If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon DX vs Full Frame 70-300mm
"Richard Palush" wrote in message news:aYSdnZvWJaqmJ1fVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@powerusenet. com... Helllo, Quick question on quality or sharpness when using the 70-300mm VR. Is there a difference using this lens on the D700 vs D90. I know initally the D90 Crops and the image looks closer - but when cropping with the D700 do you get the same result? I thought I read after cropping the image is same. Any thoughts from you guys? I plan on using the D700 with the 24-70 and the D90 with the 70-300 VR - this should cover most of what I need, I either shoot wide or all out, so missing 70 to 100 shouldn't cause any problems. Thanks, Rick You should dump the 70-300mm VR and replace it with a far superior 80-400mm Nikon VR. These are readily available at only abot $1000. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon DX vs Full Frame 70-300mm
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:41:25 -0400, Frank Arthur wrote:
I plan on using the D700 with the 24-70 and the D90 with the 70-300 VR - this should cover most of what I need, I either shoot wide or all out, so missing 70 to 100 shouldn't cause any problems. Thanks, Rick You should dump the 70-300mm VR and replace it with a far superior 80-400mm Nikon VR. These are readily available at only abot $1000. Bad advice for most people. They both have ED glass and the 70-300mm VR is highly rated, much better optically than previous non-VR versions. The 80-400mm may have a very slight optical edge but it has several drawbacks. 1. It's readily available for triple the price of the 70-300mm lens at $1,400 to $1,500 new (not $1,000). Less for a risky used lens that won't have Nikon's 5 year warranty. 2. It requires larger, more expensive 77mm filters. 3. It's larger and twice the weight, nearly 3 pounds. Add that to the D700's weight and you've got a nice anchor to carry around. 4. With its SWM (Silent Wave Motor) the 70-300mm lens is a snappy performer. The 80-400mm lens relies on the camera for AF, and even with the D700's relatively powerful focusing motor, the 80-400mm's gearing makes it one of the slowest (if not *the* slowest) focusing lens Nikon offers. OK for landscapes, portraits and some other types of photography, but a real drawback for sports, BIF and other similar types of action photography. It's not useless for action photography, but it'll miss many shots that the 70-300mm wouldn't. 5. The 80-400mm VR lens seems to be the one most Nikon users want/expect to be upgraded in the near future to get a SWM and better lens coatings. If this happens, it's likely to also get Nikon's improved VR II, making this a bad time to get one. If the new version actually is introduced, the current version should drop several hundred dollars in price. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon DX vs Full Frame 70-300mm | ASAAR | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 13th 08 06:25 AM |
Nikon DX vs Full Frame 70-300mm | Andrew Koenig | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | September 12th 08 08:34 PM |
Nikon will not go to full frame... | Jeremy Nixon | Digital SLR Cameras | 44 | February 4th 06 02:05 PM |
Nikon will not go to full frame... | Brion K. Lienhart | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | February 3rd 06 04:06 AM |
Nikon will not go to full frame... | Martin Francis | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | February 2nd 06 09:26 AM |