nappedeptrole

welcome to my space

01/09/2009 (7:27 am)

Looking for a lightweight telezoom.

Filed under: nappedeptrole.com edit
  • My 17-55mm is my workhorse, but every now and then a telezoom is nice to have. So far I've been hauling around Nikons 80-200 2.8, but on some assignments its simply too big to drag around all day, especially when I know that I'm not gonna use it.

    So I'm looking for a lightweight telezoom that I can carry on me at all times. So far I found Tokinas 50-135mm 2,8, Sigmas 50-150mm 2,8.

    Does any of you guys have experience with any of these, or other suggestions?


  • Sounds like I need to get my hands on one to try it out myself...


  • What about the 70-300 VR?


  • The problem is the 2.8
    If you get a slower lens, it'll be much smaller and lighter.


  • Ok this is solely going on photozone.de so just a disclaimer i have no experience with these lenses. They both seem pretty decent, though they say the tokina is made with more metal and is heavier if thats still a concern. The 80-200 2.8 is part of their pro glass correct? If so you might notice a drop in image quality but cant say for sure. Like i said this is purely info from photozone not my personal experience.


  • sabath999: I want light! I asked about the build quality cause I never saw one myself, and a consumer build is fine as long as the optical quality is good.

    Do u got one yourself? How many steps would you say you gain using the VR?


  • I saw some actual test results from Pop Photo, where they tested the effectiveness of VR & IS and some of the in-body systems.
    I can't find the link though.

    I do remember that the Nikon 18-200 VR had the best performance at around 3.5 to 4 stops of extra hand-holdability. The 70-300 VR is probably closer to three stops but that's not too bad.


  • Sideburns: Yeah, I know 2,8 makes the lens bigger, slower could work as long as it's sharp. 2,8 would of course be nice

    photogincollege: Nikons 80-200 is heavier than both the Sigma and Tokina, so I don't think either of them would be a problem when it comes to size and weight. I did my reading on photozone too, but I find it a bit hard to judge just from "lab" tests and not real life experience.

    Big Mike: Yeah, I was just looking at that...

    Is the 70-300 a pro lens in build quality? I read the photozone review and it looks quite interesting. I'm mainly concerned about how slow it is, but maybe the VR would make up for it?

    Like I said, the 17-55 is my workhorse, and I guess having a slow tele lens in the pocket is better than a fast tele lens left in the car. :wink:


  • Is the 70-300 a pro lens in build quality? I read the photozone review and it looks quite interesting. I'm mainly concerned about how slow it is, but maybe the VR would make up for it?

    No, it is not. It is sharp, excellent resolving power, the VR works great, but the build quality is definitely a consumer lens with lots of plastic (metal mount though).

    On the other hand, you want a heavy fast lens made of metal or you want light?

    As bicycle component manufacturer & guru Keith Bontrager says:

    Light
    Cheap
    Strong

    Pick two.







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about Looking for a lightweight telezoom. , Please add it free.