[ioszhka]

Hello guys,

In about a week I will be receiving my D300 back from service and I have to start buying lenses for it.
I thought a while about what lenses to buy so I can have a generous amount of focal length to play with.
So, here is my selection:

• Tamron 17 - 50 f/2.8 - without VC.
• Tokina 80 - 200 AT-X Pro AF f/2.8
• Tokina 400 AT-X SD AF f/5.6

So, do you think it will work? Do you have any other suggestions?

[elho_cid]

What is a D300?

[dgaies]

What is a D300?

I'm assuming a Nikon D300

Hello guys,

In about a week I will be receiving my D300 back from service and I have to start buying lenses for it.
I thought a while about what lenses to buy so I can have a generous amount of focal length to play with.
So, here is my selection:

• Tamron 17 - 50 f/2.8 - without VC.
• Tokina 80 - 200 AT-X Pro AF f/2.8
• Tokina 400 AT-X SD AF f/5.6

So, do you think it will work? Do you have any other suggestions?

I've never used any of those lenses on a Nikon, but I've tried them all on Pentax and think they're all very good lenses. As far as third pary lenses go, I would also consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8 or 100-300/4 (perhaps with a 1.4x TC) as an alternative to pair of 80-200/2.8 and 400/5.6 if you wanted to consolodate things down to a pair of lenses. I've used the 100-300/4 (HSM) on Nikon and found it to be excellent both in terms of IQ and AF speed (and I'm not just saying that because I have it listed for sale in the marketplace at the moment ).

[ioszhka]

I'm assuming a Nikon D300

I've never used any of those lenses on a Nikon, but I've tried them all on Pentax and think they're all very lenses. As far as third pary lenses go, I would also consider the Sigma 70-200/2.8 or 100-300/4 (perhaps with a 1.4x TC) as an alternative to pair of 80-200/2.8 and 400/5.6 if you wanted to consolodate things down to a pair of lenses. I've used the 100-300/4 (HSM) on Nikon and found it to be excellent both in terms of IQ and AF speed (and I'm not just saying that because I have it listed for sale in the marketplace at the moment ).

Yes, it's a Nikon D300 I'm talking about.
I saw your auction for the Sigma 100-300/4+1.4x TC combo and it made me consider the fact that it would be a good alternative to the 80-200/2.8+400/5.6. Unfortunately, at the moment I don't have the money to buy it.
I found both of the Tokina lenses on sale at KEH and I'm thinking of buying them from there. I've also looked at the Sigma 70-200/2.8 lens, but the prices are way higher than the Tokina's price.
Anyway, when I will have the money I will take into account both options. Who knows, if I find a good priced 100-300/4 and TC then maybe I will buy those.
Thanks for the advice.

[VaughnA]

I've got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and I love it with my D300. Basically my favorite lens. I'm on a budget so I'm running with the cheap stuff, 70-300, 35 1.8 and the 18-105. And personally I'm pretty happy with that setup for now. I have tried the 70-200 2.8 VRII and would sell a child for it if I had any. I think that the 17-50, 70-200 + something long for wildlife would be perfect for me..

[elho_cid]

Sell the Nikon, get a K-5, buy K-mount lenses.

[dgaies]

I've got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and I love it with my D300. Basically my favorite lens. I'm on a budget so I'm running with the cheap stuff, 70-300, 35 1.8 and the 18-105. And personally I'm pretty happy with that setup for now. I have tried the 70-200 2.8 VRII and would sell a child for it if I had any. I think that the 17-50, 70-200 + something long for wildlife would be perfect for me..

I wish there was an equivilent of the 17-50/2.8 VC for FF as I'd love to run that lens on my D700. Even if I wanted to drop $1500 for the 24-70/2.8, I still wouldn't have VR

Not sure it would be worth selling a child for the 70-200/2.8 VRII, though I did buy one recently and it is a stellar lens. What's also nice about it is that it works perfectly with the Nikon TCs. Both the 1.4x and 1.7x are practically seemless in terms of IQ/AF/VR. Even the 2.0x (version III) works really well with the 70-200/2.8 giving you 400/5.6 on the long end with pretty good IQ, AF and VR. Then again, those TCs aren't cheap either, so you might need to find another child to sell

Sell the Nikon, get a K-5, buy K-mount lenses.

Doesn't sound like that would be in the OP's budget

Not to mention that getting the equivilent third-party lenses in K-mount are always going to be more expensive than in F-mount.

[ioszhka]

Sell the Nikon, get a K-5, buy K-mount lenses.

That was the original plan, believe me. But after lots and lots of thinking (about a month) I considered I would have more luck finding those lenses in the F-Mount rather than the K-Mount, besides, as dgaies said, they're cheaper on the F-Mount.
As for the K-Mount, I thinking of picking up a used K100d for my Pentax lenses sometime in the summer.

I've got the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and I love it with my D300. Basically my favorite lens. I'm on a budget so I'm running with the cheap stuff, 70-300, 35 1.8 and the 18-105. And personally I'm pretty happy with that setup for now. I have tried the 70-200 2.8 VRII and would sell a child for it if I had any. I think that the 17-50, 70-200 + something long for wildlife would be perfect for me..

Do you have the Nikon 70-300 VR? How is it in terms of IQ and autofocus speed?

[B Grace]

I've been shooting with the current Nikon 70-300 VR for about a year now. IQ is very good on my older D40x. It's good wide open and very nice stopped down a bit. I'd say the AF speed is excellent for the price of the lens, not super fast but then it is a middle grade long zoom. Quite a bit faster than the AF70-210/4-5.6D I used on my film camera before digital.

[wlachan]

Well I don't know. A great body with slow AF lenses? You might as well sell the D300 and stick with Pentax.

[Arpe]

I have a D300s and the 70-300VR is great. Its focussing is fast imo. I've taken quite a few sports shots (hockey and rugby) with it and very pleasantly surprised with the results, deleting many in focus shots as I had so many. Definitely not slow.

[ioszhka]

Can anybody tell me the focusing speeds of the Tokina lenses? I saw a focus test for the 80-200/2.8 on youtube but the quality was horrible. I couldn't understand anything.

[dgaies]

I have a D300s and the 70-300VR is great. Its focussing is fast imo. I've taken quite a few sports shots (hockey and rugby) with it and very pleasantly surprised with the results, deleting many in focus shots as I had so many. Definitely not slow.

I used to own the 70-300VR and can confirm it's a pretty fast focusing lens. Very nice IQ for the money as well.

[ioszhka]

dgaies, you said you had the tokina 80-200/2.8 and the 70-300VR. Which is the better one in terms of build quality, autofocus speed and IQ?

[dgaies]

dgaies, you said you had the tokina 80-200/2.8 and the 70-300VR. Which is the better one in terms of build quality, autofocus speed and IQ?

They're very different lenses. From what I recall Tokina 80-200/2.8 was quite heavy, but very well built and solid feeling. The 70-300VR is a lot smaller, lighter, has quite a bit more plastic ans isn't quite as well built. But we're talking about a constant f/2.8 telephoto zoom as compared to a consumer zoom, so the weight and build differences are to be expected.

I can't really compare AF speed as the only time I shot with the 80-200 was on Pentax (a K-7, I think). The 70-300VR was shot on my D700. Needless to say the AF on the 70-300 was significantly better than the 80-200. How much of that was the lens and how much was the body? Probably a lot of both. Without trying an 80-200 on a Nikon I couldn't say for sure, but I have a feeling the AF-S 70-300 would be quicker in terms of AF than the 80-200 even on the same body.

IQ, again, hard to say from the limited amount I shot either lens. If you stop the 80-200 down to the same apertures you'd be at with the 70-300, it wouldn't surprise me if the IQ was better. That said, I think the IQ of the 70-300 is quite good for the price.

I guess overall if I was choosing between the two lenses, I would only select the 80-200/2.8 if you know you needed/wanted the ability to shoot a fair amount between f/2.8 and f/4. Otherwise, I'd probably go for the lighter, faster AF 70-300VR with more range over the 80-200.