70-300

[davewolfs]

I'm thinking about doing some treks where I would be hiking up to 8 miles on some days. Majority of my shots would be landscape, so I am looking for something in the 70-200 range. Obviously weight is an issue but image quality is also very important. That being said, how does the 70-300 compare to the 70-200 when stopped down to f/8+ on a Full Frame sensor? Are we talking similar resolution?

Thanks,

Dave

 

[Randy]

I'm thinking about doing some treks where I would be hiking up to 8 miles on some days. Majority of my shots would be landscape, so I am looking for something in the 70-200 range. Obviously weight is an issue but image quality is also very important. That being said, how does the 70-300 compare to the 70-200 when stopped down to f/8+ on a Full Frame sensor? Are we talking similar resolution?

Thanks,

Dave

imo 70mm is too long for landscapes even on the d700 (i'm guessing that's the body you will take)....

the 70-200 is prob too big and heavy for 8 miles.
the 70-300 is no where near the lens the 70-200 is in the IQ dept....what does similiar resolution mean regarding a lens ?

 

[davewolfs]

By resolution I mean similar quality, resolving of fine detail.

Since when is 70mm too wide? Sometimes 17mm isn't too wide

imo 70mm is too wide for landscapes even on the d700 (i'm guessing that's the body you will take)....

the 70-200 is prob too big and heavy for 8 miles.
the 70-300 is no where near the lens the 70-200 is in these IQ dept....what does similiar resolution mean regarding a lens ?

 

[TMR Design]

imo 70mm is too wide for landscapes even on the d700 (i'm guessing that's the body you will take)....

the 70-200 is prob too big and heavy for 8 miles.
the 70-300 is no where near the lens the 70-200 is in the IQ dept....what does similiar resolution mean regarding a lens ?

Hi Randy,

Did you really mean 'wide'? or did you mean to type 'long'? I've never heard anyone say that 70mm is too wide for landsapes before. :wink:

 

[Randy]

Hi Randy,

Did you really mean 'wide'? or did you mean to type 'long'? I've never heard anyone say that 70mm is too wide for landsapes before. :wink:

yes I meant too long...thx for catching that

 

[Randy]

By resolution I mean similar quality, resolving of fine detail.

Since when is 70mm too wide? Sometimes 17mm isn't too wide

i meant too long

 

[davewolfs]

70mm is by no means too long, there are scenarios that most definately call for these focal lengths.

It's too bad that Nikon does not offer a light weight quality 24-105 or 70-200.

So is it safe to say that IQ from the 70-300 cannot compete in anyway with the 70-200?

 

[gadgetguy11]

So is it safe to say that IQ from the 70-300 cannot compete in anyway with the 70-200?

No.

If lighting is sufficient the IQ competes extremely well. I suggest you search for images in the Cafe taken with the 70-300 - there have been several recent threads on topic.

I own the 200-400VR, 300VR, 200 /2.0, 70-200 /f2.8, and 70-300VR. I recently posted zoo images taken with the 70-300 and 300VR. They provided an interesting comparison. And I believe they will help you form your own conclusions. If the 70-300VR were not a top performer, I would have sold it long ago.

 

[TMR Design]

I've posted many 70-300mm VR threads with images, some using this lens for outdoor long lens portraiture. It far exceeded my expectations.

 

[dwind]

18 - 35 3.4 - 4.5 plastic lens is nice for hiking.
Good sharpness and color. If dx then consider the 18 - 55 or 18 - 200.

 

[johnmh]

I seem to recall Thom Hogan noting that someone regularly used the 28-105 or 28-200 for backpacking - light plastic lens with some range.

IMO, 70 seems a bit long for landscapes. If you're looking for a long reach lens that's an acceptable carry weight, the 70-300 VR beats the 70-200 VR weight and size wise. The non-VR 70-300 is even lighter but the VR is nice at 300.

Tried carrying the 16-85 and 70-300 last trip and was pleased with the results. The two lenses complimented each other well with better iq and more range than the 18-200 gives.

If you want to stay with one lens the 18-200 gives you wide for landscapes AND some reach.

Ultimately I'm thinking that the new 80-400 AF-S VR and 16-85 will make for a nice combination - wide for landscapes and decent reach for large critters. Probably still one lens too many but beats what I used to carry.