tele_tele

Just enough to buy used 70-200 or squeze a little bit and buy d700.

I am also afraid that after buying 70-200 I will still need good ISO3200 (D90 or D300), so double that expense.

Well, 300 2.8 is well out of reach. I use ISO 1600 all the time so at least ISO3200 or ISO6400 should do the work. Also wildlife is not so much moving.

For example: now i have

135/2: 1/125@f2 ISO 1600 (typical late afternoon in shadowy woods)

would be:

a) 70-200/2.8: 1/60@2.8 ISO 1600, 1/60 enough for VR

b) 300/4, 1/125@f4 ISO 6400, 1/125 enough for monopod

300/4, 1/250@f4 ISO 12800, enough for good handheld shot

it is more of a) or b) question

135/2 is also used now for some dusk shoots like 1/40, ISO3200, "1stop pushed", converted to black&white, but that would be too much to ask out of "f/4" ;-)

Hi,

I own a Nikon D80 300/4 and 135/2. Both used for bird and wildlife (135 only for wildlife close encounters).

What I would need is more reach than 135mm f2 is providing for low light shooting ("European forests").

Now I don't know what to buy, 70-200VR lens to gain reach + VR to gain a few stops, or a full frame body like

D700 to use it with existing 300/4 and expand from ISO1600(3200) to ISO6400(Hi-1, Hi-2) also gaining 2-3 stops

over D80?

What is your opinion on the matter? Do you have experience with such combination: FF + 300/4 for wildlife.

Thanks.