70-300VR vs 1.4 tele 70-200 f/2.8

I'm in the process of buying the d700 and looking for the proverbial long zoom of perfection. Choices: 70-300VR vs 1.4 tele 70-200 f/2.8 I don't mind lugging the glass, price is not a consideration. Don't want to hear about off brands. I want to hear strong opinions from folks with experince using nikkor. Hopes this generates a lot of discussion. Which is the better way to go and why? Thanks for the help.

I don't know the 70-300 VR, but had the previous 70-300. Above 200 mm it was very soft and almost not usable at 300 mm. And it is slow (both focus and aperture).

I now have the 70-200 with 1.7 TC-II and really like this combo. Sometimes I really need 2.8 (low light or minimum DOF). I think the 70-200 with 1.7 TC-II is higher IQ then 70-300 VR.

There is no comparison. The 70-200VR w/1.4xII will outperform the 70-300 in every circumstance. You're talking > $2000 vs
--
pjs
No hablo Mac

there is no long zoom of perfection (well maybe the 200-400 AFS VR 4 is close)
but the 70-200 with 1.4 will blow away a 70-300 in both focus speed and iq.

Some day maybe a new 80-400 AFS VR 4.5-5.6 will be awesome but until then...

revdocrick said:

I'm in the process of buying the d700 and looking for the proverbial
long zoom of perfection. Choices: 70-300VR vs 1.4 tele 70-200 f/2.8
I don't mind lugging the glass, price is not a consideration. Don't
want to hear about off brands. I want to hear strong opinions from
folks with experince using nikkor. Hopes this generates a lot of
discussion. Which is the better way to go and why? Thanks for the
help.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cyadmark
Ann Arbor, MI USA

revdocrick said:

I'm in the process of buying the d700 and looking for the proverbial
long zoom of perfection. Choices: 70-300VR vs 1.4 tele 70-200 f/2.8
I don't mind lugging the glass, price is not a consideration. Don't
want to hear about off brands. I want to hear strong opinions from
folks with experince using nikkor. Hopes this generates a lot of
discussion. Which is the better way to go and why? Thanks for the
help.

Click to expand...

Check out and read from people that actually have used them and see the pics..I've had both and no the 70-200mm VR with the TC doesn't balooow the 70-300mm VR away..I sold sold my 70-200mm after a few weeks cause I didn't think the extra $$ was worth it for me..my copy is more then adequate for me in sharpness and as you'll see many are happy with it at over 200mm too...



here's the links:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=180440

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=194758
--

'I am what I am and thats all I am' Popeye 1960. Favorite famous Hollywood celebrity. Don't have time for the rest.....

Great posts! Difference of opinion out there on this one. Thanks

revdocrick said:

I'm in the process of buying the d700 and looking for the proverbial
long zoom of perfection. Choices: 70-300VR vs 1.4 tele 70-200 f/2.8
I don't mind lugging the glass, price is not a consideration. Don't
want to hear about off brands. I want to hear strong opinions from
folks with experince using nikkor. Hopes this generates a lot of
discussion. Which is the better way to go and why? Thanks for the
help.

Click to expand...

Why D700? Why not D300 + 70-300 (or 80-400 if you insist)? That would be equivalent of either longer reach lens on D700 (105-450) or "faster" lens if you say to get same reach of 300 on D700 you only need 200 on D300, so you can open aperture wider with D300 than you would with D700 at same reach?

revdocrick said:

I'm in the process of buying the d700 and looking for the proverbial
long zoom of perfection.
I don't mind lugging the glass, price is not a consideration.

Click to expand...

It was not listed as one of your choices, but if weight and money are of no consequence, IMO the 200-400mm f/4 G-AFS ED IF-VR would be next to impossible to beat

--
Jan

psandham said:

There is no comparison. The 70-200VR w/1.4xII will outperform the
70-300 in every circumstance. You're talking > $2000 vs

Click to expand...

Except vignetting on FF.

2.7 stops in the corners wide open is bad. The 70-300 is a true FF lens with very minimal vignetting.

I'm using it until the 70-200VR II comes along. (Still have my 1.7 EII, waiting for the day...)

--
Edward

'I see large pixels.'

http://www.edwardthomasart.com
http://www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

I dont know from wich lens is this photo, but its to much sharpening and its visable from space.

So, not proving enything here

--
http://www.pticica.com/galerija.aspx?korisnikid=4439
Fujifilm S5 Pro
Nikkor 70-200VR, Nikkor 17-55, Sigma 150, Sigma 50

This is basically the same question as in this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=29802747

I suggest you read here as well, as not all forum members will post both places.

Svein
--
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!
Copy me into your .signature to help me spread!

I have a D300 and both the 70-300 VR and 70-200 VR f/2.8 with TC 1.4. My main subject matter are airplanes at air shows.

For image quality, you can't beat a good copy of the 70-200 f/2.8. Add the TC 1.4 and you still have a constant f/4. With the 70-300 you have f/4.5 to f/5.6.

Advantages of the 70-300 is that it is more compact, lighter, a whole lot less expensive, and easier to take along on trips.

Advantages of the 70-200 & TC 1.4 combo is that you can achieve f/2.8 with just the 70-200 along. Disadvantages are that it is much larger, much heavier, costs about 3-4 times as much and can be a b*tch to take on trips. Also I have experienced the dreaded DBS syndrome 3 times with that combo, during an air show shoot, which caused me to miss important shots.

If money isn't an object then do what I did, get both. I use the 70-300 as a general purpose carry around lens. I then use the 70-200 combo for events where I know I need the extra speed of that lens and extra image quality.

You can see samples of my photographs with both lens at my Smugmug gallery.

Now if I could just afford to get the 200-400 VR........

--
Clifford W Martin
aka BigRedDogATL
http://cwmartin.smugmug.com

Qwntm said:

Except vignetting on FF.

2.7 stops in the corners wide open is bad. The 70-300 is a true FF
lens with very minimal vignetting.

I'm using it until the 70-200VR II comes along. (Still have my 1.7
EII, waiting for the day...)

Click to expand...

With a TCon you lose the vignetting. I have both as well. The 75-300 is very convenient and much better than the old version but the 70-200 + Tcon is probably better optically.

...at f2.8?

I have them both and use both. (D300 though.) The 70-300 is a great lens for good lighting. I find it falls off in quality as I have to crank the ISO up though. The micro contrast of that lens just doesn't compare to the 70-200.

If I'm doing portraits for money, I'll grab the 70-200 every time. Without exception. For my personal shooting and some events, I'll pack the 70-300 for the weight and reach. For the money, I go with the money glass. That's why I bought it.
--
Chefziggy
http://www.pbase.com/chefziggy/lecream

revdocrick said:

I'm in the process of buying the d700 and looking for the proverbial
long zoom of perfection. Choices: 70-300VR vs 1.4 tele 70-200 f/2.8
I don't mind lugging the glass, price is not a consideration. Don't
want to hear about off brands. I want to hear strong opinions from
folks with experince using nikkor. Hopes this generates a lot of
discussion. Which is the better way to go and why? Thanks for the
help.

Click to expand...

This is about the 70-200VR and TC17 combo, but there are some general thoughts you might find useful.

http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/hands-on-nikkor-18-200vr/the-tele-system-nikkor-70-200vr-and-tc17/
--
http://bonusphotography.wordpress.com/