Nikon D750 & D780

@snerkler which 80-400 have you tried or seen as there are a couple... Think we talking about the latest version here.... I know harrison got the old version in there used section but I believe the new version is better
 
rookies said:
@snerkler which 80-400 have you tried or seen as there are a couple... Think we talking about the latest version here.... I know harrison got the old version in there used section but I believe the new version is better
Click to expand...
New one's better, but it's double the cost of the Canon 70-300mm L. It's apparently pretty soft at 400mm, there's plenty of info out there about the softness at 400mm. At 300mm it's comparable to the Canon 70-300mm L, but for £1700 I'd want it to be sharp at the long end too.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
That's at the short end though, you tend to use these lenses at the long end and the Nikon is poor for the money imo.
Click to expand...

So what do you suggest that's smaller than the 3rd party's and longer than 70-300 vr that's comparable to the L?
 
Some interesting information here guys.. It comes to me that Canon Seem to be better with Lens line up and Nikon better with the Bodies line up
 
twist said:
So what do you suggest that's smaller than the 3rd party's and longer than 70-300 vr that's comparable to the L?
Click to expand...
Nothing, it's an area that's not all that well catered for. I think there must be quite a bit of sample variation though as I have read some people who say that the 80-400mm is sharp throughout. The one I had a quick play with certainly dropped off at the long end, and sample images/test shots I've seen seem to be a bit soft past 300mm. Bear in mind it's £1700 vs £870 for the Canon it's not really a direct competitor.
 
minnnt said:
Both camps have stand out lenses... Canons 85mm F1.2 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Nikons.
Click to expand...

Think you better Sell Sell Sell and move over to canon :exit:
 
rookies said:
Some interesting information here guys.. It comes to me that Canon Seem to be better with Lens line up and Nikon better with the Bodies line up
Click to expand...
Swings and roundabouts. Nikon don't cater for a 'high end' 70-300mm, but Canon do. There are some Nikon lenses that are better than Canon and vice versa. In reality the tog will have more effect on the sharpness than the difference between Canon and Nikon.
 
rookies said:
Some interesting information here guys.. It comes to me that Canon Seem to be better with Lens line up and Nikon better with the Bodies line up
Click to expand...
I'd say you're right there, luckily there are third parties like Tamron and Sigma to even things out.
 
snerkler said:
Nothing, it's an area that's not all that well catered for. I think there must be quite a bit of sample variation though as I have read some people who say that the 80-400mm is sharp throughout. The one I had a quick play with certainly dropped off at the long end, and sample images/test shots I've seen seem to be a bit soft past 300mm. Bear in mind it's £1700 vs £870 for the Canon it's not really a direct competitor.
Click to expand...

I never saw anyone mention price. Did you?
 
JohnN said:
I'd say you're right there, luckily there are third parties like Tamron and Sigma to even things out.
Click to expand...

What your lens layout at the moment pal
 
The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is an excellent alternative to the Nikon 70-300. I chose it over the Nikon after doing some comparison. While it cannot beat the 2.8 pro lenses in terms of optical brilliance, shallow dof etc, the lens is sharp and VC is excellent. I used it on the D600/D610 to shoot zoo animals (only once), portrait and architecture. later sold it for the Nikon 70-200 f4.

Here are few shots taken with the Tamron

1.

Lion by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

2.

Bengal Tiger by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

3.

Cheetah by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

4.

St Pauls, reflections on Millenium Bridge by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

5.

St Pauls by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

6.

Portrait of wife by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I never saw anyone mention price. Did you?
Click to expand...
I always consider price :p

Rookies was asking about comparable lenses and as such I think you have to take price into consideration. As someone always says, you have to compare apples with apples ;) :p
 
anibap said:
The Tamron 70-300 VC USD is an excellent alternative to the Nikon 70-300. I chose it over the Nikon after doing some comparison. While it cannot beat the 2.8 pro lenses in terms of optical brilliance, shallow dof etc, the lens is sharp and VC is excellent. I used it on the D600/D610 to shoot zoo animals (only once), portrait and architecture. Here are few shots

1.

Lion by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

2.

Bengal Tiger by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

3.

Cheetah by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

4.

St Pauls, reflections on Millenium Bridge by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

5.

St Pauls by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr

6.

Portrait of wife by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Really nice. Does make you wonder if the Canon is really worth nearly 4 times the cost of this lens.
 
snerkler said:
I always consider price :p

Rookies was asking about comparable lenses and as such I think you have to take price into consideration. As someone always says, you have to compare apples with apples ;) :p
Click to expand...

But you aren't the one that asked about another option or buying now. I don't think that between them 1k for a used lens is going to be hard to find if it fit's the bill. It's comparable in every area except price and that wasn't mentioned, good alternatives you offered up though.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Really nice. Does make you wonder if the Canon is really worth nearly 4 times the cost of this lens.
Click to expand...
Agree and for occasional shooters, the Tamron is tremendous value. For serious ones, investing in better glass is always a wise decision.

The images i posted above are heavily cropped, yet the lens holds up well in terms of resolution and image integrity.
 
twist said:
But you aren't the one that asked about another option or buying now. I don't think that between them 1k for a used lens is going to be hard to find if it fit's the bill. It's comparable in every area except price and that wasn't mentioned, good alternatives you offered up though.
Click to expand...
Sometimes there aren't alternatives ;)
 
anibap said:
Agree and for occasional shooters, the Tamron is tremendous value. For serious ones, investing in better glass is always a wise decision.

The images i posted above are heavily cropped, yet the lens holds up well in terms of resolution and image integrity.
Click to expand...
If that's the case I'd rather buy the 70-200mm and crop, or even use the 1.4x TC III ;) :p

This was a joke, but actually Rookies was talking about the guy buying the D810 wasn't he? In which case he really could buy the 70-200mm and crop, plenty of scope for that with the D810. The 70-200mm crops really well, I tried it and could almost crop to 1:1 and still was happy with the IQ.
 
twist said:
In your head perhaps. His budget is not your budget.
Click to expand...
As I said, Rookies was asking about comparable, to me that includes budget. If it doesn't to you that's fine :p
 
snerkler said:
Really nice. Does make you wonder if the Canon is really worth nearly 4 times the cost of this lens.
Click to expand...

Wow really can't fault those images at all. Hope I am looking at the correct tamron.

Why did you get Nikon 70-200 f4 and not 2.8. Budget??
 
Flying Scotsman today in Peterborough.... D750 + 200-500mm Nikon - handheld (1/80 f6.3 260mm)

F-Scotsman-0732 by Barry Cant, on Flickr
 
Bloody hell all these images not helping me either lol as you all know am in the market for a few lens too lol
 
snerkler said:
This was a joke, but actually Rookies was talking about the guy buying the D810 wasn't he? In which case he really could buy the 70-200mm and crop, plenty of scope for that with the D810. .
Click to expand...
A7R II will be slightly better than D810, has 6 MP more :D.
 
JohnN said:
I've a few

Tamron 150-600, 70-200 2.8, 70-300 macro, 90mm macro
Nikkor 24-120, 18-35, 35 1.8. 50 1.8, 85 1.8
Click to expand...

You must have a very understand other half
 
JohnN said:
I've a few

Tamron 150-600, 70-200 2.8, 70-300 macro, 90mm macro
Nikkor 24-120, 18-35, 35 1.8. 50 1.8, 85 1.8
Click to expand...

Also you like your tamron 70-200 2.8. What made u get that over Nikon. Price I guess??
 
snerkler said:
As I said, Rookies was asking about comparable, to me that includes budget. If it doesn't to you that's fine :p
Click to expand...

He has enough money between him and his mate, a few hundred quid is nothing especially buying used. Like I said, another option, which is more than you offered.
 
Last edited:
Is the Nikon 200-500 a different standard to the tamron 150-600
 
twist said:
He has enough money between him and his mate, a few hundred quid is nothing especially buying used. Like I said, another option, which is more than you offered.
Click to expand...
But then the Canon used is even less still :confused:
 
rookies said:
Is the Nikon 200-500 a different standard to the tamron 150-600
Click to expand...

Marginally better IQ but is well balanced and constant aperture throughout zoom range. Not soft at full aperture and longest F/L - unlike Tamron and Sigma
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top