We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.
We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

Photography Question

Wichita, Kansas
Destination Expert
for Wichita
Level Contributor
659 posts
144 reviews
Save Topic
Photography Question

I have a 70-200mm lens. I would like to get a bigger lens but my price does not go above a 300mm (and probably never will). I would like to hear your thoughts on whether it would be worth it to get a 70-300mm to have that extra 100mm. I am fairly new to the DSLR world and appreciate your thoughts. Would there be a reason why I would want to keep the 70-200mm if I did? Thanks.

AKJ
Bruceton Mills...
Level Contributor
2,526 posts
3 reviews
Save Reply
1. Re: Photography Question

I'm inclined to tell you no. You can crop the 200mm to get pretty close to the 300mm.

It probably also depends on the quality of the lens you already have and whether the 300mm would simply be a better lens. If so, it might be worth it.

What kind of camera are you using? How many megapixels.

Do you have something wider than 70mm. That range isn't great for scenery.

Keep the lens you have? Probably not worth it but you didn't say what lens it is. I used a 70 x 300 some out there but usually had a 28 x 200 or a Sigma 50 x 500 on my Nikon 200.

Not much of an answer above but at least some random thoughts.

Wichita, Kansas
Destination Expert
for Wichita
Level Contributor
659 posts
144 reviews
Save Reply
2. Re: Photography Question

Thanks AKJ. I have an 18-55 for landscapes. My camera is a Nikon D40X, so I have plenty of room to crop. I don't have a lot of options since I have to have the motor in the lens to utilize auto. I would go with a Sigma 70-300.

New York
Destination Expert
for Travel Gadgets and Gear
Level Contributor
1,460 posts
Save Reply
3. Re: Photography Question

I use Canon and am not very familiar with the Nikon digital equipment but perhaps a 2x teleconverter would do the trick to give you more reach for less money.

Green Valley...
Destination Expert
for Yellowstone National Park, Seattle
Level Contributor
18,001 posts
60 reviews
Save Reply
4. Re: Photography Question

Unless you can go to at the very least 400 mm, with a high quality lens, I would not bother. One expert provided information re: this issue on this Inside Page.

For wildlife viewing and photography:

tripadvisor.com/Travel-g60999-c96653/Yellows…

Wichita, Kansas
Destination Expert
for Wichita
Level Contributor
659 posts
144 reviews
Save Reply
5. Re: Photography Question

Wandering Attorney - I had thought about a teleconvertor, but it would only be manual with my camera. If I'm trying to take wildlife shots I thought it would be hard to keep focus when trying to shoot them.

Voyaging - Thanks for reminding me of that page. I did realize it wouldn't get me the optimum like the pro's use. Just wish I was independently wealthy and could have exactly what I want! :-)

Green Valley...
Destination Expert
for Yellowstone National Park, Seattle
Level Contributor
18,001 posts
60 reviews
Save Reply
6. Re: Photography Question

If your camera were mounted on a tripod, which it should be, the manual focus should be OK, since you'll be on or near infinity for such shots.

AKJ
Bruceton Mills...
Level Contributor
2,526 posts
3 reviews
Save Reply
7. Re: Photography Question

I don't get good pictures with a manual focus. I've tried a few times but am not good at it. I'd get a lot more use out of my 2.0 teleconverter if I could.

Parentsof5, you should also check a good local camera store. Nothing like looking through a lens or converter while in the store. I'm not really considering Ritz as a store where I'd do this.

I assume you realize that a 200mm is actually 300mm on the Nikon cameras (mine and yours) due to the size of the sensor. The 300mm would be effectively 450.

If you aren't aware of it, I'm not sure I can explain it without pictures. You get a little more out of the 300 than is readily apparent.

Something else too, if there is a bear on the mountain on the other side of the valley, your new 400mm and my 500mm still won't get it done. You still need to get a little closer.

West Palm Beach...
Level Contributor
798 posts
43 reviews
Save Reply
8. Re: Photography Question

Have you considered renting one? There are places that rent them. Sorry I can't recall the names. Do a search here or on Google. Some people have them mailed to places in Yellowstone and/or ship them back from there to reduce the amount of time of the rental. I imagine the camera rental places may be aware of this.

I had the NBikon 300mm last year and it was not enough. Save for the 500, get a used one, or rent one. I would rent one if I were to go back and did not have one.

Park City, Utah
Destination Expert
for Utah, Winter Sports
Level Contributor
17,186 posts
393 reviews
Save Reply
9. Re: Photography Question

I have the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR. For the money, it's a fabulous lens. I use it out at 300 most of the time and would be really caught short with just 200. You can find it for around $450 new if you look around, maybe even less.

In terms of focus, which someone talked about, I do find that you really need to use the spot autofocus to get it sharp. And, as suggested, using a tripod.

The only downside to this lens is that it doesn't have a tripod mount, so you have to mount the camera which isn't the coolest thing with a longer lens.

Have fun.

Forestville...
Destination Expert
for Sonoma
Level Contributor
4,819 posts
75 reviews
Save Reply
10. Re: Photography Question

IMO the 700-200 will be adequate for most amateur photographers. But I know it's only normal to want more! Another pertinent question is: do you really want to be lugging around a bulkier, heavier lens? A 70-300 would add significantly to those categories if you're walking a fair amount. It's a real trade-off and something only the individual photographer can assess.