09-06-2010, 09:54 AM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283765370' post='2515']
I don't know if you can see my last reply and questions; What is a B&W pol filter and what do you recommend for a tele. Also, I have not yet placed the order and would like your opinion on the 80-200 vs the 70-300. Apart from the weight disadvantage, it seems to me that a fast 80-200 is more useful than a 70-300 inasmuch as you loose the performance of the latter after 200 mm anyways.
[/quote]
B&W is a good, respected brand.
The 80-200 is a good, heavy lens. With the Nikon 70-300 you do lose quality from 200-300mm, but with the Tamron 70-300mm you will not.
So if you worry about lesser performance at 300mm.... get the Tamron.
Another point: The 80-200's performance in the 200-300mm range sucks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
What you win with the 80-200 is f2.8. Nice for shooting fast sports in low light. What you lose is a silent lens motor (uses the in-body motor) and image stabilization.
I would hate getting a lens that weights 1.5 kilos without actually knowing why I am getting it, you will find yourself leaving it at home a lot due to the weight. That is why I chose a Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM myself. Half the weight to lug around!
To me it seems that some Nikon brand boys are "advising" you on some other forum? With a "just buy Nikon lenses" stance? Seeing your focus on the Nikon 70-300 and Nikon 60mm micro.
I don't know if you can see my last reply and questions; What is a B&W pol filter and what do you recommend for a tele. Also, I have not yet placed the order and would like your opinion on the 80-200 vs the 70-300. Apart from the weight disadvantage, it seems to me that a fast 80-200 is more useful than a 70-300 inasmuch as you loose the performance of the latter after 200 mm anyways.
[/quote]
B&W is a good, respected brand.
The 80-200 is a good, heavy lens. With the Nikon 70-300 you do lose quality from 200-300mm, but with the Tamron 70-300mm you will not.
So if you worry about lesser performance at 300mm.... get the Tamron.
Another point: The 80-200's performance in the 200-300mm range sucks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.What you win with the 80-200 is f2.8. Nice for shooting fast sports in low light. What you lose is a silent lens motor (uses the in-body motor) and image stabilization.
I would hate getting a lens that weights 1.5 kilos without actually knowing why I am getting it, you will find yourself leaving it at home a lot due to the weight. That is why I chose a Canon 70-200mm f4 L USM myself. Half the weight to lug around!
To me it seems that some Nikon brand boys are "advising" you on some other forum? With a "just buy Nikon lenses" stance? Seeing your focus on the Nikon 70-300 and Nikon 60mm micro.