What is the difference between a Nikkor 70-300 VR 3.5-5.6 at 100mm 4.5 vs a Nikkor 70-200 VR 2.8 at 100mm at 4.5?
Probably sounds like a dumb question, but what's the difference?
#1. "RE: What is the difference between a Nikkor 70-300 VR 3.5-5.6 at 100mm 4.5 vs a Nikkor 70-200 VR 2.8 at 100mm at 4.5?" | In response to Reply # 0briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Wed 12-Dec-12 04:14 PM
Welcome to Nikonians!
The two images that you mention will look the same in terms of field of view (how much of the subject you "get in") and depth of field (how much of the subject is sharp front-to-back).
The advantages of a 70-200mm would be because it is a higher-quality lens being used a couple of stops or so down from its maximum aperture. As such, I would expect its shot to be a little bit sharper, particularly in the corners if you're talking about the current version of the lens, with slightly better contrast and definition.
#2. "RE: What is the difference between a Nikkor 70-300 VR 3.5-5.6 at 100mm 4.5 vs a Nikkor 70-200 VR 2.8 at 100mm at 4.5?" | In response to Reply # 1Dshocker Registered since 03rd Dec 2012Wed 12-Dec-12 06:18 PM
Thanks for the reply. Your answer is exactly what I suspected but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
I'm trying to figure out if it would be "worth it" to upgrade my lens. The larger 2.8 aperture is definitely an advantage to the 5.6 I'm getting with my 70-300. With that said, I'm shooting with a D4 and its pretty awesome in low light situations, fast even at 5.6.
Any opinions are more than welcomed.
#3. "RE: What is the difference between a Nikkor 70-300 VR and 70-200 VR 2.8 at 100mm" | In response to Reply # 2ericbowles Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Wed 12-Dec-12 06:38 PM
There is a huge difference between shooting at 150mm and f/3.2 vs f/5.6. The backgrounds are much better with the faster glass and shallow DOF.
Another Nikonian has done some lens testing and found his copy of the 70-200 was sharpest at f/4.5-5.6. But the background and speed at f/3.2-3.5 made up for the slight tradeoff in sharpness. This is normal results from the lens. I imagine the 70-300 is also a little better stopped down to f/7.1-f/8 - at which point you do not have a soft blurred background.
If you have a D4, you'll get the benefit of a 70-200. It's my favorite lens for everything from portraits to wildlife and even some landscapes. The 70-300 has its place - it's a light weight option good for handholding. But there is no comparison in which I choose to carry most of the time.
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera