Steve'sDigicams

Fiziksgeek · Jun 24, 2013, 11:01 AM

Hello all,

I haven't been very active on the forum, but know where to come for good advice!! I am heading to Yellowstone in a couple weeks. My D7000 will be the primary memory catcher for our group. I have the Nikon 35mm prime, which probably won't get used much on this trip, and a 16-85, which should produce pretty good landscapes.

I'm looking to rent a longer lens for wildlife. Nothing extreme, very novice skills here, not planning on carrying a tripod. Have seen a lot about the 70-300, 80-400, 28-300, etc., but can't seem to make a decision.

Given the short time to decide, what would you recommend?

Thanks,
Ken

TCav · Jun 24, 2013, 12:25 PM

I'd stick with the 70-300 VR.

Fiziksgeek · Jun 24, 2013, 1:24 PM

Hey TCav,

I was all set of the 70-300. I was originally going to buy it, but I don't feel I would get a lot of use out of it, so I thought I'd rent.

I know the 70-300 is talked about as a great lens, with a useful range, for a good price, but I've been reading that many people feel that 300 is still little short for wildlife in Yellowstone. Which got me thinking/reading about other options, and since renting, I can justify spending a few more dollars for a "better" lens.

The 80-400 seems like an obvious choice, Though I have mixed reviews of it out past 300, so maybe its no better than the smaller/lighter 70-300.

The 28-300 sound like it would make a great walk around lens with a little longer range (give up width for length...). I believe it's an FX lens, meaning that its effective length on my D7000 is something like 42-450..So that gets me out further still..

TCav · Jun 24, 2013, 2:16 PM

The difference between 400mm and 300mm isn't much. And while no one's published objective test results on the new 80-400, the old one at 400mm wasn't any better than cropping an image captured with the 70-300 at 300mm.

And the 80-400 is bigger, heavier and more expensive.

How much stuff do you want to be carrying around?

As for the 28-300, it's the equivalent of today's 18-200 superzooms for film cameras. Where their ranges overlap, it's nowhere near as good as the 16-85 you've already got, or as good as either the 70-300 or the 80-400 you're currently considering.

Convenience is fleeting; image quality is forever.

Fiziksgeek · Jun 24, 2013, 2:29 PM

That's a pretty convincing argument...

I was watching a TED talk the other day, an older one circa 2006 I believe, can't remember the speakers name. He was talking about how people say that having choice, not being forced into a decision is what they think will make them happy. But in reality, having choice will make a person unhappy. There were several reasons for this, one of them being the fear of making the wrong choice...clearly my case..!

TCav · Jun 24, 2013, 3:06 PM

(rofl)

Jun 24, 2013, 11:01 AM	#1
Fiziksgeek Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 16	Lens rental for Yellowstone Hello all, I haven't been very active on the forum, but know where to come for good advice!! I am heading to Yellowstone in a couple weeks. My D7000 will be the primary memory catcher for our group. I have the Nikon 35mm prime, which probably won't get used much on this trip, and a 16-85, which should produce pretty good landscapes. I'm looking to rent a longer lens for wildlife. Nothing extreme, very novice skills here, not planning on carrying a tripod. Have seen a lot about the 70-300, 80-400, 28-300, etc., but can't seem to make a decision. Given the short time to decide, what would you recommend? Thanks, Ken

Jun 24, 2013, 12:25 PM	#2
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,750	I'd stick with the 70-300 VR. __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Jun 24, 2013, 2:16 PM	#4
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,750	The difference between 400mm and 300mm isn't much. And while no one's published objective test results on the new 80-400, the old one at 400mm wasn't any better than cropping an image captured with the 70-300 at 300mm. And the 80-400 is bigger, heavier and more expensive. How much stuff do you want to be carrying around? As for the 28-300, it's the equivalent of today's 18-200 superzooms for film cameras. Where their ranges overlap, it's nowhere near as good as the 16-85 you've already got, or as good as either the 70-300 or the 80-400 you're currently considering. Convenience is fleeting; image quality is forever. __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Jun 24, 2013, 3:06 PM	#6
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,750	(rofl) __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jun 24, 2013, 1:24 PM	#3
Fiziksgeek Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 16	Hey TCav, I was all set of the 70-300. I was originally going to buy it, but I don't feel I would get a lot of use out of it, so I thought I'd rent. I know the 70-300 is talked about as a great lens, with a useful range, for a good price, but I've been reading that many people feel that 300 is still little short for wildlife in Yellowstone. Which got me thinking/reading about other options, and since renting, I can justify spending a few more dollars for a "better" lens. The 80-400 seems like an obvious choice, Though I have mixed reviews of it out past 300, so maybe its no better than the smaller/lighter 70-300. The 28-300 sound like it would make a great walk around lens with a little longer range (give up width for length...). I believe it's an FX lens, meaning that its effective length on my D7000 is something like 42-450..So that gets me out further still..

Jun 24, 2013, 2:29 PM	#5
Fiziksgeek Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 16	That's a pretty convincing argument... I was watching a TED talk the other day, an older one circa 2006 I believe, can't remember the speakers name. He was talking about how people say that having choice, not being forced into a decision is what they think will make them happy. But in reality, having choice will make a person unhappy. There were several reasons for this, one of them being the fear of making the wrong choice...clearly my case..!