Returning a 70-300, what should I get instead

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Hi, James<br>

It's not that easy to understand your real will, as you say "<em>But, again, I didn't really want it in the first place</em>" but you consider both the heavier 80-200 or two consumer grade zooms with a larger zoom factor.<br>

One side you consider the 70-300 too slow, thus looking for a 2.8, but you refer to the other ones. Regardless the aperture values of those lenses, both the 18-200 and the 55-300 are DX lenses and you stated that you want to stick with FX compatible lenses.<br>

You also say that the 105 DC would leave you with a "<em>with rather limited reach</em>", and this indicates you would like to have a telephoto longer than the 135 mm full frame equivalent and more than the range usually considered as appropriate for portrait lenses, by many people.<br>

With the high ISO capabilities of your body the 70-300 would not be a problem for your improvement as a photographer, but if want a top choice and you are ready to wait for a while the 70-200 VR II would be probably the best choice. This is the lens that tempts me for a long time, but the size and weight are the main reasons why I still stick with the 70-300 VR, as it also gives me very good results.<br>

My portrait lens being the AF 85 mm F:1.4 D (on FX) I agree that the DC can be a good choice, but you get the same focal distance with the 50mm DX while the DC will offer you the 135 mm equivalent. The choice between the two can be driven by your usual working distances.<br>

The 105 DC is an excellent working tool, but you shall consider the importance of the DC control flexibility and how it meets your interests. The neutral position can take profit of the qualities of the lens, but the use of the DC control will demand that you grasp it. <br>

Your present set gives you a lot of possibilities for landscape, walk-around and portrait. If you return the 70-300 and you go for one of the portrait lenses and/or the 80-200 you may get some marginal specific advantages, but I'm afraid that the impact on you learning process will not be as big as you may imagine...at least in the near term.</p>

 

[nicksta]

<p>Hi there, Have you considered the Tamron 70-200 2.8?<br>

Yes it's getting a little long in the tooth and doesnt have VR/OS/IF but its a constant 2.8 through the zoom range, and gives really sharp pictures. AF is a little slower than a modern lens (AF-S) but the price range is similar to the Nikon 70-300 VR (at least here in the uk, new is £520.00 as opposed to about £400 for the Nikon).<br>

I have the Nikon 70-300 and love it. I find on the D300 I can use ISO up to 800 without a loss of quality (with careful PP).<br>

It you want to stick with primes consider a Macro lens Tamron 90mm or Sigma 105. The sigma has a better AF but both give great low light portrait performance, although performance doesn't kick in until arounnd F4.</p>

<p> </p>

[james_cockroft]

<p><br />@Ariel: Thanks for the links! They'll provide nice after-dinner reading for me later on. And your comments on professional uses for variable aperture lenses make perfect sense.</p>

<p>@António: Sorry for the miscommunication. I considered (and long ago) rejected the 18-200 and the 55-300 because I don't really want a lens just for convenience and because they're both dx lenses. I used those two as examples of other lenses that I could choose if I were looking specifically for a walk-around lens with decent reach. I ordered the 70-300 because 1) I could afford it right then, 2) had doubts about the 50mm as a portrait lens, and 3) it is a full frame lens. I didn't want it for the reach, or portability, or anything else, and only bought it without thinking much about the purchase.</p>

<p>And everyone else, thanks so much for all the suggestions, comments, and critiques of various lenses and manufacturers. </p>

<p>But I've decided to go with something else entirely: a 75-150 f/3.5 ai-s series E, that I found for ~$100. It gets great reviews, has a constant aperture, and, while not giving the range that I would get from the 70-300 (or the relatively fast af, or the vr), will allow me to see if I like having the range, while giving me an opportunity to play around with manual focus.<br>

I'll hold on to the refund credit for awhile and see where the 75-150 takes me. </p>

<p>Thanks again, everyone, for all your help, and especially for suggesting a bunch of lenses I wouldn't have otherwise considered! </p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>Hi<br>

For portraits I think the 85 1.8 is stellar and won't break the bank. I generally shoot landscapes in which case I mainly use a couple of zooms. </p>

<p>Hugh</p>

 

[rrroger]

<p>I have an unused Nikon 85mm f/1.8D AF for sale.<br>

I would get the AF-S Nikkor 80-200 or 28-300 if I were you.<br>

The 28-300 is very sharp at the 28mm end and fill the gap from your 10-24.<br>

For low light and Video I prefer the 35mm f/1.8 or AF-S Nikkor 28-70.</p>