FX Telephoto zoom choices for $1500?

NSXTypeR

Let me throw something new into the mix- the Nikkor 28-300 would be within your budget as well.

But I have no idea how well it performs. Probably nowhere as good as the 2.8s, but has a bigger range than the 70-300.

spraynpray

You would really have to need that extra range over the 70-300 to pay more AND get poorer performance.

JJ_SO

And to pump fresh dust to the sensor's surface... this is what long tube zoom lenses occasionally do as well. I sold mine. Thought, I could live with some "maybe not so good soft corners", but long before it comes to corners you see yourself constantly lift up contrast and border sharpness in post. Maybe there's a good focal length on this zoom, I just didn't manage do discover it.

Blinkingeye

The Sigma 70-200 with IS is a fantastic lens. If you read online reports, it get better points than Nikon. The cost difference is significant. I am very happy with the Sigma. And, FWIW, the lens behaves spectacularly with the 1.4 TC.

PB_PM

Which reviews have you been readying? None of the ones I've read say its even as good as the VR1 Nikkor. :O

SquamishPhoto

You would really have to need that extra range over the 70-300 to pay more AND get poorer performance.

Where did you get that idea? The 70-300 doesn't perform better than 28-300 by a long shot.

PB_PM

I'd say there are an even match from what I've read. It is a very tempting travel lens, without a doubt.

JJ_SO

The 28-300, a travel lens? Yes, that could be the reason for most people buying it. But having good glass at home and knowing how the photos would look with them instead the "travel lens", would spoil my holidays, especially the ones I want to take photos. Too bad I can't compare them anymore, but I'd say a crop out of a 70-200 is at least as good as the 28-300.

NSXTypeR

You would really have to need that extra range over the 70-300 to pay more AND get poorer performance.

Where did you get that idea? The 70-300 doesn't perform better than 28-300 by a long shot.

I'd say there are an even match from what I've read. It is a very tempting travel lens, without a doubt.

From what I hear it actually performs decently well.

Honestly, I'd be interested in its application to a DX sensor camera.

PB_PM

@JJ_OS Depends on the vacation. If I have time to setup good shots I'll take my best gear. On the Other hand, if all I had time for was snap shots a super zoom would be acceptable.I don't have a super zoom myself, but I know people who do, and the results are decent.

JJ_SO

@PB_PM: There's no other lens in Nikon's portfolio covering a huge range for FX. It did an ok-Job on DX, but the combination of that lens and D800 is something I hardly call it's results "decent". I got better crops from the 105/2.8, if I took care. For DX, I heard/read, the 18-200 can be a really good travel lens. For me there's a possibility of travel light, have a bridge camera or taking photos I like to watch again after the journey - and for that I need to bother me with more weight than this "superzoom" has.

When I went to Liverpool first I had to travel light, took my new G11 with me and got enough good shots to make a book out of it. With just some post process after, correcting the distortions. The shots with the 28-300 never came close tot hat.



Big size is enough to print a 9 × 14. The same angle on 28-300 would have been a disaster. It's weak in wideangle and poor in tele.

JJ_SO

So, now the new Tokina 70-200/4 is enlarging choices a good thing, isn't it?

[Deleted User]

FX Telephoto Zoom choice for $1500?

Something with a metal lens barrel and a solid tripod mount....

JJ_SO

The tripod mount IS solid

Just the lens barrel is ... flexible