Question About Telephoto Zooms

[Vandyu]

I haven't had a chance to shoot much with the 70-300ED or the 55-200DX that I'm checking out thanks to Ritz's allowing me this opportunity (course,they have my money :lol: )
But, my inclination is to not keep the 70-300 simply because of its weight. Also, what are the advantages/disadvantages of the rotating lens?
Although I thought the 28-200G was off the table, I've been reading reviews and most are favorable for it as an inexpensive, yet good quality walking around lens. This is what I'm looking for, particularly light in weight. I'm inclined to get the 28-200 and wait for Nikon to release a lighter DX version of the 70-300, which kind of makes sense to me, if only me :wink:
By the way, does the 28-200 have a rotating lens?

 

[Ken-L]

The 28-200G is a nice walk-around lens, light, small, I got very good results with it....the lens does not rotate, it's an internal focusing (IF) lens.

I just sold mine because I went to the 24-120VR and the 80-400VR, but I was really hesitant to sell it in case I wanted something small and light sometime....

 

[Vandyu]

The 28-200G is a nice walk-around lens, light, small, I got very good results with it....the lens does not rotate, it's an internal focusing (IF) lens.

I just sold mine because I went to the 24-120VR and the 80-400VR, but I was really hesitant to sell it in case I wanted something small and light sometime....

Thanks for your reply, Ken. I just looked at the 80-400VR and it will be a while before I can consider something along this order. Sounds like a great lens for you to enjoy. I'm hoping Nikon will introduce something with more zoom in the $350-450 range with light weight that will still make my D50 a joy to carry around.

 

[Gale]

You think the 70-300 is heavy. hummmm. I don't think so at all.

But then that is in comparison to the 80-400 and 70-200 VR's.

I am with Ken.. the 24-120 VR is the greatest :>)))

 

[Vandyu]

You think the 70-300 is heavy. hummmm. I don't think so at all.

But then that is in comparison to the 80-400 and 70-200 VR's.

I am with Ken.. the 24-120 VR is the greatest :>)))

Well, I know what you're talking about. The 70-300 is light compared to my 70-210, which now feels like a ton, and I wonder why I never noticed the weight before. I think what's happened is that I became used to the extra-light (feather-weight in comparison) Panasonic FZ-20. That camera had its advantages, but the EVF was not one of them. So, I guess everything is relative. Since I can't put $500-1500 into a camera lens right now, I want to find something I can live with and not dread picking up. And yes, those VR lenses are the way to go when you can.

 

[ScottR]

While I can't address the lenses you mention, I do understand the desire for a nice compact descent quality walk-around lens. I know a lot of folks here use the 24-120 VR for this, I found it didn't have the reach I needed. I ended up with the new Tamron 18-200. I love this lens. While it can't touch professional lens image quality it does have excellent quality in its own right. I love the fact that I can just through on this lens and go out. It is perfect for all those snapshots I take. However, when I need or want the best quality image I tend to reach for my primes or my 80-400 VR.

I don't mean to muddy the waters, but it is just food for thought.

Enjoy