Nikkor 180mm 2.8 or 70-300 4.0-5.6D?

I usually hate these "which (camera, lens, flash, tripod) should I

buy questions, but I need a few objective comments. I normally don't

use a telephoto very much; being an inveterate traveller, I use my

wide angles most of the time. However, I am preparing for a few trips

on which a moderate telephoto might be useful. Since I still will not

use a telephoto a great deal, I don't want to spend a fortune, so I

have narrowed the choice to a new 70-300mm 4.0-5.6D or a "mint" used

version of a 180mm f/2.8. Given the fact that I am mostly a travel

photographer, which would be the better choice? I am very familiar

with the stellar reputation of the 180, but have never even seen the

70-300 other than in a photo. Weight would be of some importance, but

not decisive. I would appreciate any advice, particularly from

persons who have experience with the 70-300. Thanks, S. Usary.

Hard question. I�m not sure whether to mean the 180/2.8ED AI/AIS or the AF 180/2.8D ED-IF but myself I�d go for the excellent image quality of either of the 180 over the convenience of the AF 70~300/4.0~5.6D ED. You may get more useful advice if you mentioned other lenses you�d be taking in your travel kit.

 

One thing seldom mentioned when folk say "travel" is their mode of travel. I�d think advice would vary based on the mode. For example are you traveling by car, FWD truck, plane, boat, etc. If traveling by truck you can carry a lot, buy plane and if doing a lot of walking you�d probably want a slim list for comfort.

 

To me f/5.6 at 300mm is pretty slow. If the lens needs to be stopped down a stop you�re at f/8.0. I wish Nikon made a high quality AF 80~200/4.0D ED but they don�t.

 

Another option is a AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor. It�s no slower than the 70~300 and it loses no speed for focusing close so it�s not so slow as a macro. It�s been described as a versatile 105mm macro but at distance it�s got the reach of 180. It is slower than the 180/2.8 and it�s fairly expensive. If backed up with some fast primes the AF 70~180/4.5~5.6 could make a fine travel lens. This is not a zoom with a macro function, it�s a purpose built macro-zoom.

 

All the best,

Hi Shane,

 

I have used the 70-300mm the ED version for travel photography, mainly for landscapes. It is a very light weight lens with good optics, especially landscapes & travel. It is very versatile. I sold it recently as I did not use it much. If you consider portraits as well 180mm will be a better option. Also it will hold the value in comparison to a 70-300mm lens.

 

Cheers,

Despite the ED lens, the 70-300 (I don't know about the new one, I had the older AF-D version which is non-G) is just not very contrasty at 300mm (actually it is more like 250mm, so you would not have more magnification.)

 

I think sooner or later, Nikon would probably come up with a counterpart to Canon's 70-200 F4L or 75-300 IS. That would be better.

If you don't mind the weight, even 80-200 F2.8 mint is quite cheap and a substantial improvement.

I absolutely adore the 180 AF-D as a travel lens. It's light, sharp, fast, has great contrast, and you can carry it around your neck for a day with no ill comfort. I can't really find any use for a slow telezoom unless you always use it on a tripod.

 

Yes, which other lenses do you carry? I travel with 24, 35 PC, 50, 105 & 180 quite often.

My normal travel ensemble consists of an N90s, an 18-35 3.5-5.6 (superb, I've found, and light weight), a 50 1.8 (non-D), and a 24-120 3.5-5.6 ED IF. I shoot slide film with this; I also carry a Contax G1 with 35mm Planar T* for print film. As you see, I have no "reach" beyond 120mm. If I get the 180, I may have to swallow hard and do something previously unthinkable, viz., go to a 200 ASA slide film (probably E200). Of course, if it can be properly steadied without a tripod, there is no problem.

I have both of these lenses. The AFD 180/2.8 is bigger and heavier than the 70-300. The 180, with its large aperture, can give a look (shallow DOF) that the zoom can't. I also find the 180 to be quite a bit sharper, but there seems to be some variation in the quality of the zooms. Personally, I hardly use the zoom except for trips to the zoo.

IMHO, neither of these lenses is an ideal travel lens, although, in general, the 180mm lens is a much better optic. For me personally, I tend to travel with a high quality 28-70mm zoom, and either a 17mm or 20mm ultra wide, and a 105mm f2.5 and a 2X TC. To me, a fast prime in the 100-135mm range and a high quality 1.6X or 2X TC would serve the purpose better than either of the other lenses you mentioned, mainly because of the weight issue, and in general, the short tele is much more useful to have around. The TC is sufficient for the rare times that you need a moderately long tele when travelling

I have both a 70-300/4-5.6G and a 80-200/4.5-5.6D.

 

I mostly use the 70-300 (I like the extra reach, and the slight extra speed at the wide end). It is definitely soft at the tele end where is needs to be stopped down between f/11 and f/16 to be usable, which requires fast film or a tripod. I like it very much at the wide end, though.

 

The 80-200 I only use when I need to travel really light, as it is amazingly light and compact. Image quality is better than the 70-300, but you're still in the realm of chinese plastic consumer zooms.

 

Personally, I'd recommend to travel with a zoom. It's hard to get the right "feel" for a telephoto, especially one quite as long as a 180mm.

If you're worried about needing a faster film, then the 180mm, at between 1 and 2 stops faster, should be the easy choice. With the 70-300, you'd need to do something even more unthinkable: use a 400 speed film. The 180 may also be easier to hand-hold steadily, since it's slightly heavier and it feels really solid.

 

If you're already carrying a slow 105, then you won't need the short end of the 70-300. And you'll worry that the long end is be too slow, and maybe doesn't look that great, either. So the 180 should be a perfect fit with the rest of your system.

 

Also, it's really hard to put into words just how good this lens is, or to appreciate it just from other people's words. But you owe yourself a chance to try it.

HI,

 

Try this

 

http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

The 180/2.8 Nikkor, no question. If I was a traveller - not a travelling photographer working assignments - I would not want to tote a long fast lens or telezoom.

 

The one exception I might make would be to carry a 500/8 mirror lens for the rare occasion when it might be useful.

I had a 180mm AF for years. I sold it and purchased a 70-300mm ED thinking the zoom would be more handy. It took me no time at all to realize that was the biggest mistake I had ever made! I have since sold the zoom and now have another 180mm AF-D. The qaulity differance between these lenses will make up for the fact that the 180mm might not be as flexible as the zoom.

The 180/2.8 ED AIS is easily hand holdable. The sweet spot is almost f/2.8~5.6 wide. I�d guess the AF version is the same. For quality images I�d use 1/500 or brace on railings or lean against a wall, etc. Some folk are more stable than I. As noted you�ll need a lot faster film to use the 70~300 at 180 than either of the 180/2.8(s). I�ll guess 3 stops faster as I doubt the 70~300 shoots at maximum aperture nearly well as the 180/2.8(s).

Many thanks to those who have responded. I think I've eliminated any wide range zoom from consideration; I don't think much of them, anyway (exception: the 24-120, under the right circumstances). Choice is down to a 105mm AF or the 180mm 2.8 AF. Decisions, decisions. Curiously, the 180 can be had for less than the 105, new or used, I believe. Certainly, the used 105's are more than the comparably graded 180's. Mitigating against the 180 is weight, mostly. I tend to like to muck around in ancient Greek/Roman/Asian ruins in my travels, and I am constantly ascending hills, climbing over rocks, and moving from place to place quite often. I don't carry the big Tamrac bag when I'm out and about; I just string the Nikon and the Contax around my neck. I had in mind to get one of those Tamrac lens cases that fits on the belt to hold the 180, thinking that this might lessen the load a bit. I welcome any further ideas, and thanks for writing. SU

Perhaps the "best" travel telephoto would be a 70 or 80-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Unfortunately, Nikon currently doesn't make one. The 70-300mm is a fine lens and I know some well known professional wildlife photographers use it as a backup, quick response type lens. While 300mm is good for wildlife, I think it is a bit of an overkill for travel and f5.6 is slow too. I find a fixed 180mm restrictive and f2.8 may also be an overkill for travel.

 

One of my favorite lens over the years is the 80-200mm and I have had two f2.8 versions now. Would you consider the 80-200mm/f2.8? It is on the heavy side, though.

180 Nikkor.

 

1) Flexibility: Extra speed allows for more types of light,

shots with wider range of DOF, and handholding options.

 

2) No regret: There will be those times you made a nice shot with

the 70-300 and wonder what it might have looked like if

taken with the 180. You'll never have that feeling the

other way around because the 180 is optically superior

to the 70-300.

A night shot of the Big Ben on Wednesday evening. 105 mm f/2 Nikkor. I think it's a remarkably useful travel FL and I think it's more important to have than a 180, although that'd be the next lens I'd get.<div></div>

One lens no one has considered is the 70-210 f/4 constant aperture. They are old on the used market (lens was discontinued in 1988, I believe), but they are built extremely well, and every review I have read gives the lens high marks. Ken Rockwell, whose opinions I respect and whose site gets frequent visits from me, sings the praises of the 70-210 f/4-5.6, which is readily available on the market, well built (a good deal of metal; metal lens mount), and can be had at a very attractive price. Performance is uncertain, however; must visit photodo. Any ideas about these two alternatives?

 

I have just about eliminated the 180 from consideration b/c of weight and bulk, and lack of versatility. The 105 appeals more, and would be the more appropriate among the primes for the kind of photography I do. Thanks again for all responses. SU

<div></div>

That is one gorgeous photograph, as is the one displayed above that Mr. Nissila shot with his 105. Did you hand hold the lens when you shot this? If you did, it's a sort of miracle on 100 film. BTW, I didn't think you could get that kind of saturation out of Provia 100F.

You surely must have used a polarizer.

Shane, it was shot from a tripod (Slik 300DX legset with Velbon PH275 magnesium ballhead - great, lightweight combo). No polarizer - the scene really looked like that.

 

I was on my way home when I saw the moon over this church in downtown Fort Worth. I quickly pulled into the parking lot and set up to shoot because the Wednesday evening churchgoers would be arriving soon.

 

The light was absolutely gorgeous - warm sunset against the building, deep blue sky, that daytime moon that's high in the sky before sunset.

 

I keep meaning to show these to the church administration to see if they're interested in a print. I have several versions of these towers with the moon overhead, taken with the 180/2.8 and my 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor. The tele shots are better despite the slight perspective error - I was able to move far enough back in the parking lot to minimize the problem.

 

Anyway, one reason I prefer Provia 100F to Velvia (at least the ISO 50 version, haven't tried the new version) is because it handles intensely contrasty light better. That's often a problem in Texas, especially photographing architecture. And Provia is saturated enough to suit my tastes.

Wow, Lex, that certainly is a fantastic shot.

 

As to the choice between the two lenses, I would recommend,

as others have, the 180. I own both, and find that I use the

70-300 for pretty much one thing: It is great for shooting macro of

active insects, with the 5T on the end of it. (That is really the only

reason I haven't sold it yet.)

 

The 180 will produce slides/negs so sharp you can shave with

them. I have made a couple of my very favorite portraits with it--I

prefer sharp, detailed portraiture to the soft-focus stuff. The 180

is the one piece of equipment I have found that actually does

spark inspiration--when I put it on my camera, it makes me just

want to seek out interesting faces to point it at.

 

It also makes a wonderful close-up optic when coupled with the

PN-11 tube--great for chasing dragonflies and other bugs.

I am pretty much down to a choice among the 180, the 105, and one added contender, a nice used 80-200 f/2.8. The non-D versions are excellent buys. Question for those who have experience with the 80-200: is it hand holdable? I note the weight of the current model is just shy of three pounds. I don't know that my gently sloping shoulders would take it. However, it would be the most versatile and therefore, useful among the three lenses. But is it too heavy for travel, when I'm carrying a bunch of other stuff (see above for the inventory)? I welcome any thoughts. SU

When traveling, I used to bring with my F3 a 20mm/2.8, a 50mm/1.4 and the 500mm/8 mirror... Then I found those 3 objectives were a bit too much too carry (I like to travel light) so decided to go for the 80-200mm/2.8 (that i bought used, in Japan) and keep the 20mm... [and shifted to F4 BTW] <p>although the zoom is not really light, it covers almost everything I need in term of portrait with a very sharp image (autofocus is a bit slow but still ok) with very good Dof (I quite often utilize the 2.8 open), so I could get rid of carrying 50 (THE boring lense by excellence IMO) and 500 (which I barely use nowadays). <p> so if I were U, I would go ton the used 80-200mm/2.8 without any hesitation...