Nikkor telephoto options.

[John Crowe]

<p>Another vote for the longer lens. Pass on the 70-200/2.8 VR2 and put that money toward the longer lens. Get a nice simple used Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S in reasonable condition for under $1000 USD if you really need to fill this focal range, or just get a used 180/2.8 for even less (A lot easier to carry too).</p>

<p>For the person considering using a 200/2 with converters...forget it. The 200/2 costs too much to use as anything but a 200/2. If you need longer glass get the longer glass.</p>

<p>Do you really need VR for what you want to do? If not, it opens more options.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>John - re. the 200 f/2 with teleconverters, don't worry - I wouldn't be looking at it if I didn't need something that short and fast. I'm actually looking at it as a replacement for the 135 f/2 DC, since the LoCA of that lens is annoying me and the 200 f/2 is about the best choice for moderate telephoto in dim light with a lot of subject isolation - and I know it's got very little LoCA to worry about (I might do marginally better with a Fluorite lens of the same spec, but I'm not jumping back to Canon at this point). Not that I'd turn down a 400 f/2.8 as an alternative (and I actually did wonder about the 300 f/2.8), but I need to take head-and-torso sized images from the other side of a room. The 135 is actually not far from the right focal length for me, but I'll stretch to 200 and standing farther away because of the lens's superior optics. With a 300 f/2.8 I'd end up shooting through a window - it's too long.<br>

<br>

However, when I do need length, a 200 f/2 VR plus a TC-20 may well outresolve my 150-500 f/5-6.3, at least at f/8; whether it's still any better with stacked TC-20 and TC-14 is another matter. As Paul noted, the 150-500, while I've used mine plenty, has limitations. Like Paul, I can't afford a shorter faster lens and a bigger supertelephoto (unless, possibly, I resort to the old 400 f/3.5) - but I agree that I'd not touch the 200 if I knew I exclusively needed more length.<br>

<br>

Just checking the sizes against the baggage allowance for the airline I most recently used (KLM), any supertelephoto will fit inside economy carry-on limits, although the Sigma 800mm and 300-800mm are a bit close. (You're on your own with the 200-500 f/2.8 and 1200mm lenses, but I doubt economy-class carry-on is your concern if you've just bought one of them, and IIRC they come with flight cases.) It's nice to dream of the big stuff. :-)</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Not going to add much to this thread but @Andrew - I'm pretty sure I didn't see the 300/2 AIS - I checked the pricing of the 300mm, it was definitely an af lens, and it was about £1.8k, IIRC. Was about a year ago.</p>

<p>That said, I'd probably visit again just to check out the 300/2 AIS :) Must be a beast. (Aperture also does a mean smoked salmon and cream cheese sandwich) I've seen the 6mm @ Grays of Westminister as well. Basement level. I love grays - lots of SB28 flashes for us strobists :D</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Alvin - yes, they want a bit more for the 300 f/2. :-) It's still on their web site, so I assume they've still got it. It's actually not scarily big, at least after you peer at all the Canon 600 f/4s in Jacob's; the 1000 f/6.3 on the other hand *is* scary (and wouldn't fit in carry-one luggage). Even though it allegedly works well with a teleconverter, I'm not sure I'd call the 300 f/2 a practical option for Paul!<br>

<br>

Back on topic, I saw a recent review claiming that the Tamron 200-500 is better at the 500mm end than the Sigma 150-500 (and I also heard that the new Sigma 50-500 might be better), although I'm sure AP claimed the 150-500 was superior to the Tamron when it was first launched. I'm sure they'll be nowhere near the Nikkor 500 f/4, or even the Sigma 500 f/4.5, but it might be worth checking out as a cheap stop-gap measure.</p>