200mm vs 300mm comparison photos

<p>A mate asked me what the difference would be between a 200mm and a 300mm on a DX camera, I told him with the crop factor its basically 300mm vs 450mm.<br>

But thats not enough for him to appreciate it and I don't have a 300mm to show him. Is there somebody out there that can take a couple of sample images, one at 200mm and then one at 300mm to show him the difference.....thanks</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00JztC">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00JztC</a></p>

<p>200mm vs 300mm</p><div></div>

<p>Take 1/3 off the width and length of the 200 mm photo. Picture wise they will be exactly the same with a quality loss for the crop.</p>

<p>I have been re-tnhinking my bag an if I should get a teleconverter or not.<br>

I have/had several lenses that I was trying to narrow down.</p>

<ul>

<li>sigma 70-200/2.8</li>

<li>nikon 80-200/2.8 afs</li>

<li>sigma 100-300/4</li>

<li>tamron adaptall 300/2.8 with 1.4tc</li>

</ul>

<p>I took several shots at different apertures. When comparing the results, I compared all 3 zooms at 300mm (i cropped the results from the 2 shorter zooms), then I compared the winner of that contest to the adaptall lens (with cropping the shorter one again)</p>

<p>My results: the Nikon 80-200 afs gives me the best results when cropped to 300mm - better than the 100-300 with zero cropping.<br>

Then came testing the 80-200 afs cropped to 420mm against the manual focus prime lens. That test was very close. It seems I can push my Nikon quite a ways!</p>

<p>You can also throw a teleconverter on the 80-200 and get the better zoom without much of a loss in quality. Doesn't work well with the 2.0 TC though.</p>