03-22-2011, 11:18 AM
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1300792137' post='7012']
Frank, I had similar "case" myself I did a trip recently and took a Nikkor 55-200 VR to travel light, it worked quite fine and my only gripe was slow AF, so if you plan on shooting animals you might want to check AF performance of the 70-300 you think about.. Then again, a far more important issue as I found out is reach, I thought 200mm on APS-C would be enough - but this wasn't the case.. so maybe (not lightweight) an option to consider is a 100-400 lens .. ? Just a thought.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Hmmm... When looking for a more travel friendly alternative for a 80-200mm f2.8... and then looking at a 80/100-400mm lens? I think that is not really viable <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Frank, I had similar "case" myself I did a trip recently and took a Nikkor 55-200 VR to travel light, it worked quite fine and my only gripe was slow AF, so if you plan on shooting animals you might want to check AF performance of the 70-300 you think about.. Then again, a far more important issue as I found out is reach, I thought 200mm on APS-C would be enough - but this wasn't the case.. so maybe (not lightweight) an option to consider is a 100-400 lens .. ? Just a thought.. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
Hmmm... When looking for a more travel friendly alternative for a 80-200mm f2.8... and then looking at a 80/100-400mm lens? I think that is not really viable <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />