nakabasa ko sa mga review nga mas nindot jud ang 70-300 kay mas paspas. regarding image quality asa mas nindot paliton? nya ug sa bokeh? kay nahan kayo ko anang blard blard gud heheh. thanks
nakabasa ko sa mga review nga mas nindot jud ang 70-300 kay mas paspas. regarding image quality asa mas nindot paliton? nya ug sa bokeh? kay nahan kayo ko anang blard blard gud heheh. thanks
50mm f1.8G na lang or f1.4 if nahan kag bokeh2.
naa naman ko 50mm, wala nuon koy telephoto. mao kanang duha akong gi ibgan ron
70-300 kng ang aperture kai 2.8 kai good for lowlight shooting..
Are you sure? 70-300 is not capable of f2.8. Widest aperture is only f4.5
Back to the threadstarter's question.
If you don't mind the slow AF of the 55-300 VR and have no plans in upgrading to FX then it boils down to your budget.
If more than 20K, get the 70-300 VR
If below 15K, get the 55-300 VR
If below 9K, get the 70-300 non VR
I've got the 55-300 VR and I find it to be bang for the buck. Hinay lang gyud mo-AF.
Sample pic: All taken at 300mm full zoom (for shallow Dof)
D3100 + 55-300 VR
Tip of a Pine Tree by b0000rdz, on Flickr
D90 + 55-300VR
Pirate by b0000rdz, on Flickr
Last edited by b00rdz; 02-01-2012 at 08:31 PM.
Ang speed per se is more or less the same as the kit lens but in actual mas hinay giyud kay mas wider ang focal length range sa 55-300mm.
The pics are slightly sharpened using Nikon's OEM NX View software.
Up lang ko ani pamasin naay makapost aning 70-300 vr.
Lamats daan![]()
hait pud ang 55-200 vr.. barato ra pud. nindut pud mu bokeh. af ok ra. wa pa ko ka suway ug 55-300. pero kung naa jud kay budget go for the 2.8 tele zomms para Bokehlicious kaayu!![]()
Similar Threads |
|