wizard Loc: Naples Florida

Question: Which would be the better choice for my D600 - the older AF-S 80-200 f2.8 or the newer AF-S 28-300 f3.5-5.6? I understand that the 28-300 will not give me aperature choices when used on my Nikon 35mm and I like the idea of fixed f2.8 over the zoom range as well as the sharpness the 80-200 offers, so I am leaning that way. On the other hand, the 28-300 zoom has VR and I probably would not need to carry any other lenses. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Wizard

JR1 Loc: Tavistock, Devon, UK

I have the 28-300 VR and (or rather my son does), and it has never come off the camera, he sold the kit lens as he no longer needed it.

GOOGLE

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-300mm.htm

wizard Loc: Naples Florida

I figured that the 28-300 would be all that I would need for the D600. Unfortunately, I also enjoy shooting 35mm and it would only be a fixed aperture lens on the 35mm.

Thanks for your comment.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I sold my old Nikkor 80-200mm F2.8 D lens in favor of the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM as the Sigma was just as sharp and a LOT faster focusing at half the price of the newer Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 model.
As for the Nikkor 28-300mm? It permanently resides on one of my D800's all the time, an excellent all around lens that I find I use for at least 60% of my shooting under all conditions.
I also use it on my Nikon F5 for 35mm film work and the F5 will adjust the aperture in camera so the "G" is not an issue for me.

wizard Loc: Naples Florida

Guess I will need to upgrade to an F5 in order to use the G lens- Rockwell says only 1 aperture will be available on my N90S.

Thanks for your comment

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I have an N90s also and no, you will not have anything but F3.5 on that body, or the widest aperture of whatever "G" lens you are mounting on that older body. The F5 and F6 have aperture control on "G" lenses, I am not sure about any other film models having that capability. I love the viewfinder on the N90s, its as big and bright as the one on my F5.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Wizard, and Hi from the UK,

Looks like you've gone for a new full frame camera. So you need full frame lenses. Your question indicates to me that the focal range you want your lenses to fullfil is 28-300mm - right? But your other "concern" is low-light performance, and, indeed, you've mentioned that you're "leaning" towards f2.8. Which of the lenses you've asked us to advise on will answer both questions for you? Both are excellent lenses, but neither will give you everything you want. Time to re-evaluate, I would suggest. What ARE your focal length priorities? What ARE your "low-light" priorities? Which is most important? Which lens, or lenses, will then give you what you really need ? If you decide on a 70-200mm f2.8, then I agree with MT Shooter, and would suggest a Sigma. I have one ! Here's the link to mine - http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/325-sigma-af-70-200mm-f28-ex-hsm-apo-dg-macro-nikon-review--test-report. I'm so pleased with mine - purchased on eBay UK only one month ago for £450 (you do the currency exchange) and in absolutely MINT condition. Check that against a similar Nikon lens without VR !

But I re-iterate, you need to properly sort out your needs and priorities, then evaluate the options that fit those priorities .... and most important of all .... YOU DECIDE !! That way you'll more likely than not get the correct lens(es) for your nice new D600.

wizard Loc: Naples Florida

I have a decent selection of full frame AF lenses at 80 mm and below with good low light capability. I am not happy with the performance of the Nikkor AF 70-300 f4.5 -5.6 nor the Tamron 200-400 f5.6, both of which I find to be very soft.

I'm looking for a very sharp, excellent low light performance long telephoto lens that is compatible with both cameras.

My thought is that the AF-S 80-200 (not 70-200) is probably the best performer and fully compatible with both digital and 35mm cameras. Both of the lenses I'm looking at are similarly priced.

wizard Loc: Naples Florida

I too love the big bright viewfinder on my N90S AND the great pictures it takes. Bought 2 of these this year - one for 18$ and one for $35, as well as a pretty good inventory of film. If the price of a used F5 would drop that low - I'd be tempted!

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

I've not got a Nikon 35mm film camera, and am not, therefore, qualified to make any comment. And from your last paragraph, it looks like you've made your decision regarding your long, sharp lens. Good for you. Now just DO IT !!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Have you taken a look at the new Nikon 70-200mm? I believe it's an f/4, but much less expensive than their older 70-200mm.

Again, www.kenrockwell.com has an article about it.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

I still use my old 80-200 2.8. Mainly for portraits now and usually on a tripod. I compared the 28-300VR to the 80-200 and imo they just don't compare for portraits. The bokeh on the old lens is just superb and on my D300s, it may just be me, but the colour just seems . . . better? I didn't buy the 28-300 but did get the 70-300 4.5. It's an 'OK' lens (for hunting) but do now wish I'd spent the extra and got the 28-300. These days my backpack (which is in the car whenever we go out), has a D200 with 18-200 attached, the D300 has the 70-300 and my old Leica M3 has a 90mm attached (200ASA colour film). I also carry a Nikkor 50 1.8. (for when I don't want to look too conspicuous). (If I'm just wandering around the shops or whatever, I usually have the little DMC LX3 in my jeans pocket)I find with this lot, its not taking up to much space in the boot of the car and I'm able to deal to almost any situation I find that might inspire me on a day out.
However, from what I've since read I sort of wish I'd gone for the 28-300 rather than the 70-300, but NZ prices being what they are!!! Couldnt really justify the cost (being a poor old retiree :cry: ).
Hope some of this might help you but my overriding comment has to be, even tho its an oldie, dont write off the 2.8 80-200. I would never sell mine. Cheers

wizard Loc: Naples Florida

Thanks for you thoughts - I made a bid on an AF-S 80-200 2.8 lens today - hope I win the auction.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Although versatile the 28-300 is a huge compromise optically. You've been shooting long enough to know that VR is not necessary. Go with your initial instincts.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

I played around with the new Nikon at the trade show in NYC two weeks ago. That would and will be my choice once they are available at the end of Nov. It is a constent f4. This makes the lens lighter than the f2.8 and 1000.00 cheaper. It also has their most advanced VR which the Nikon rep. claims at 5 f-stops. I would only suggest the 2.8 over the f4 if you felt you would ever use a 1.4, 1.7, or 2.0 teleconverter with the lens. In that case you would want to get as much initial light into the process as possible. The f-4 doesn't bother me with the newer cameras that can easily handle 800 ISO, and even 1600 ISO is perfectly usable. I shoot events with a D300 and a 16-85 lens that slides up to 5.6 and have never had a problem with noise.