Opinions on trading 70-300 af-s

[john_demarco]

Like the title says, I have a 70-300 af-s which I like very much, and have no issues with. I am looking to get some faster glass, either a

used 80-200 2.8 af-s, or 70-200 2.8. I am leaning more towards the 80-200 because the 70-200 vr2 is still a little pricey. Should I trade

or sell the 70-300, and use the proceeds going to the new lens, or keep it as a backup? I know the 70-300s aren't exactly fetching much

money, and mine is just as good today a the day I bought it. Let me hear some of your thoughts and opinions.

[andylynn]

Depends how much money you have. As you say it's not going to go for much, and you might find that due to the weight

of the f/2.8 lens you still want the 70-300 for some situations. If not, or if the money is important, sell it.

[John Crowe]

<p>I highly recommend the 80-200/2.8 AF-S but I think you will have a hard time accepting the image quality from the 70-300 once you have switched, even considering the weight difference. The weight of the 80-200/2.8 does have a significant impact on your back/arm/shoulders over extended periods of handholding though! </p>

<p>I know very little about the new 70-200/4 VR but it may be worth considering, if it is significantly smaller/lighter than the 80-200/2.8 AF-S. During a transition over the last couple of years I have replaced the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S with a Canon EF 70-200/4 L and I must say handholding is much more pleasurable.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>People ask for opinions and forget to tell what model camera they use.</p>

<p>It is important to know at least what sensor size, DX or FX camera is used, to tailor the response. Also numer of pixels matters to know.</p>

<p>As an example, I use 300mm lens on D300S, (12 MPixels), and 18-200 mm lens on NEX7 (24 MegaPixels). Even though both cameras have the same crop sensor factor of 1.5X, the greater pixels density makes similar pictures from 200mm as it is done on the 300 mm lens with lower pixel density camera, as far as long distance reach effect is concerned.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>IMO the 80-200/2.8 AF D is better than the 80-200/2.8 AF-S<br>

regads<br>

Martin</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Without knowing which camera(s) you use and in particular, what type of subjects you capture, it is hard to give a good answer. Obviously a constant f2.8 zoom is faster and better under (indoor) low-light conditions. If you are going to hand hold the f2.8 zoom indoors frequently, having VR is a major plus. About a decade ago, I upgraded from the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S to the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1 for that particular reason. Today, the VR 2 is the best version. However, you will lose the 200-300mm range, and only you know whether you need 300mm or not.</p>

<p>You probably won't get that much selling the 70-300 AF-S VR used. Unless you need that money to finance the new purchase, maybe you are better off keeping it, at least for the time being.</p>

[john_demarco]

Sorry about that everyone, I am currently shooting with a d200 and d40x. Shooting mostly my kids' sports. Soccer, baseball, and

basketball. Thank you for the responses so far.

[andylynn]

<p>For the basketball, the extra stops would help. For soccer and baseball - these are being played in the day time, right? Are you finding the 70-300 limiting in those situations? Would it be worth it to keep it for the extra reach and lower weight?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I am currently shooting with a d200 and d40x. Shooting mostly my kids' sports. Soccer, baseball, and basketball.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are very old DSLR bodies.</p>

<p>For outdoors sports, soccer and baseball, I think you would benefit a lot more from a newer body with better AF, such as the D7100 or if you want something less expesnive, the D7000. For those sports, you should be shooting from the sidelines and keeping 300mm would be better.</p>

<p>Basketball is a different story. If you can shoot from under the basket, you might want a 85mm/f1.8. If you are shooting from the stands, a 70-200mm/f2.8 is going to help.</p>

<p>In any case, if you shoot sports, I would definitely update to a newer AF system. Unfortunately, if one is serious about sports photography, especially indoors, usually it involves some expensive lenses and camera body if you demand results. Of course, if you shoot casually, plenty of parents use no more than some point and shoot for children sports. For posting to FaceBook, e-mail to grandparents, you don't need a lot of quality.</p>

[nico_morris]

<p>I think that after you get your hands on some proper sports lens you'll realise the shortcomings of the slow f5-f5.6 aperture on the long end of a 70-300 and its changing length. But then again, outdoors you have plenty of light anway. A cheap and safe option would be something like a Sigma 70-200 with your old lens as a backup and ignore the Nikon snobs who whine.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Who's whining? I don't see any whining. But if you do want a 3rd party 70-200 lens, take the Tamron over the Sigma - it's a lot better on the long end wide open.</p>

[john_demarco]

A big thank you for the responses! I am going to just keep the 70-300, and supplement my kit by just buying the 80-200.

The couple of hundred $ just isn't worth it, and its always good for a backup. Many thanks again to all, and happy

shooting!