Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
70-200 F/2.8 + New Body  
User currently offlineevall95 From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 306 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Hi guys I have been using my Nikon D3100 + 55-300 VR for around 6 months now and I am loving it! the only thing is that the lens is not the best in low light so because I do not really use the full 300mm (it is also soft at 300mm) I would like to invest in a 70-200 F/2.8 but I am just looking at it because I will probably buys this lens in the later months of the year because I need to save up but I have a couple of questions.

Firstly the lens

How sharp is it? is it sharp all the way throughout to 200mm?
How vital is it having VR, IS or OS because it is a lot more expensive with it?
How heavy is the lens? will I need a monopod or tripod to help me support it?

Now to the body

should I invest in a new body as well or is the D3100 good enough?
If I should upgrade my body the D7000 is probably the only body in my price range. will that be good enough?

Thanks for reading and any tips and feedback is very welcome  

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinedamien846 From UK - England, joined Dec 2006, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4492 times:

Great lens.......I have one on my D300.
Yes its sharp
The VR is great...only turn it off when its on a tripod.
Its not so heavy that i have needed a mono pod.
I would get the lens and see how you get on with the D3100. And save for a better body? D300s? But if all you can afford is a D7100, then go for it.
Good Luck


User currently offlineevall95 From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

because I already have a monopod is it crucial to get VR because it is a big difference in price haha!! and I'm only 16

User currently offlinedamien846 From UK - England, joined Dec 2006, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4474 times:

Not crucial, but will help.....I guess it al depends on what you can afford.

User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Quoting evall95 (Thread starter):
How sharp is it? is it sharp all the way throughout to 200mm?

It has been described as the sharpest zoom lens that Nikon makes. I have one and I love it. Worth every penny and more.

Quoting evall95 (Thread starter):
How vital is it having VR, IS or OS because it is a lot more expensive with it?

That depends on when you like to shoot. If you shoot all day, then it can be very useful. If you only shoot between the hours of 5pm and 7pm with a fullsun at your back, then you probably won't need it.

Quoting evall95 (Thread starter):
How heavy is the lens? will I need a monopod or tripod to help me support it?

It's a solid/semi-heavy lens. It will make your 3100 feel like a feather. But, you will get stronger and used to it.

Quoting evall95 (Thread starter):
If I should upgrade my body the D7000 is probably the only body in my price range. will that be good enough?

Any upgrade will make a difference. How noticeable, I don't know. The 70-200 vr ii is a pro lens. The 3100 and the 7000 are enthusiast cameras. It isn't often a $2,500 lens is paired with a $500 camera body.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4820 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4408 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 4):
Any upgrade will make a difference. How noticeable, I don't know. The 70-200 vr ii is a pro lens. The 3100 and the 7000 are enthusiast cameras. It isn't often a $2,500 lens is paired with a $500 camera body.

I'm not sure I follow. The advice here has always been to put the majority of one's budget towards quality glass. It's quite common to find such a "pro" lens on these "enthusiast" (I prefer the term, 'prosumer') camera bodies.

Expensive, yes. But the 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses available. It's the bread and butter lens for most photographers. A camera body upgrade isn't necessary because of the lens.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineunattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5):
It's quite common to find such a "pro" lens on these "enthusiast" (I prefer the term, 'prosumer') camera bodies.

I wouldn't classify the 3100 as a "prosumer" camera. I would consider the d90, d300 and maybe the 7000 prosumer cameras. I would classify the 3100, 3200, 5100 as "enthusiast"/amateur cameras. Is that incorrect?

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5):
A camera body upgrade isn't necessary because of the lens.

Indeed, a camera body upgrade is not required for the lens, but if the thread starter has the additional funds to throw towards an upgraded body, I would say go for it.

  



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4820 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 6):
I wouldn't classify the 3100 as a "prosumer" camera. I would consider the d90, d300 and maybe the 7000 prosumer cameras. I would classify the 3100, 3200, 5100 as "enthusiast"/amateur cameras. Is that incorrect?

Correct.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 6):
Indeed, a camera body upgrade is not required for the lens, but if the thread starter has the additional funds to throw towards an upgraded body, I would say go for it.

Absolutely.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4342 times:

I saw a guy using Nikon D300's + 70-200 f2.8 + teleconverter combo. Photos were very good.


With best regards from Almaty
User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

I have the previous model 70-200 f/2.8 VR and originally used it with my D70 and now D300s - only negative on pairing it with the smaller/lighter bodies is its not as well balanced as the heavier bodies - regardless of what kind of camera the 3100 is classified as the 70-200 will work with it and turn out great results.

Mono-pod - not required, almost a hindrance depending on what your shooting, rent or barrow a larger lens for a weekend and 70-200 will feel like a lightweight after.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Sigma Lenses: 50-500 / 70-200 With OS posted Sat Feb 20 2010 20:42:40 by SNATH
The New Nikon 70-200 Vr II posted Fri Jan 22 2010 05:01:15 by Damien846
First Shot With New EF 70-200 F4 L Lens posted Sun Feb 19 2006 17:00:24 by Linco22
Canon 70-200 2.8 Is New? posted Tue Sep 4 2001 01:28:41 by Blackened
Canon 70-200 2.8 + 2x TC III Or 100-400? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 14:47:03 by Silver1SWA
Lens Upgrade - 70-200 F4L Vs 200 F2.8L posted Tue Feb 7 2012 22:21:52 by vikkyvik
Cheap 70-200 F4L Or Wait Year For F2.8 Is II? posted Tue Oct 4 2011 21:00:52 by cmd777300er
Previous Sigma 70-200 2.8....Thoughts? posted Mon Jul 4 2011 08:37:23 by TristarAtLCA
First Try-Canon Extender 2x III On 70-200 2.8L Is posted Sun May 22 2011 00:56:00 by JohnKrist
70-200 F/2.8 Mkii + 1.4x VS 100-400 IQ posted Wed Dec 22 2010 06:41:21 by RonS
Lens Upgrade - 70-200 F4L Vs 200 F2.8L posted Tue Feb 7 2012 22:21:52 by vikkyvik
Cheap 70-200 F4L Or Wait Year For F2.8 Is II? posted Tue Oct 4 2011 21:00:52 by cmd777300er
Previous Sigma 70-200 2.8....Thoughts? posted Mon Jul 4 2011 08:37:23 by TristarAtLCA