How about 70-200mm f/2.8 ED-IF AFS VR zoom-nikkor vs 70-300 VR?
Which one is better? and what sort of pictures are we able to capture in different conditions..like low light, fast sports etc.. 200mm seems a bit near compared to 300mm..
the 70-200/2.8 is a different beast by itself. though it's good in low light, it depends a lot on the individual using it. some can hold at very slow shutter speeds, some simply can't. i am one of those who can't so i see no point in upgrading my 80-200/2.8 for the VR version.
the 70-300 will have more pulling power when shooting candids but being a 'slow' lens, you have to bump up your ISO or use flash in indoor area.
70-200/2.8: good for low light, indoor sports, etc. (con: heavy)
70-300: good for candids, light weight, outdoor sports, travel, etc.
as i have a 18-135mm kit lens and 50mm 1.8 len. but 70-200mm is good for low lights and fast sports ..hmm..what do you guys think?
you already have a great lens (50mm) for low light if focal range is not an issue. the 70-200/2.8 will be great for indoor sports.
large aperture lens (2.8 or faster) do focus faster especially in low light.
looking at your 'arsenal' the 70-200/2.8 will be a good inclusion if you shoot indoor events and sports regularly but 200 for sports is a little bit limiting. if you use flash, the 70-300 lens will also be a good asset for indoor events.
why not buy both? :bsmilie:
each lens has it's use and usage.