BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NoSpringChicken" data-source="post: 2069483" data-attributes="member: 53267">Hi Tord. I would say that the 50-200 is definitely a noticeable improvement over the 70-300. It should be though, at about three times the price! I think the 70-300 lens is outstanding for the money, although, as you say, it does struggle a bit in poor light.The 50-200 is much heavier than the 70-300, although I have become used to the weight now and compared to similar lenses from other manufacturers it is not really heavy at all. It is also much larger than the 70-300, especially with the huge lens hood in place. However if, unlike me, you use a tripod, the 50-200 has a proper tripod mount, whereas the 70-300 has to rely on the camera mount and feels very front heavy and insecure.The 50-200 is quicker to focus than the 70-300, although it too occasionally struggles in poor light. I have found that it usually helps to back off the zoom in this case, refocus and then zoom in and focus again. It is also virtually silent when focusing, unlike the 70-300 which whines rather loudly and annoyingly.It is hard to say whether it is worth buying the 50-200 (it depends on how easily you can afford one) but it is definitely a very worthwhile lens to own. It is noticeably sharper than the 70-300, although that lens is capable of excellent results if used with care, and the wider aperture is extremely useful. As mentioned earlier in this thread it also works brilliantly with the EC-14 converter.In answer to your last question, since owning the 50-200 my 70-300 has hardly been on the camera. However, I haven't had it very long and have yet to try photographing butterflies etc. with it. The macro facility of the 70-300 is extremely useful. The 50-200 is also splashproof, although you really need a weatherproof body to take full advantage of this. It does mean though that it shouldn't suck in too much dust, when zooming in and out.To sum up. If you can afford the 50-200, go for it. It is a superb lens and you won't be disappointed. However, if you really can't afford one, then don't worry as the 70-300 is a superb lens, capable of excellent results.I hope this helps but please ask if you have any more questions.Ron</blockquote>

Verification