Posted by Joe Sulik on February 23, 2010 at 10:56 AM
Hi everyone, I think a 300mm 2.8 is going to be my next wildlife photography lens, paired with the new 2x extender. There's a company selling the older model used for $4000, but before we invest in it, I was wondering if there's any significant difference between the older model and the VR2, I know that your able to shoot 1 stop darker on VR and i know how that could help, but Im not going to spend 2000 extra bucks on just that. Also, will the older model work just as well on a FF? I think a full frame camera is definitely in my future and I'm also wondering if like the 70-200VR2 the newer one improves the quality on full frame camera. Thanks in advance, Joe
Posted by Luke Ormand on February 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM
I'd shoot an e-mail to Brad Hill who I believe recently purchased both the 300 2.8 + new 2X TC.
- Luke
Posted by Joe Sulik on February 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Thanks Luke, I actually just read his blogpost on the new teleconverter. From what he wrote it sounds like the old 300mm does a great job with the new converter with almost no image degration.
Posted by Tom Mihalek on March 21, 2010 at 12:54 AM
One important thing about vibration reduction or image stabilization that gets overlooked is this: While the VR or IS may get you that extra 2 or 3 lower shutter speeds - for example down to 1/30 or 1/15, if your subject is not stationary you can get motion blur. The lens maybe "stable" but the subject needs that higher shutter speed. My two cents.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM
I've heard on other sites (but have no experience) that the older 70-200 is pretty crappy on full frame in the corners and edges. (Such as these posts within a lengthier discussion.) DPReview also has reviews of the older 70-200, and some other sites likely do as well. It's likely that the newer version is greatly improved in the corners.
Discussion
4 replies- Luke