I am torn between the 200mm f2 and the 300 f2.8, which do you think would be better for me; I would use it for indoor sporting events and wildlife ?
1713457
The 300 F2.8 is one of the best lens Nikon has ever made and is better. The added reach and the fact that the 300 F 2.8 works perfectly with 1.4, 1.7 and 2.0 converters makes it the perfect choice. I have tried the 500 F4 and it is way to big to carry around or hold. The 300 f 2.8 is still large but can be handheld which is huge. Thanks for asking.
2253131
Not nearly as good as the F2.8. I use this lens on the Nikon D5200. I initially brought the lens for my daughter's lacrosse games. It was excellent during the day games, but not so hot taking action shots during the night games. However, when taking no action shots (i.e. crowd, sideline, etc.) it performed well under the stadium lights. If I felt comfortable enough dishing out the extra $grand and lugging around a much heavier lens I would have gone with the 2.8, but I'm extremely happy with the F4.
1919508
I'd say yes. Tack sharp, fast focus. Of course you don't have the ability to zoom like the 70-200mm f2.8, but the 85mm 1.4g will be 4 times faster wide open, which is important indoors. Meaning that if the 85mm were wide open at f1.4, and the 70-200mm f2.8 were wide open at f2.8, the 85 mm would utilize a 4 times faster shutter speed to freeze action. This makes all the difference when we're talking about 1/60th or 1/250th of a second. Blur vs. crisp.
32351
Get the biggest (smallest f-stop) lens you can afford. If you get "close to the action" a 50mm ish is adequate. If you shoot from your seat in the middle of the theater, go 85mm ish. In my opinion (worth next to nothing) money on two f1.x fixed lenses is better spent than on an f2.x zoom.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
2096572
The 18-200 has better specs across all ranges (read Thom Hogan) A 300 mm lense can be very handy, but check the weight of each lense.
91515
This lens is great for low light situations especially without fast motion as the autofocus isn't as fast as the Nikon/Canon version. The f2.8 will be great for indoor/poor lit situations!
1150132
135L exceeds the 200L II in almost every respect. Contrast, sharpness, etc. The perspective one achieves with the 135 length is lovely. Rent them both if you're on the fence that much. I purchased the 70-200 F4L IS for event & wedding photography, and eventually sold it for the 200L II; every time I was using the 70-200, I was at the far end, and the prime is sharper, lighter, offers the extra stop (vs. the f4), etc. My 135L has been with me for years, is rarely matched in performance, and would be the last thing to go in my kit.
528383
I have the 70-300 mm and attest that it has good optics and the build quality is excellent. Comparing e two lenses the first observation is they are equal in speed. The 70-300 mm lens will give you further reach than he EF-S lens especially when considering the multiplication factor that comes with EF lenses with a less than full frame sensor camera body. The 70-300 will work out to yield focal lengths of 120- 480 mm and correspondingly it will be of limited use close up where you would prefer a more standard length lens to shoot with but it can be a lense of choice at sporting events or photographing wildlife. Another consideration is your plans for the future. If you are thinking you may some day purchase a full frame sensor camera body then the only option would be the 70-300mm lens. Finally something to consider would be to Google reviews of each lens. There are some very detailed and exacting reviews available for camera bodies and lenses on-line. Hope these initial observations will be of assistance.
931876
24-70 f 2.8 is awesome, 70-200 f 2.8 , 85 f 1.8 . I use all 3 of these lenses, I am a professional portrait and event photographer.
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
1319767
I'm not an expert just a photo hobby guy. But i believe there might be a second generation image stabilization on the 300 mm lens. Plus the obvious better zoom capacity. My 200 does a pretty good job at getting indoor pictures at a basketball game. I have to set the right aperture and ISO at first but it works for me. Depends on your need for the additional zoom. Good luck
2054211
The 50mm is actually more "zoomed out," and is therefore probably more functional for indoor family stuff. The 85 is awesome but isn't going to give you anything other than close-ups if you are standing inside of 15-20 feet from the subject.If versatility is your goal, I would strongly suggest something like Sigma 17-35 zoom. I think that's about F/1.8 as well. Same price range. That gives you the flexibility of zooming way out for wide-angle group shots and then back in for relative close-ups.
2058089
The quality of the 60-250 is stellar but low light sports is not it's best use. If the Tamron has excellant optics, the f2.8 should be better for your needs. Check The lens reviews to see how the Tamron performs wide open. DXO Mark is informative.
1150127
i have both of these lenses and i have to say both are extremely sharp even wide open. i've used the 135/2 more often than the 200/2.8 because i mainly used it as portrait and candid pics. i've enjoy both of these lenses personally and really preferred prime lens over zoom.
1649133
If you're doing an indoor wedding, something like an 18-200 or 28-135 might serve you better. This lens would be good for outdoor weddings probably, especially if you're going for candid, un-posed shots.