Should i sell my 70-300 +105 2.8 AND BUY 150-600 VC + 70-200 VC?

[ariel_fields]

<p>Hi,<br>

<strong>I'm a Portrait | Small event | Product |Sport | Nature photographer</strong><br>

My equipment is as following:<br>

<strong>Nikon D7100 | Nikon 17-55 2.8 | Nikon 105 2.8 VR | Nikon 70-300 VR..</strong><br>

Iv'e been considering for quite bit about selling my 70-300,and buying instead an-<br>

Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC.<br>

Iv'e been told it's a smart thing to do,(better quality+focusing faster+aperture)<br>

<strong>Do you agree with that?</strong><br>

***<br>

<strong>OK,so another thing-</strong><br>

Iv'e started to love bird photography,and i also wan't to shoot birds now..<br>

And the 70-300 that i'm probably selling+70-200 that i might buy,are not enough Focal length..<br>

So iv'e been considering for the last few days-<br>

Maybe buy a 150-600 tamron,but the problem is-<br>

I don't have the money for that..The only option iv'e got is to sell the 105 2.8 macro and buy the 150-600..Is that a smart move?i also shoot products with it,very hard decisions iv'e got to make..<br>

<strong>Can someone give advice&help?</strong><br>

Please help..<br>

Thanks alot!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While it is tempting to give a straight answer, I think only you can really answer these questions for yourself. It boils down to priorities, and how much you feel your current lenses would hold you back.<br>

There is a lot of validity to the idea of getting a 70-200VC for events and sports - faster AF action than a 70-300, more flexibility with low light and shallow DoF. But also a lot more weight and larger. At the same time, ask yourself: how much do you actually use the 70-300 now for events? Do you feel limited by its AF speed or its smaller aperture? Could you cover the range also with the 105 f/2.8, or would the single focal length be too much of a hassle for you? In other words: how much is this focal length range worth it to me? If not that much, would something cheaper like a 85 f/1.8G solve the biggest issues instead?<br /> Similar for selling the 105 in exchange for a 150-600 - it's a matter of priorities. Can you do without the 105VR, or would that mean no product images at all (and possibly a loss of income) ? Is that worth it against nature photos, which I presume are for personal enjoyment only? These are priorities only you can establish for yourself.</p>

<p>Maybe it is best to go through your current photos, establish which focal lengths and (current) lenses matter most to you, and in case of professional work, which lenses are essential to do your paid work, and where you feel frequently held back. Ensure you have those lenses covered well, and then whatever remains (which means lenses for specific irregular uses) is where you have to make compromises until the you can save up enough to afford the luxury.<br /> In the end, the smart thing to do is respect your budget, and get good lenses for those things you do most often, and accept that the more exotic wishes have to wait.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I'd consider trading a slower variable aperture tele zoom (70-300) for a slightly shorter faster, constant aperture tele zoom (70-200) as an upgrade, esp. considering you are shooting with a DX body. My experience was positive when I switched from the same 70-300mm Nikkor you have to a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>If you are able to focus close enough with the 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor for your product shots then the loss of a 105mm Micro Nikkor is not so bad. However - I have a skilled photo friend who has the well priced Tamron 150-600mm zoom - I have seen his images from this lens on the D800E. He achieves truly great crisp images and the lens produces a bokeh that I find very pleasing but he says the lens requires bright daylight to focus properly - ie under tree canopies / deep forest light conditions and on overcast days the lens often hunts for focus to the point of being quite frustrating and limiting.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd keep the 105mm Micro Nikkor and save up for the Nikkor 200-500mm which has a better variable aperture than the Tamron.</p>

[Two23]

<p>If you are making money from the event etc. shooting, sell 70-300mm and 105mm and buy a used Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. Use it to earn more money for a "bird" lens. I would not sell a lens you are actually making money with to buy a lens you won't make money with.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>I tend to side with Kent. I own a 70-200/2.8 and I also have a 70-300VR. While the 70-300 is an ok lens, I never use it for portraits. Instead I reach for the 70-200. No comparison between the two for portraits. Only time I carry the 70-300 is for when I know I need the reach and I cannot or do not want to handle the weight/size of the 70-200.<br>

As far as the 105 - if you regularly use the 105 for close up product work, the 105 may be far too important to you to give up. Sure you may be able to get by using other lenses for product work, but if I made my living shooting products, I would never surrender my dedicated macro. Not to mention that the 105 (I shoot FF) is my go to lens for portraits unless I need more reach and then I press the 70-200 into service.</p>

<p>And lastly - for birds, rule #1 is that one never has enough reach. I have used the Tamron 150-600 and also both models of the Sigma 150-600. I rank them (worst to best) as Tamron, Sigma Contemp and Sigma Sport. Since birding is such a specialized use, this is where I like Ken't thinking. Don't cannibalize your current lens set which is apparently providing you with income to buy a lens that is likely to have less use. I have not used the new Nikon 100-500 lens, but I understand it is a great piece of glass for a very reasonable price. I don't do a lot of birding shots, but when I do, I reach for either my 400/2.8 (with or without TC) or my 80-400VR (the new one - the old one is a dog) when carrying the 400/2.8 is too much to handle.</p>

<p>As others have suggested - it is quite difficult to advise another on which lenses are most critical to them. So much depends on what you shoot and how critical you are of the end result. </p>

[Rick Waller]

<p>I just noticed that in my reply above, I referred to the Nikon 100-500. Should have been 200-500.</p>

[chuck]

150-600 is probably a good birding choice. But why 70-200? Sure, it is probably a significantly better lens, but is 70-300

distinctly not good enough for you?