Nikkor 70-200 vs. 70-300
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 сен 2024
- In this video I compare and contrast Nikkor's 70-200 VR f/2.8 and the 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6. They are both awesome lenses! I compare the general usability, build quality, optical quality (bokeh & sharpness), and do a street shoot for samples from both lenses shot on my D300s. In the end it comes down to what kind of photography you want to do & (as always) your budget!
Yes you're seeing "focus breathing" which is why you see the differences at the same mm setting on the 2 lenses. They should be roughly equal focused at infinity.
I can't justify the cost of the 2.8 glass. Personally for more reach in good light for wildlife I'd get a superzoom and live with the IQ differences. If you want to maximise out of focus effect keep your subject just beyond minimum focal length and your background as far away as possible - that won't match f/2.8 but it close.
the 70-300mm is Nikons semi-pro offering. I just bought it to compliment my semi-pro 18-70mm this is an awesome combination of lens's. They are meant to be used together. Most consumers are unaware of the awesome quality these lens provide. You do give up f-stop over the pro versions... but you literally save thousands and they are easier to carry.
Huge difference in the magnification between those two at the same focal lengths looks like your getting screwed with the 70-200mm as far as reach goes.
The important consideration is the distance from the camera and the subject. Filming a deer in the forest at 100 + yards distant, what lens will give the better picture? And how much of a closeup, and with what clairtym can you get from either lens?
Nice review. You can actually use a 1.4 tele-converter on the 70-300 with no auto-focus issues. It becomes F8 and you can shoot at F11 to compensate for the one stop image quality. very nice and sharp at F11 for outdoor. I bought the same 70-300 for outdoor wild life and sports as well although I have a brand new 80-200 2.8 which I use for weddings. Its a very very good outdoor lens.
Best comparison hands down .. great job!
i havnt seen a review like this before man. good. keep it up.
Great review! As a long time sound guy, I wanted to mention that the sound quality when you're speaking could be better and louder. Probably fixable with a microphone on a boom arm to get it closer. Also the music level was way too high while you were speaking, making it more difficult to understand what you were saying. It got even louder when you were showing different shots, so I had to turn down the volume, but when it went back to you in your studio, you voice level was extra low so I had to turn it up again. Not criticisms, just observations. The review was very helpful as I have the 70-300 and have wondered if it would be worth the extra money to get the 70-200. I didn't see a big difference in picture quality and sharpness between the two, which surprised me for the cost difference. I use mine mostly outdoors, so I'll probably stick with the 70-300 for now. Thanks!
@Ofirinb Glad you liked it! In some ways, I think I have been too harsh on the 70-300. It serves it's purpose, but it's not all bad, just has some warts. :)
Really informative. Thank you!
great thx! i was thinking a lot about a decision: 70-200 2.8 (and paying a lot) or 70-300 4.5-5.6 complemented by 85mm 1.8 for lowlight situations (paying less, lower weight).
Finally, i've ordered the 70-300 & 85mm 1.8 yesterday.
In the end, the lens weight was more important, than the light-flexibility.
Im also very glad to see the very nice optical quality!
Great Video, really enjoyed it, well done!
In 2022-when flying for travel, the Nikon 70-300 is the winner for the bag along with other lenses.
@knicity Thanks! I'm glad you liked it!
For shooting in daylight I would choose instead the AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm because of its much better reach. For 90-95% of all situations this might be the perfect thing. And for low-light I would take any nifty fifty or my 20mm f1.8.
@mysewo - I'm glad this vid was helpful for you. I'm sure that 85 f/1.8 will work slick along side the 70-300. Try some sample shots for comparison of both lenses at 85mm and see if you notice any difference. I'd be interested to know.
i use the 70-300 and trust me.. there is not alot of difference in the 70-200.. mainly the f-stops.. but when you want that extra reach the 70-300 is a must.. and it stays sharp all the way to 300mm. so paying loads extra for so little is a no no.. get the 70-300 you wont be dissapointed.. ive shot military jets with the 300 and it works for me.. sharp as hell
Great video man, it was really useful to me! :)
The 300mm is ultra sharp wow, bokeh is not worth giving up the sharpness and color you are getting from the cheaper lens. Thanks for posting I almost waisted a bunch of money.
I am glad you made this video as I already own the 70-300 and was curious to see the difference of the 70-200. I know they are different classes of lenses but I am starting to do wedding photography and was wondering how much of a difference of quality there was between the two lenses and if I would HAVE to upgrade and you have displayed this in your video. Thanks, I will now be saving for the 70-200. Good video!
i think the intention of the video is to guide some users either buying the cheap or the expensive one because the zoom range on both of them are comparable.
color is made more contrast on the 70-200, leather girl's issues, it is pink in color. more pictures are selected. The test is the Boke that 70-200 less than flush contrast
I have the D5100, which has a dx sensor and what I think I understand from some research it basically turns the 70-300 into a 105 to 450mm zoom lens, which is pretty good for the value. Shame it doesn't do so well in low light
I liked the bokeh on the 70-300mm better in this example.
very good video! but one thing I would have liked to see is the difference in depth of field between 200mm 2.8 and 300mm 5.6 (yes I know that the fov would be different)
but still for someone who is looking to get the 70-300 I would have liked to see it so that I know what I'm missing out on/what I could compromise.
anyway a very useful video!
thanks
@bmode36 Yep, I know what you mean. I really miss 2.8 on this lens. Even continuous f/4 would be better. I'm saving up for the 70-200 right now, can't wait to get it!
also the 70-300 is a great lens for the price, but you really have to take care when shooting with it, cause at 5.6 at almost 300mm i can only use a polarizing filter in bright sun, cause the aperture is just too small. so basically im always on the edge of needing it to grab more light. which makes the lens a bit of a pain to deal with sometimes. i find myself having to make the images brighter in post processing
Very nice vid. I like it. Great job :)
Yes. You are correct. I made an error and I will add an annotation.
@Bsklarski My experience with it is that in low light it's very poor and hunts for focus something terrible. In lots of light it does pretty good.
I think it's a great video - I think it's funny that you're saying that the two lenses shouldn't be compared because of their large price difference. This is comical because if anything the video points out that the performance differences aren't as pronounced as one might expect given the huge price difference. So in the end, the review highlights the same great price-performance aspect of the 70-300 VR that you praise in your comment. Great lens for the money.
Great video, thank you. If you can make another video comparing Nikon 70-200 f4 vs 70-200 f2.8 that would be great.
Thanks. My next video will compare the f4 & f2.8. I just bought the f4 and I will tell you why :)
So I did a little research... the 70-300 changes its focal length based on its focus point. So if I'm set to 70mm at I focus close up, the lens is actually going to zoom in further. Same thing at 300mm... it has a closer and a further zoomed version of 300mm based on its focus. But I don't know how this works? I just know I set my camera up on a tripod and tested this...
@martinibabyrorro - I agree with you in that the lenses are better suited for different tasks and aren't really an "apples to apples" comparison. The point of the video is to showcase the strengths and weaknesses of both. People will make up their own minds as to what suits their needs. In terms of quality, capability and performance, the 70-200 wins hands down. Sorry you didn't like the vid!
great video. i have the 24-70 2.8, and then use the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 as my telephoto lens. i can justify the price of the 24-70 pro grade because its going to be on my camera 90% of the time. thats why im sticking with the 70-300 for right now, i just cannot justify the price for the amount of use i would use it.
I use the 70-300 vr over the 70-200 vr for sports (DAYTIME ONLY OUTSIDE), because I like the reach. the 70-200 vrII does not feel like its a true 200 mm. for nighttime then yes 70-200 mm 2.8. both are sharp and for the money you can't go wrong on the 70-300.
Compression makes up for a lot in terms of bokeh. I will see about posting a further supplement on this topic
The image quality from the 70-300 isn't bad. I've used it with a D800 and it's fine. You just miss the focus speed in capturing "the moments" & 2.8 for indoor/low light. Any working pro is going to pick up the 70-200 IMHO. :)
I have the 70-300 VR and I really like it. I've seen comparison at 200mm f/8 on both lenses and in terms of sharpness..its almost exact.
If I was doing professional work..then I'd get the 70-200 2.8 for sure...if I robbed a bank maybe lol.
If they made the 70-300 VR with a f/3.5-4.5 aperture..I think it would be a pretty impressive lens. But even so..the 70-300 is a pretty good lens for the money.
Thank you sir for that comparison. Now I know that 70-300 is not that far behind Pro 70-200 :D Now all I need to do is to get some cash and buy 70-300.. :)
Thanks again, Greetings from Poland :)
Im fortunate to own both lenses and 1.4x 1.7x & 2.0x converters you stated that a 2x converter gets you a 400mm f4 ? In fact it becomes a f5.6 equivalent.
also when you did your Bokeh test you wasn’t shooting like for like with aperture settings you only used f2.8 on the 70-200mm where as the 70-300mm is a variable aperture lens, a fairer test would have been to match the apertures at the various focal length settings as you will always get better Bokeh at f2.8
Yes it works on d3100
digital rev tv song... awesome!
Not sure, but the 70-300 it is pretty fast to focus on my D7000
ofc is the bokeh different when the 70-200 is at 2.8 on your 70mm, and the 70-300mm is at 4.5
Take pictures on same aperture, and the bokeh will be different!
I've shot a couple of weddings for friends aiming for pro quality with 70-300VR. IF you can use flash it's doable. If not, FORGET IT.
Hey guys, I have just got the Nikon D3200 and I have the 18 - 55mm lens... I want something with a better zoom but still be able to take some good pictures of people and stuff. what lens should I get?
If you add a 2x teleconverter to get 400mm, the 2.8 will become f/5.6, not f/4, as you mentioned.
That 5.6 will still let in more light due to the better light transmission ratio of the 70-200 (DxO mark calls it T-stop).
With 1.4x the 70-300 will become f/8 - still usable with cross-type AF points and perfectly OK for outdoors (@420mm on top).
But this is like comparing a Lexus to a Toyota - you will inevitably conclude the Lexus is better, especially in the same size class, although they come from the same producer.
And yeah... if you want 300mm f/2.8 FX prime, you'll have to spent 5.500$.
What comes after the Lexus? :-)
Very good inside 2.8 outside looks like 300 may be ok good info
I shot the 70-300 VR on a D800 at 3200 ISO in a church and It was just fine.
I tried taking a group family photo indoors in low light with my 70-300 and it was a disaster. Perhaps I should use my 50mm f 1.8 instead.
When you did the bokeh test you should have shot both glass at f4.5.
How does the Nikon 70-200 compare to the Canon L lenses in this range?
please tell me the setting for the last image with 70-300mm
hi sir im using d7000 which lens would fit 70-200 or 70-300mm? thanks
Meandering:
an act of following a winding course.
"oxbow lagoons left by the river's meanderings"
an act of wandering in a leisurely or aimless manner.
"in the course of his meanderings through the city"
convoluted or undirected thought or language.
"he has a penchant for obscure verbal meanderings"
I just got this lens and I am having trouble with images when using
f2.8. I just did some tests: when I use f2.8 the images are not as sharp
in comparison to f4 and up. Does this happen to you? I tested with 70mm
and 200mm, subject was not moving and my SS was 1/640 ISO 400 (I have a
crop Nikon D7100).
You will find that all lenses are poorer at wide open apertures than they are when they are stopped down. It shouldn't be as noticeable on a D7100 crop vs. a full frame camera. It could also be a bad copy of the lens that you have.
thanks for the video, but how can you compare a lens which costs 500$ and the other one 2100$
it's just not right... it's like you compare a d3x and a d3000
Any vignetting should I buy it for my d5200?
Did you already use in a FX like D800 or 600?
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your valuable videos.
I'm comparing Nikon 70-300 VR vs. Tamron 70-300 VC; which one would you recommend?
I use Nikon D750.
Thank you.
+Amr Badran Hi - I don't have any experience with the Tamron lens. I have shot their 70-200 2.8 and it was a superb lens. Check out ThatNikonGuy/MattGranger, I think he might have some videos on the 70-300 Tamron.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Hi can i use 70-300 lens in Nikon d3100???
thanx
Nice video......on dx cameras 300mm becomes 450mm. So I go for 70-300mm
the great thing about the 70-200mm f2.8 (If you have the spare change) is that you can throw a 1.7x or 2x teleconverter on it and still get f5.6 @400mm(or 600mm on APSC Crop)
70-200mm f2.8 is way expensive....but I agree it is a better lens.
I have problems with your video. First and foremost only an idiot would need some famous professional photographer to validate the equipment they use. To say that only a novice or beginner or someone less than would use this lens is an insult. I'm not saying you can't admire a photographer or other people's work, I'm saying that if you need the validity or approval of someone before you're satisfied with the equipment you use, then you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.
Second and the most important, real photographers know that it's not about your equipment, it's about your skill, technique and creativity. If you don't have any of those then you have no business calling yourself a photographer. if you feel that it takes professional gear to get a great shot, then you have no business as a photographer and you shouldn't be calling yourself one.
Third, this is a very unfair comparison. Yes professional gear is going to perform better in all cases but to compare a professional lens to a non professional or prosumer lens, is very unfair. The materials are different, the apertures are different, the overall build quality is different of course it's not going to perform as well. But you use techniques to compensate for sharpness within means of course. stopping down f8 will give you the best performance. To compensate for the larger aperture get closer to the subject at the longer focal ranges. Use skill to compensate for the inabilities of the 70 to 300. Of course you're only going to get so much performance but it will give you great performance.
Ok rant over.
I'm sorry you have problems. This video is designed to illustrate the differences of the two lenses so that prospective buyers of either can be better informed about the purchase. Sorry for not being a real photographer.
@@schultzphotographic your video was useful for me, i do have pro/non pro stuff, i did hold in hands both of the lenses you show, but i still wanted to see 'em side by side, specs say exact sizes of them, but eys still wanted to see the difference :) oh, and i've got nothing interesting from floex831's rant, he said the things everybody gets to know after the 1st year of photo practice...
Can I adapt this lens on Sony Nex F3?
I am a 70-300 VR lense user... i a great lense, but please compare with 70-200... omg... i dont see any professional photograph with 70-300, try to use it in a sport competition or in the night... impossible, 70-200 you can, if you have the money, you should buy it, it is sharper and better in all the points. 18-55 is the best lense, it comes with the camera and do a very good photos, no it isnt the best...
hehe ...I like the END of this Video ... Amen. :-p
based on my experience bokeh at 300 f5.6 is as giid as bokeh at 200 f2.8, because 200 is really a 130
doh .... both of these lens are internal focus.
70-300btw
Its pointless to compare Bokeh effect of 4.5 with 2.8, With different aperture & same background distance there is no ways the image would be same. Its like comparing the Bigger apple height with smaller apple when we know they are not same. Both image would have looked same if you would have increase the distance between the subject and background. No offence
In my experience I can tell you that the Nikon is a bit better. They're both tremendous glass. DigitalRev did a review in which I think they allude to that as well: ruclips.net/video/MisgP8GdGX0/видео.html
Turn the music off!
Your 70-200 would become a 140-400 f/5.6 with a 2x TC, not f/4 ;) Good vid otherwise.