Nikkor Telephoto, Prime vs. Zoom

[TheKrikkitWars]

I'm looking for a telephoto, mainly to allow me to take photos of Kayaking, the main considerations being reasonable magnification, and wide apature

I'm considering either AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED or AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED or AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Or a combination of primes like the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D and AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED and AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Ideally, The combination of a AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED and AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED would be my choice, but i'd like to hear your views.

 

[PsiFox]

If you can afford the 2.8 300 fine (also find one) otherwise the 300 f4 is a cracker

 

[reddeathdrinker]

The Nikon 300mm f/4 was also on my shopping list, but I went for the flexibility of the 100-300mm zoom...Are you dead set on Nikon lenses? The other 2 contendors I can think of are Sigma 100-300mm f/4, and the 120-300mm f/2.8

I use the 100-300mm f/4, and cannot find anything bad to say about it, it's as sharp as a pin throughout the zoom range, even when wide open. Doesn't stop me wanting the 120-300mm f/2.8 though, which is even better still (and twice the price!)

 

[TheKrikkitWars]

Just found the 70-200 f/2.8 for £300 used, am waiting for a photo of the front element. Then I just have to save my wages for the next three months before I can dare to consider the 300mm prime.

 

[StewartR]

I'm considering either AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED or AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED or AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

Or a combination of primes like the AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D and AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED and AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED

That's comparing apples with oranges.

In the red corner, a zoom costing £700-£1200.
In the blue corner, a set of primes costing £6000.

I wonder which would be best?

 

[Steve 7]

I used to shoot a lot of canoeing, I used a 300mm f2.8 prime on a film camera in those days. Today on digital, I would go for the 70-200mm f2.8....same focal length, very fast focussing. Not so great wide open, but superb at f4....you will probably shoot at f5.6 anyway. The 300mm f4 is a fantastic performer, but may be a little too powerful and without the flexibility of the zoom.
You might also consider a 1.4x TC on the 70-200mm, barely looses any quality.

 

[Lensflare]

I agree with Steve7 - I also shoot sea kayaking (I designed and build sea kayaks) for the magazines. I have just done a story on paddling across from Sennen Cove to the Isles of Scilly - a 30 mile open water crossing.

I would suggest that the 80 - 200AFS or the 70-200AFS would be your better bet. As for zooms versus primes? The old rule of thumb that primes were better no longer holds true. The gamma and corner to corner sharpness of the Nikon 2.8 zooms is actually greater than some of their primes - the new crop of zooms with the nano coat are just incredible and the fact that they are only £1200 each is down to economy of scale, not lack of quality. Economy of production processes and the fact they now sell so many.

10 years ago, very few amateurs would have lashed out for makers pro lenses because they were so expensive in commparison to wages. Now more people can afford them because the ratio of income to the cost of these lenses has come down. The actual cost of these lenses has remained static. A 300 f2.810 years ago was about £3300 - they are still the same now.

What kind of kayaking are you going to be covering?

 

[weiran]

Just found the 70-200 f/2.8 for £300 used, am waiting for a photo of the front element. Then I just have to save my wages for the next three months before I can dare to consider the 300mm prime.

that's a brilliant price for a Nikon 70-200VR, they're still worth double that second hand.