70-300 AFP FX vs 70-200mm 2.8 Fl

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
OP aaronkick111 Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: 70-300 AFP FX vs 70-200mm 2.8 Fl

philm5d wrote:

Plus one - a very similar story to my own. It's tempting to have the lighter lens and the extra 100mm but the times you might need the f2.8 , well it ain't there and once in the backpack the weight difference didn't seem so important. Same with the 24-120 F4. I sold it and kept the 24-70mm. Both the 70-300mm and 24-120 mm lenses are "OK" but don't compare to the 70-200/24-70 in terms of IQ.

mbecke wrote:

aaronkick111 wrote:

So I currently have the 70-200mm which i hardly use much and hardly ever at 2.8. So was wondering if anyone had experience with both lenses and how big a difference there as at say F/8 for landscape work?

And if it is a good idea to trade the 70-200mm to buy the 70-300mm and money towards another lens?

Absolutely not! The Nikon 70-200 VR2 that I own is far superior to the crummy consumer Nikon 70-300 FX that I used for a few days and then happily returned to the seller. What a hunk of junk -- at least my copy was very poor. It was not even as sharp as the previous version of the Nikon 70-300. Moreover, the current FL version of the Nikon 70-200 is arguably better than my previous version VR2. Buy quality; keep quality. You will enjoy it much more and for a longer period of time. This is a discussion that should really not take place. It is like comparing a Yugo to a Rolls Royce.

Yh my problem is i hardly use 2.8 i did to start with for sports but didnt carry on. Now mainly use f/8 but dont use lens enough because of weight

 aaronkick111's gear list:aaronkick111's gear list
Nikon D5100 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow