| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:jk wrote:
This is for Eric.
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/08/27/nikkor-200-500mm-f5-6e-vs-nikkpr-300mm-f4e-pf-a-review-and-comparison.aspx/
Interesting appraisal, which has crystallised my thinking.
What crystals do you have? 200-500 size or 300 size
Agreed, Eric is being naughty, tantalising! LOL
Does the 70-300mm f4.5 - 5.6 VR come into this equation? Or it the relatively slow, long end TOO slow @ 5.6. Also, perhaps not sufficient IQ to compete with the 300mm f4?
http://www.bythom.com/70300VRlens.htm
The way I see it is if you have a 300 and a half decent DX body, then that gives you the equivalent of a 450 (almost 500) on FX, which for most purposes is as long as you want to go hand held without a heavy tripod and a lot of preparation. While at the same time the 70-300 on FX gives a useful range without the bulk of the 80-200 f2.8 for less demanding situations.
The trend towards better high ISO has the by product of making slower lenses more versatile. The biggest issue remaining seems to me to be the poor bokeh from these slower zooms but that can usually be dealt with in post process.
____________________
Robert.