09-06-2010, 10:13 AM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283766863' post='2518']
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.
[/quote]
Thank you Brightcolours, as always your message is clear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I am actually going to buy the Tamron and then we shall see. Am actually not being adviced by any "Nikon boys", but of course there are different opinions on this Forum too. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I am thinking a 60mm macro, because it will act as a long prime as well. Have you got a better proposition than the Nikon one? Same thing with the 16-85, I think it is a well performing lense, but of course I could try the Sigma or Tamron 17-50. What do you think?
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.
[/quote]
Thank you Brightcolours, as always your message is clear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I am actually going to buy the Tamron and then we shall see. Am actually not being adviced by any "Nikon boys", but of course there are different opinions on this Forum too. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I am thinking a 60mm macro, because it will act as a long prime as well. Have you got a better proposition than the Nikon one? Same thing with the 16-85, I think it is a well performing lense, but of course I could try the Sigma or Tamron 17-50. What do you think?