| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Equipment - Need Some Advice
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 1:19 AM on 07.30.10 |
->> Thanks to wonderful Sigma engineering, I get to re-think my equipment situation. Sigma was nice enough to have a non-secure lens collar that only requires a pin to be pulled to release the lens. Well, I guess I had it sitting just right, it loosened, and bang, wham, crash...the lens is dead. I used to love the 120-300/2.8. Its versatility is awesome. After having used the 300/2.8 Nikon though, the Sigma image quality is inferior.
Luckily, the lens is insured. Now I have a quandary. Do I...
1. Get a used Nikon 300/2.8, somewhere is the AF-S I range (circa 1999-2000) and a used 80-200/2.8 (Circa 2000-2003) or
2. Get the 70-200/2.8 VR II (New) and a relatively new Nikon 300/4
3. Just get the 300/2.8 in an AF-S II (Circe 2002-2004)
I hate losing that 300/2.8 bullet to fire when I need it, but I have heard amazing things about the VRII. Then again, I haven't really seen an image out of a Nikon 300/2.8 that isn't crisp.
Thoughts? |
|
George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 10:53 AM on 07.30.10 |
| ->> Do you need the wider-end offered by the 70-200? If not you answered your own question with your raving about the quality of the 300 f2.8. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:38 PM on 07.30.10 |
->> Scott just be mindful that the AF-S I is getting a bit long in the tooth as it relates to serviceability. I believe that the AF-I for example is no longer serviced my Nikon.
I have the 300 VR I and used a AF-S II for years. Either are razor sharp. If the 70-200 is going to be a daily user then I would probably swing the for the newer VR II and cheap out on the 300. Based on anecdotal reports the difference between 300's isn't as great as the difference between the two versions of the 70-200. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:00 PM on 07.31.10 |
->> If you shoot sports is a 70-200 going to be long enough? If not, you've answered the question.
Having said that, the 200-400 f4 I bought is incredible. I'm using it with a 1.4x converter part of the time and it's as potent a combination as I've ever owned.
I haven't used the 300mm f2.8 in 4 months. On the other hand, HS night football is right around the corner. We'll see if I stay with the 200-400 or the 300mm f2.8 when I get to fall and the sun goes down EARLY. |
|
Kyle Ericson, Photographer
|
St. Charles | MO | | Posted: 10:30 PM on 08.11.10 |
| ->> You can probably get by with older lenses that are good and quality right? However, I know someone with the 70-200 and loves it. I would think that the question comes down to if you need a 300 with 2.8 vs 4. If the camera you have doesn't require a 2.8 for night lit stuff (i.e. D3) than maybe you can get by with a 4 and spend your money on a new 70-200/2.8? |
|
Chris Wilson, Student/Intern
|
Bowling Green | Ky. | US | Posted: 10:57 PM on 08.11.10 |
->> I can't tell you what you should buy, but I can suggest that you go with new gear and leave the old stuff behind.
The old 300 and 80-200 are just that: OLD. They've come a long way since then. Focus rings will move independently of the autofocus, meaning you don't have to switch modes to focus manually. The silent wave motors have gotten faster and deadly quiet compared to that loud 80-200. I'm using old gear now, and I would rather sacrafice some of it to get newer gear.
Do you rarely use your 300/2.8 indoors or at night? Do you have a camera with good noise/iso control? If so, I'd try your luck with a 300/4. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 1:05 AM on 08.12.10 |
->> Thanks for the input. In the end I got an older AF-S I 300/2.8, but almost one of the last AF-S I's. It seems super sharp and fast. Now I am hunting an AF-S series 80-200. They seem reasonable. In the end, I want the reach and I just think the Nikon 300/2.8 is so much sharper than anything else.
Thanks. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|