get the 70-300 VR cause the resulting IQ wouldn't differ much anyway on the D5100 .., ps please read the practical test results of different lenses fitted with different cameras.

Have you actually USED a D5100 with either of these lenses?

Because I have. And I can assure you, there IS a difference in IQ between the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens on the D5100 and either a 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 lens on the same camera.
I currently use a D7000, but the D5100 remains my backup camera because it is a perfectly capable camera. And better glass WILL result in better IQ with it.
Even if you dispute THAT, while I LOVE my 70-300 lens, I'd take the low-light capability of an f/2.8 lens over it any day of the week.

 

[Vince.1551]

Have you actually USED a D5100 with either of these lenses? Because I have. And I can assure you, there IS a difference in IQ between the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens on the D5100 and either a 80-200 or 70-200 f/2.8 lens on the same camera. I currently use a D7000, but the D5100 remains my backup camera because it is a perfectly capable camera. And better glass WILL result in better IQ with it. Even if you dispute THAT, while I LOVE my 70-300 lens, I'd take the low-light capability of an f/2.8 lens over it any day of the week.

Yes I used to own a D5100 I did practical test on same lens different camera & same camera different lenses. You don't get what I meant either. Why pay £600 to get a mediocre improvement in IQ just for one lens? Did you get your D7000 first or you bought your 70-200 f2.8 before you bought your D7000?

 

[robbins.photo]

I'll provide the correct info to those that don't already know it, since you were to focused on slamming Vince.1551 to do so yourself. Vince.1551 has it exactly backwards. What happens when Nikon DX lenses are used on Nikon FX camera bodies is what users need to be aware of. DX lenses are designed to project an image circle that works with the reduced size of the DX (APS-C) image sensor. FX is a full size image sensor and while DX lenses can be mounted and used on an FX camera body, a DX lens only illuminates the center DX size portion of the full size FX image sensor. FX cameras can detect that a DX lens is mounted and they then, as a default setting, FX cameras only use the central part of their bigger image sensor that is the same size as a DX image sensor. It costs about 4 times more to make the bigger FX image sensor than to make the smaller DX image sensor. It costs less to make a DX lens than it does to make the same lens an FX lens. Because the DX lens projects a smaller image circle the glass lens elements can be smaller in a DX lens. The lens body can be smaller too. Upgrading a lens is usually a quicker way to image quality improvement than upgrading your camera. However, good lenses often cost more than entry-level DSLRs do. Also, lenses do not need to get upgraded as often as camera bodies, from both a performance and a marketing perspective. In other words camera body upgrades are more about features and functions than they are about upgrading image quality.

True to a certain extend. What we should be focussing here is IQ. True that a 24MP FX cam like the D610 when attached with a DX lens IQ is rated at 10MP while if you use a DX camera say the D5300 you get 24MP on a APS-C sensor. For £600 is better to get a better cam with newer technology (better IQ) that allows improvements on all the current lenses then spend on a single lens that provides mediocre improvements on a D5100. It just don't make sense. If you just want the reach it's better to just get the 70-300 VR cause the resulting IQ wouldn't differ much anyway on the D5100 .., ps please read the practical test results of different lenses fitted with different cameras.

Well, focusing on IQ - ok. Sure. Badly lit arena. Slow lens means either a slow shutter speed, badly under exposed shot, or ISO in the nose bleed section. Even with the best optics on the planet is still going to give you motion blur or something massively underexposed or chock full of noise, which of course is going to kill your IQ. More expensive camera body = moderate increase in lowlight capabilities which equals results that will be most likely still be unsatisfactory. Fast glass = big increase in low light capabilities which equals higher shutter speeds/lower iso/proper exposure which equals much, much better IQ.

And for those of you who are curious, yes I have shot both the 70-300 mm AF-S VR and the 70-200 mm F/2.8 Sigma on both a D5100 and a D5200. The 70-300 mm is an outstanding lens, great optics - and a wonderful choice... IF you have enough light. That's the portion of the equation that seems to be missing here.

 

[robbins.photo]

Dear everyone reading this thread: Please ignore the false information Vince.1551 just spread. Thanks, Brain.

Info warriors ... Don't preach what you have read. Rather you test it out yourself and read about practical testings. Might as well advise her to use the trinity lens on her D5100. Remember, FX lenses are designed for FX cameras. DX lenses are designed for DX cameras. To put it simply, changing her current cam to a D5300 or D7100 would have greatly improved IQ based on her current lens setup simply because of better technology... Get it ?

If she were shooting in good lighting that would probably be true, the 24 mp sensor is going to give you much better results with the lenses she currently has provided there is enough light so that the slower glass can get a proper shutter speed/exposure without outrageous ISO. However in the situation she describes she is doing most of her shooting, that really isn't the case. I think that's the piece of the puzzle that's missing here.

 

[ruifo]

Of course newer cameras will improve your IQ end results... No doubt about it.
However, I also agree with the majority that preaches that before upgrading you camera, do so with your lens first.

Lenses last way more than camera bodies, and later when you upgrade you body, you will have another IQ improvement.
That's what I do, at least. D5200 and getting FX lenses for it now, that really improves (a lot) the IQ.

In the future, as I move into a FX body (maybe something inside the D800 family), I will already have FX lenses.
And I will certainly experiment another IQ improvement.

Nevertheless, probably the most important improvement in IQ has to do more with the shooter's skills, than with her/his gear...

Yes, I truly believe in that. Look what this person is doing in Uruguay with a D3100 and its kit lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/errikarevetria/

Look what this person is doing in the Netherlands with a Samsung NX300 mirrorless crop with kit lens:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/99099661@N08/

Here's a good step up strategy for enhancing IQ over time, from worse to better:
.1) DX Body + Kit DX Lenses
...2) Improve your shooting skills...
....3) DX Body + Fast DX Lenses
......4) Improve your shooting skills again...
.......5) DX Body + FX Lenses
.........6) Improve your shooting skills even further...
..........7) FX Body + FX Lenses
............8) Don't ever stop improving your shooting skills... never...

How fast you move, depends on you, and you alone, your needs and your budget. Whether you are a hobbyist or a pro, etc...

 

[astroNikon]

1 - I believe she already has a 70-300 lens. So getting a second one probably won't do much good.
2 - she is looking at upgrading the body and lens .. if you read her other threads. This thread is simply about the lens.