Last winter when my wife and I went to Puerto Rico for a week then a cruise in the Caribbean for another week, I wasn't sure what to take for lenses. I took as I remember 5 lenses, but ended up using the 17-55 IS 90% of the time and the 70-200 2.8 IS the rest of the time.
Burning a hole in my pockets....
- Thread starter Chaitika
- Start date
It all depends on what you want to shoot. I would be utterly lost without my 300mm f/4, but that doesn't mean it's a better choice for anyone else than the other lenses mentioned here.
It's always a question of means, motive and opportunity. You're fortunate to have the means. What are you motivated to shoot? What opportunities do you hope to have?
Alan
It's always a question of means, motive and opportunity. You're fortunate to have the means. What are you motivated to shoot? What opportunities do you hope to have?
Alan
Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
Alan, we have a great number of fw lakes and migratory waterfowl where I live. I used to hunt when I was younger and I'd like to start hunting again, albeit with a lens this time around.
I'm a nature lover at heart. A longer lens would simply give me the justification to spend more time outdoors. My son is graduating from high school this year and as he gets older, I'll be provided with more opportunities to enjoy mother nature.
So I checked out my usual photo shop and all they had in stock was the 70-200 VR. Simply a beautiful piece of equipment. Lightning fast on the focus, sharp as a tack and hefty enough to see how the VR system would come in handy, lol.
I'll have to find another store that carries the 80-200, because for almost $700 less and apparently almost identical image sharpness, I can't make the decision without giving it a go, at least
.
Alan, we have a great number of fw lakes and migratory waterfowl where I live. I used to hunt when I was younger and I'd like to start hunting again, albeit with a lens this time around.
I'm a nature lover at heart. A longer lens would simply give me the justification to spend more time outdoors. My son is graduating from high school this year and as he gets older, I'll be provided with more opportunities to enjoy mother nature.
So I checked out my usual photo shop and all they had in stock was the 70-200 VR. Simply a beautiful piece of equipment. Lightning fast on the focus, sharp as a tack and hefty enough to see how the VR system would come in handy, lol.
I'll have to find another store that carries the 80-200, because for almost $700 less and apparently almost identical image sharpness, I can't make the decision without giving it a go, at least
.That 70-200 vr is amazing, bobby is right, most dont give those lenses up (mine was a Canon IS, same thing). If you are really interested in nature, specially birding, I know that Rich was not satisfied with the length, even with the TC, and got a 400 2.8 (i think), which is a lens a few can afford, but gives you ability to produce the type of stuff that he does, some with a TC, and some without.
I've considered the length of the 70-200 vs the 300mm. The 400mm, unless someone was giving it away, is simply out of my budget range, lol.
Ed's quite right of course. Serious birders (like Rich) need long lenses. I'm not quite in that category, but I'm afraid that I aspire to be :-o. I'm using a TC1.4 more and more with my 300mm f/4 (so it becomes a 420mm f/5.6) rather to my surprise, I find I'm very happy with this combination.
The next step up is either a TC1.7 or TC2.0, which might be worth trying but will be slower to focus and harder to hold, or paying serious money for a 500mm f/4 VR Nikkor. I want one and I can afford one - but I haven't quite convinced myself that it will be worth all the money.
I think that you may get badly frustrated if you try to shoot birds with 200mm maximum. I'm sure you would get some nice shots, but you'd miss far more. It would only be worth going for an 80-200 if you can use the 80mm focal length for other things.
Alan
The next step up is either a TC1.7 or TC2.0, which might be worth trying but will be slower to focus and harder to hold, or paying serious money for a 500mm f/4 VR Nikkor. I want one and I can afford one - but I haven't quite convinced myself that it will be worth all the money.
I think that you may get badly frustrated if you try to shoot birds with 200mm maximum. I'm sure you would get some nice shots, but you'd miss far more. It would only be worth going for an 80-200 if you can use the 80mm focal length for other things.
Alan
Alan, I guess what you're saying is at the back of my mind. Will a 200mm reach be enough? I'm still looking nonetheless.
I did order one thing today, though. A new 360 gallon aqaurium. :badgrin:
I did order one thing today, though. A new 360 gallon aqaurium. :badgrin:
rich311k;86611; said:Now that is a cool pickup. More photo subjects! Good for us.
Thanks, Rich and you're welcome.
I'll be moving my arowana, bichirs, datnoides and eventually my peacock bass into that tank when all is said and done. B-)
Chaitika;86429; said:
hard decisions to make being that you have some excellent choices listed.
70-200 VR V.S 80-200 D - you already know my stand from MFK (XR)- Can't go wrong with ethier.
i own the AF-S 300mm F4 aswell, and they are great lenses, with great reach for cheap. the AF version is quality from what i hear aswell. no matter what your choice definetly look into buying one.
D700 is a quality camera (also own) if your really set on having the FX sensor now, than go for it. I personally would be able to live fine with the 2 cams you already own and buy some more glass.
JerseyJay;86488; said:
i would reccomend the 28-70 (the beast) it's very heavy for a standard zoom, but very sharp and well worth the price. Look into replaceing your 18-70mm with one.
i have used the 85mm 1.8 before and would reccomend it highly if you do alot of potrait work, if not than a 1.4 is simpley alot of money on a prime that's not needed.
I have also owned the 70-300 G (VR) i was impressed by it's range and sharpness for a cheap zoom, but you can definetly do better.
