70-200 f2.8 vs 70-300 VR

<p>Sorry for dreadful What next lens to get question, but I been strugle for a weeks with it. Assuming money not huge issue, but IQ and Weight/Bulk is. Lens will be used to capture fast moving subjects (kids, trains, sports, small animals), where MF and my bad eyes and slow hands, will not work anymore.<br>

I am using D200 as my camera with some remote chance to upgrade to D700 when it will be 2-3yr old and price comes down. From all review sites IQ at 5.6-8 in 70-200 range (sweet spot) is about the same. But 70-200 f2.8 is 2 times weight and builk of 70-300, and I am afraid that this diffrence might force me to keep it at home.<br>

In 70-200 range I own some MF AI primes already (85f1.4, 105 f2.5, 135f2.8 E, 180f2.8 ED) and love them. They all small light, but need to capture fast moving subjects and my eyes + MF doesn't let me do it. At some point in past I use to own 18-200 VR lens but sold it, as was very unhappy with IQ of it. Now i have 16-85 VR and very happy with it as my only AF, walk about lens.<br>

What Should i do? Thank you in advance.</p>

<p>Not a bad question. I own both lenses now (D300 body). I struggled with the same problem and went with the 70-300 VR initially. I have taken some very good photos with it. <br>

I then convinced myself that I could use the 70-200 2.8 VR. I have also taken some very good photos with this lens. </p>

<p>If you are starting a pros and cons list:</p>

<p>70-300 VR - Pros: (1) MUCH lighter and easier to handle handheld than the 70-200. Also easier to pack into a bag. The 70-200 will not pack easily into my Lowepro Primus AW backpack and will not fit my Domke shoulder bag. (2) Extra reach...300mm got me closer to a colony of Great Blue Herons nesting high up in the middle of a large, deep swamp than my feet could have reached with 200mm. Don't get me started on how much I'd like 400mm. I would have had an easier time identifying the chicks as they grew.</p>

<p>70-200VR - Pro: (1) The extra speed is a real bonus if you want a low ISO while shooting in low light, fast motion or want the shallow depth of field to pop a subject. I think that my camera focuses faster with the 2.8 lens (but that is a subjective observation, not tested side-by-side). I think that some photos from hockey games shot with the 70-300 that appear "muddy" were a result of the camera just not getting the focus right in time.</p>

<p>IQ difference? Can't say. I have brilliant shots from both lenses under the correct conditions. I tend to shoot outdoors. I would be hard pressed to distinguish between shots between the lenses. Both tend to show excellent sharpness, attractive bokeh, very little chromatic aberration and solid contrast performance (I'm a bit colourblind and like converting photos to "B+W" in Lightroom).</p>

<p>I bought the 70-200 telling myself that I would put the 70-300 up for sale. I have not been able to convince myself to doing so. It is a very convenient lens to carry and has only disappointed me in very specific situations (low light, fast subject,where grain would degrade the effect of the image). If you are concerned about weight, I would personally recommend the 70-300. </p>

<p>You did mention that you are thinking of moving to FX eventually (as am I). I don't know how these lenses compare on an FX body. I'd be interested in hearing responses from the D700/D3 owners who may have both.</p>

<p>> But 70-200 f2.8 is 2 times weight and builk of 70-300, and I am afraid that this diffrence might force me to keep it at home.<</p>

<p>>What Should i do?<</p>

<p>Have you not answered your own question? </p>

<p>It really comes down to what you need. Do you need 300mm? Do you need VR? Do you need 300mm <b>and</b> VR? </p>

<p>The 70-200mm is heavy, has 2 extra stops. Given the noise reduction on digital cameras will you need those 2 extra stops? <br>

I own a 70-200mm it's been all over the world. It's heavy, durable and well made. I've don't own the 70-300mm. I'd buy another 70-200mm.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is a LOAD to carry. You won't take it everywhere, but when you need to shoot something in motion it's going to make you smile.</p>

<p>I once shot a basketball game using the 70-300. Never again will I make that mistake! Two days later, I bought the 70-200 VR and I've never stopped loving it.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is fast, sharp and nearly weatherproof. I have no problems using this lens in a mist or light drizzle, which I would never try with a consumer lens. I get a high percentage of acceptible shots at 1/15 second and 200mm in stage and concert work. I use it for about 25% of my shooting, compared to less than 5% with my old 80-200/2.8 AFS.</p>

<p>Sorry I can't publish examples of these slow shots, due to privacy considerations. I wouldn't try shooting landscapes at 1/15, but at 1/250 - maybe. I always use a tripod whenever possible.</p>

<p>I think you should decide which is more important. Focal length or lens speed. There are other fast focusing 200mm zooms that slower f-stops than the 70-200mm but are much smaller and lighter. I have used the 55-200mm on a D80 panning fast moving model airplanes and it did the job better than my 180mm f2.8 AF on my D200. Better focus modules on higher end bodies also help increase focus speed. With a D700 my 180mm now will focus fairly quickly. Good enough for me with less hunting.</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8 VR is a pro lens in every way. If you want the best tool, you will have to figure out how to manage the negatives. A couple of handy things to have with a big lens: A monopod and a bag that will carry it. The Lowepro Fastpack 250 is a reasonable bag to carry the 70-200, a 24-70, flash, and accessories (best if the 70-200 is on the camera body or in its case in the top compartment).<br>

Once you shoot with the 70-200, you won't be happy with alternatives and will probably be willing to accomodate it in your bag. :)</p>

<p>I have been considering an 80-200 2.8 but I am primarily a landscape photographer who does quite a bit of hiking and overnights. To get the best quality I have been using a 105 prime yet I"m not sure I see any differences over my 70-210 4-5.6 stopped down other than a slight difference in contrast. Why can't nikon make a f 4 70-200 zoom with a tripod collar? Where I would be careful about the consumer zooms is using it at its exteme long end. </p>

<p>Hugh, that would be nice to see. I went with a old 75-150mm series E to carry when weigth is an issue. When I need auto focus I take my 180mm f2.8.</p>

<p>the drawback of the 70-300 VR to me is that AF requires good light to yield sharp results, but given good daylight i prefer it over heavier, "pro" glass. with the 70-300, i am never aware of its weight while shooting -- which i can't say about the 80-200/2.8 or 300/4 (no, i don't own the 70-200/2.8). a lot of times, my choice of lens depends on the weather report. in terms of IQ, i can only compare the 70-300 with what i know, and i find it quite satisfactory. also, since it is not a DX lens, it works well on my D700. if you can't live without that f/2.8 aperture, however, the 70-300 VR will never suffice.</p><div></div>

<p>A completely off the wall suggestion; make your MF primes more useful. I put a Katzeye focusing screen in my D2 and found that suddenly found that I could focus MF lenses again since the screen has both a split image and a microprism collar. Now my old MF lenses are getting a lot more use. I thought it was my eyes, but no, it's just hard to focus MF lenses with flat, matte focusing screens. I never used a matte screen on any of my old film cameras and now I remember why.<br>

Rob</p>

<p>I'm in the same predicament considering lens choice and future upgrade to D700. My understanding from the masses of reviews and reports I have read is that the 70-200 f2.8 smashes the 70-300 on IQ and AF speed and accuracy. However, the gap between the two lenses closes considerably when comparing performance on the full frame D700 due to the 70-200's vignetting and image softness. </p>

<p>I had the 70-300 and replaced it with the 70-200 and a 1.7TC giving and effective 510 instead of 450 with the 70-300 on which cant use a TC. But that wasnt my reason for the change. No question about the difference in IQ and remember thats a fixed 2.8, its not 5.6 at 200. I seem to have a need for speed more than for length so even with the higher iso's, I would probably like more. However, I would recommend inspecting one before buying. It's one heavy piece of glass. Not for someone looking for a light lens or planning to wear it on camera around the neck all day-or even a few hours. But as mentioned above, pulling it out as a storm clears is done with alot less concern because of its build. Fits perfectly vertically or with the top slightly lifted attached to a body in a Stealth 550. Havent tried it on a FF, but, if it is good enough for so many pros taking real life FF pictures, not brick wall photos, I think it will more than meet my needs if I decide to move to FF. I'll bet those rviewers are the same ones that, for the same reasons as the 70-200, panned the 17-35 that most pj's carry to, you know, people who actually take pictures and make a living doing so. I tend to go with what they use rather than on what some measurebator's data tells him. (Rockwells term) I think I am less concerned about these differences and more concerned with getting a good subject, well composed and well lit. For example, a recently published shot involved hiking out in the dark in breakable crust snow and water covered ice to get the composition and lighting I wanted. But I mostly have been asked what camera I used. I could tell the real photographers, they asked what went into the shot and what was done in post. And it was taken with that poorly rated, allegedly soft, 24-120, I just didnt shoot it at f/32 racked out to 120 mm. Almost sharp enough to make your eyes bleed. Dropping it a stop or so into the sweet spot would have done so. Right tool for right job used correctly. (on tripod too). So much for the reviewers. Another was published that was taken from 6 feet.with the 70-200 with a half inch dof and great bokeh. Again, right tool. Portraits with studio lights at f5.6, 8 or 11, awesome. Alot of this was learned right here from some great photographers. Thanks, folks. </p>

<p>The real problem you will have if you go for the 70-200 is the weakness of the D200's AF system. It's definitely a better lens than the camera you'll be putting it on, in my experience.</p>