is it woth the effort???

[Stafsels]

Hi all,
Just a mindraiser, in search of some opinions, preferably with some expirience:

Is it worth the effort for a new 70-300 mm besides an 18-200 mm on a Nikkon D80 body? Great advantage is that both lensses will be used and not one very often and very heavy.

But I I wondering what the difference between 200 and 300 will be. For as they will be used at a digi body the difference is 300 of 450 but still.

500 mm would be great but is not realistic at the moment (how much will be when you have got 500 (so 750) 1000 will be nice.....) Perhaps some expierence at Brogel or last years Volkel???

Greetings and thanks in advance for any mindreturn!!

Stafsels

[Polecat]

On my D-80 I use a 17 years old 2,8/80-200 and a new 4,5-5,6/70-300VR... The quality of the first does as much as the focal length of the latter. So I'd say get quality rather than mm's... A light-sharp superb quality 200mm lense with a bit of cropping brings you more than an average 300 lense, especially on clouded days...
On the other hand, the 70-300 is not bad for the money and gives you time to save for a top-notch supertele!

choices choices choices........

[sfeyenoord1]

Dont know about your budget but maybe the Canon 100-400mm L is something for you? Then you really get quality ánd the range!

[Joe Kurr]

A Canon lens on a Nikon body? Don't know if that will fit... (without a hammer, that is)

[ruudb]

Had both lenses too, kept the 70-300mm because I think it is a great lens, used 80-200 2.8 before but the pictures of the 70-300mm are sharper in my opinion and it doesn't weigh a ton. About the 18-200mm it is quite soft especially at 200mm and loads of vignetting when you use apertures of lower than f8. So buy a 70-300mm and you will soon forget about the 18-200mm.

[sfeyenoord1]

Woops sorry! Read over the nikon bit .