|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
|
![]()
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
I'd stick with the 70-300 VR.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
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.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
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.
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
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..! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
(rofl)
__________________
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|