[branski]

200 vs 300mm focal length- how big of a difference? im basically looking to see if anyone has side-by-side comparison shots at these 2 focal lengths. currenly my longest glass is the nikon 55-200, but im looking to extend my reach with the 70-300 mainly for wildlife shots. would the additional 100mm make a big enough difference to justify the ~$500 price tag?

 

[ASCSurveyor]

For 100 extra mm... I wouldn't spend $500, unless you were a serious photographer. Instead, buy a 2x. Much less money, and it'll get you to 400.

 

[entropysedge]

For 100 extra mm... I wouldn't spend $500, unless you were a serious photographer. Instead, buy a 2x. Much less money, and it'll get you to 400.

really depends on what kind of wildlife you are shooting ... if you're going to be shooting birds, the 2x on your 50-200 is going to be better than the $500 300mm.
an example of my Nikkor 80-200 3.5-5.6 and Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 not nature but I was two rows from the top at the stadium.

 

[Jiaguy]

Do eiher of you guys know anythign about the Olypus Evolt 510? I picked up one for my dad at Circuit City's close out... How is it for a DSLR?

 

[branski]

the only problem with the tc's is that sooo much light is lost. right now at 200mm, im at f5.6. with a tc2x id be looking at f11 with no autofocus and probably lose some image quality.

also for a nikon tc2x you are looking at around 300 bucks which isnt too far off from the 300mm lens itself.

perhaps a 1.4 might get the job done. that would get me to 280mm and i wouldnt lose so much light.

i go up to the boundary waters/quetico every year and id like to get some closer shots of moose/black bear/ bald eagles. the 200 works fine when i sneak up close, but a little more range wouldnt hurt. especially with the bears

 

[Nexus242]

200 vs 300mm focal length- how big of a difference? im basically looking to see if anyone has side-by-side comparison shots at these 2 focal lengths. currenly my longest glass is the nikon 55-200, but im looking to extend my reach with the 70-300 mainly for wildlife shots. would the additional 100mm make a big enough difference to justify the ~$500 price tag?

Well if the 75-300 is a f5.6-6.3 it's gonna be real dark and real slow at the long end so that's a daylight only lens at best. I've shot with a 80-200 F2.8 lens with a 1.5x tele which gave me an effective 600mm focal length and was still pretty sharp and the AF still worked in daylight just fine.

So is that lens worth $500, sure but I'd sell the 55-200 since you've got a major overlap and you'll end up leaving the 55-200 at home most of the time. But what ever you get just make sure it's gonna be fast enough to capture and stop the action at a reasonable f stop and be sharp too.