Hey! This is a G-rated blog! Get your mind out of the gutter! I’m talking about lenses!
Since April of this year I seem to have been on the upgrade path. I got my new camera in a kit that had an 18-70mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom (my favorite lens) and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom.
Not much later, I bought a used 500 mm mirror lens, which I used for a few months and was quite happy with. Well, the bug bit me and I sold the mirror lens and used the proceeds to buy my Tamron 200-500mm f/5.6 lens, which I absolutely love!
I’ve been bitten, hopefully for the last time, again and have sold my 70-300mm zoom, which is the cheapest one that Nikon makes. It goes retail for about $144. I wanted something with a much wider aperture. So, I bought Nikon’s 80-200mm f/2.8. A difference, unfortunately, of about $800!
This latest lens is much heavier than the mostly plastic 70-300mm. It’s kind of like the D2x, a tank! It’s heavy!
What I’ve discovered, in comparison to the 300mm range, is that I find it lacking for frame-filling photography. Don’t get me wrong, I love the lens. It is, by far, the sharpest lens that I own! It is sweet and I don’t regret buying it, but even at close range, say 20 feet, it is hard to fill the frame.
Here is an example. These little darlings were at the feeder this morning. I had on my cloaking device, a camouflage covering and I was sitting not more than 20 feet from these guys. As you can see, even zoomed to 200mm, there quite a bit of room around the edges.
Regarding, sharpness, take a look at the close up. I’ve not done anything to either of these images. The close up is just a view of the image full size. I have not applied any sharpening whatsoever. The sharpness of this lens is just amazing.
I guess that it’s just a matter of the right tool for the job. When I want to get close, 500mm+ is what I need. I would imagine that this 80-200mm would be a great portrait or sports lens, as long as the sport is not too far away.
For some reason, 200mm always seemed like it was a bigger lens … it’s really not.