Prime Lens vs Telephoto - Comments/Suggestions?
Jun 8, 2012 13:11:22 #
I have a question for my more experienced UHH friends: I've been shooting a Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 telephoto lens on my D7000 for some time with reasonable, but not great, results. I realize that it's not the sharpest lens and I'm considering a prime lens to replace it, notably a Nikon 300mm f4. I'm pretty sure it would be sharper, but I'm curious as to what I would be giving up if I acquired this lens. Comments and suggestions would be most welcome. :?:
Jun 8, 2012 13:23:27 #
First off, I've always been told that a prime is sharper than a zoom. However, if you're going to do any type of work of medium distance, limiting yourself to a 300 mm lens may overly restrict you. On the other hand, if most of your work is sports or outdoor photography, that may not be an issue.
Jun 8, 2012 13:29:18 #
FilmFanatic
Loc: Waikato, New Zealand
I have that zoom, and I had the early model 300 f/4 AF, not the AF-S. The prime was very very sharp, even with a 2x teleconverter!
What you are giving up is VR if that matters to you, and obviously the ability to zoom, which sometimes is a pain in the ass. Also the prime is quite large and heavy so a sturdy tripod is recommended, especially if you want to get the best sharpness.
Nikon has two 300 f/4 primes, the early one that I had was the old style autofocus and very very slow on my D90, not too bad on my F5 which had very grunty AF. The new version is AF-S and should be much faster autofocus.
But in the end, coming from that zoom, when you see the first images out of the prime it will be so sharp you will want to weep for joy, I think
What you are giving up is VR if that matters to you, and obviously the ability to zoom, which sometimes is a pain in the ass. Also the prime is quite large and heavy so a sturdy tripod is recommended, especially if you want to get the best sharpness.
Nikon has two 300 f/4 primes, the early one that I had was the old style autofocus and very very slow on my D90, not too bad on my F5 which had very grunty AF. The new version is AF-S and should be much faster autofocus.
But in the end, coming from that zoom, when you see the first images out of the prime it will be so sharp you will want to weep for joy, I think
Jun 8, 2012 16:46:54 #
Do you have the 70-300 VR? It is much better than the old 70-300, which I had. The old 75-300 f4 was really good, but slow AF.
I could find a way to make it on a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4. That is a fine quality non VR compromise.
I could find a way to make it on a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4. That is a fine quality non VR compromise.
Jun 9, 2012 06:05:18 #
Those were great tips for Nikon users!
How about Canons? What would be a great prime for
Outdoor photography?
Thanks experts.
How about Canons? What would be a great prime for
Outdoor photography?
Thanks experts.
Jun 9, 2012 06:37:10 #
FilmFanatic
Loc: Waikato, New Zealand
gledor42 wrote:
Those were great tips for Nikon users!
How about Canons? What would be a great prime for
Outdoor photography?
Thanks experts.
How about Canons? What would be a great prime for
Outdoor photography?
Thanks experts.
Can't have been referring to me coz I ain't no expert!
Canon has a similar 300mm f/4 lens but it has the bonus of IS: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129188-USA/Canon_2530A004_Telephoto_EF_300mm_f_4_0L.html
KEH.com has the 300 f/4 IS in stock for $959, there is also a non IS version for $750. That's a lot of lens for $750!
Jun 9, 2012 06:41:54 #
glojo
Loc: South Devon, England
I have a long prime lens and this is never off my camera even though the birds are sometimes as close as 20 metres. There will be the very rare occasion when you might want the benefit of having a smaller lens but if there is a regular need then how about two cameras? I cannot even remember the last time I used my 70-200mm zoom.
The 200-400mm Nikon lens is a brilliant option but the price is a major issue, but it is expensive for a reason.
Don't forget the zoom lens you are using has an inferior focussing speed compared to the prime lens you are considering and PLEASE do NOT think I am being critical, I am merely pointing out a significant fact regarding the benefits of the prime and of course there will be 'cons'.
The 200-400mm Nikon lens is a brilliant option but the price is a major issue, but it is expensive for a reason.
Don't forget the zoom lens you are using has an inferior focussing speed compared to the prime lens you are considering and PLEASE do NOT think I am being critical, I am merely pointing out a significant fact regarding the benefits of the prime and of course there will be 'cons'.
Jun 9, 2012 07:31:09 #
Go with a good telephoto prime such as the 80 - 200 f2.8.You will be much better off than limiting yourself to a fixed focal length.
Jtceec wrote:
I have a question for my more experienced UHH friends: I've been shooting a Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 telephoto lens on my D7000 for some time with reasonable, but not great, results. I realize that it's not the sharpest lens and I'm considering a prime lens to replace it, notably a Nikon 300mm f4. I'm pretty sure it would be sharper, but I'm curious as to what I would be giving up if I acquired this lens. Comments and suggestions would be most welcome. :?:
Jun 9, 2012 07:37:38 #
camerabuff58 wrote:
Go with a good telephoto prime such as the 80 - 200 f2.8.
80-200 is a zoom not a prime.
Jun 9, 2012 07:42:46 #
Yes , I know that. Had prime on my mind. sorry for the typo
SlimDude wrote:
80-200 is a zoom not a prime.
camerabuff58 wrote:
Go with a good telephoto prime such as the 80 - 200 f2.8.
80-200 is a zoom not a prime.
Jun 9, 2012 08:00:36 #
glojo
Loc: South Devon, England
camerabuff58 wrote:
Surely this is all about individual needs or choice? What might work for me, might not work for you. How close do we get to our target and how much background do we want compared to target?Go with a good telephoto prime such as the 80 - 200 f2.8.You will be much better off than limiting yourself to a fixed focal length.
Jun 9, 2012 08:31:58 #
Apologies for the wordy response to follow:
In the pre-digital era most SLR cameras came with a 50mm prime lens in the kit. These lenses are fast, capable of f1.8 or better. The depth of the photographs approximates that of the human eye. They forced the photographer to "zoom" with his/her feet. (For the Pentax users in the crowd, used examples of these lenses are available for cheap and they work manually on newer Pentax digitals.)
Zoom lenses invariably have less capability in the f/stop department compared to primes. And I think that by and large they are not as sharp. I have a Sigma 55-200mm and a Tamron 100-300mm. I also have a Pentax 200mm Prime manual lens that I bought used and it takes noticeably sharper photos than either of my zooms set at 200mm.
I guess the most important thing I have learned is that using a Prime forces me to be more creative, and that I am usually happier with the result. But having said all that, I still have many occasions when one or another of the zooms is the best tool for the job.
In the pre-digital era most SLR cameras came with a 50mm prime lens in the kit. These lenses are fast, capable of f1.8 or better. The depth of the photographs approximates that of the human eye. They forced the photographer to "zoom" with his/her feet. (For the Pentax users in the crowd, used examples of these lenses are available for cheap and they work manually on newer Pentax digitals.)
Zoom lenses invariably have less capability in the f/stop department compared to primes. And I think that by and large they are not as sharp. I have a Sigma 55-200mm and a Tamron 100-300mm. I also have a Pentax 200mm Prime manual lens that I bought used and it takes noticeably sharper photos than either of my zooms set at 200mm.
I guess the most important thing I have learned is that using a Prime forces me to be more creative, and that I am usually happier with the result. But having said all that, I still have many occasions when one or another of the zooms is the best tool for the job.
Jun 9, 2012 11:03:11 #
Jtceec wrote:
I have a question for my more experienced UHH friends: I've been shooting a Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 telephoto lens on my D7000 for some time with reasonable, but not great, results. I realize that it's not the sharpest lens and I'm considering a prime lens to replace it, notably a Nikon 300mm f4. I'm pretty sure it would be sharper, but I'm curious as to what I would be giving up if I acquired this lens. Comments and suggestions would be most welcome. :?:
You may be giving up a lot of money!
Jun 9, 2012 12:31:37 #
First of all, in order to take advantage of ANY lens at 300mm you will want and NEED to be on at least a good monopod - IS/VR or not !. 300mm F4 is a great and versatile focal length ! With 1.4X = 420mm and maintains AF. With 2X = 600mm with manual focus only. I used this setup for many years and now use the 300 2.8 with 2X for full AF at 600mm.
BTW, the 300 F4 Canon non-IS is sharper than the IS per Photozone.com. With Nikon, you will need the latest version lens to take advantage of good/fast AF. - Good luck.
BTW, the 300 F4 Canon non-IS is sharper than the IS per Photozone.com. With Nikon, you will need the latest version lens to take advantage of good/fast AF. - Good luck.
Jun 9, 2012 13:32:54 #
Yes, I have the VR version and as I said, it's good but not great. That's why I'm considering the prime 300mm f4 for its sharpness.
Bigdaver wrote:
Do you have the 70-300 VR? It is much better than the old 70-300, which I had. The old 75-300 f4 was really good, but slow AF.
I could find a way to make it on a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4. That is a fine quality non VR compromise.
I could find a way to make it on a 80-200 2.8 and a 300 f4. That is a fine quality non VR compromise.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.