300mm new vs. 300mm old

Started Oct 14, 2011 | Discussions thread
Bilgy_no1
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,868
Like?
Re: Did comparison just a few days ago...
In reply to tjuster1, Oct 18, 2011

Very good point. I do manage to get some good shots with the manual lens, but AF is definitely a pro.

That's the reason why I might consider getting a D7000 someday to go with this 300mm lens. Should be an excellent combo.

tjuster1 wrote:

To me, the biggest disadvantage of legacy super-telephotos is focusing them. On a tripod, with a stationary subject, you can do it and get some wonderfully sharp images with good glass. But if the subject is moving at all it's much too difficult for me.

And if you're not on a tripod, forget about it.

I've had several long legacy telephotos (200mm, 300mm) and the reason 95% of the images I took with them were crap was because they were out of focus. The keeper rate just wasn't good enough for me to justify keeping them. I've since decided that if I'm going to go for a long telephoto I'll pick a native AF lens, even if it's slower and 'softer' than the old legacy options.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow