Get Your FREE copy of Top 10 Tips for All Beginning Photographers ...plus Lightroom Develop Presets & Wedding Photography Checklist!


Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: 70-200vr vs.70-300vr

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #3992

Hi all, I am new to DSLR photography and have had my D7000 for about 6 weeks now. I have been shooting with the kit lens,18-105,and I think it does pretty well considering it is a kit lens. But now I have found that it is time to start adding to my lens collection. I have decided I will get a 50 1.8 and either the 70-200 or the 70-300. Right now, my thoughts are purchasing lenses that will give me the most diversity. So I would like some feedback on any of these lenses from you folks who have used them and let me know the pros and cons. Thanks to all,
Mike
The administrator has disabled public write access.

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #3993

  • Matt Duffie
  • Matt Duffie's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 8
  • Thank you received: 3
The 70-200 is going to be a lot better lens, but a lot more expensive. The reason being a constant 2.8 instead of a 3.5-5.6 or whatever it is... plus the focus will be better on the 70-200. (And more bokeh!)


The 50 1.8 is an awesome and sharp lens, but the focus speed will be a little slow. But for the price, you can't beat them.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mike Lostraglio
Pickup your Photography Tshirt today

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #4000

Thanks Matt! I have read many consumer reviews on all 3 of these lenses and what you wrote is exactly what most of them said. I am really leaning toward the 70-200....the only reservation I have is the longer focal length with the 300. I suppose I would likely be happier with a better lens than a little more zoom. As far as the 50, I also looked at the 50 f1.4 but with the substantial cost difference for a little wider aperture I will probably stick with the f1.8. Thank you again for your insight.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #4001

  • Tim Shrimpton
  • Tim Shrimpton's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Junior Boarder
  • Posts: 33
  • Thank you received: 3
I have the 70-300 VR. I love it. My Dad has the 70-200. It's clearly a better lens for the reasons Matt listed, but it also significantly heavier if that's of any concern to you, and obviosuly has less reach than the 70-300.

On a DX body, you might want to consider the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. It all depends on what you shoot, but I think the 35mm is perfect on a DX body, while the 50mm is a little bit tight. You can easily experiment by setting your kit lens to 35 and then 50 mm and see which view you like best.

The 35mm is super fast and super sharp and super light. It's really a nice lens to just walk around to take pictures of people. I'm sure the 50mm version is just as nice.
Last Edit: 3 years 7 months ago by Tim Shrimpton.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mike Lostraglio

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #4003

  • Conor Casey
  • Conor Casey's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 387
  • Thank you received: 55
If you are looking for a standard lens on a DX body, the 35mm is your best bet. A 50mm is only standard on full frame. It depends what you are going to be shooting but if it was me, on DX, I'd go for a 35mm f/1.8 over a 50mm as I think you'll find more uses for it as opposed to a 50mm which is getting into medium tele-photo on DX.

As for the 70-200mm vs the 70-300mm, Matt answered it really. The only two reasons I would pick the 70-300mm over the 70-200mm is if you need your lens to be light (and cheaper) and if you are going to be doing wildlife photography from very far away. 300mm on a DX camera becomes 450mm on full frame which is very very long. The benefit of the 70-200mm on DX is that you get a very versatile, 105mm-300mm in full frame terms which will cover a wide range of situations. If the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is too pricey, I'd take a look at the f/4 version (if you don't need f/2.8 ) or try and find a second hand version I f/2.8.
Conor Casey
Flickr
Last Edit: 3 years 7 months ago by Conor Casey.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mike Lostraglio

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #4007

Thanks Tim and Connor! With everyone's suggestions, I have decided to go with the 70-200 2.8. It seems to make the most sense for me right now. I really appreciate both you're suggestions on the 35 instead of the 50. I haven't even given the 35 any prior consideration. I will definitely have to give this one some thought!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

70-200vr vs.70-300vr 3 years 7 months ago #4023

  • Conor Casey
  • Conor Casey's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 387
  • Thank you received: 55
That's good news Mike, let us know how you get on with the 50mm vs the 35mm and if you need any more advice, you know where we are. :)
Conor Casey
Flickr
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Powered by Kunena Forum
256 Eagleview Blvd PMB 104
Exton, PA 19341