| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2007 10:12:56 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jrose1:
... I think if I'm taking pics of outdoor BBQ's and family portraits outside this summer, I should go with... |
Save your money, you have this covered. :) |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 10:47:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by jrose1:
Am I better off getting the 80-200 and the Tokina 12-24 or really go for the gusto with the 70-200? |
It may end up being a personal choice. Personally, I quickly got away from temporary additions to my lens collection. Early on, I would buy cheap lenses just because I had a gap to fill, but I realised that it was just wasted money. I now have lenses that I can't get ANY money for. Now, I prefer to buy only good lenses and if I can't justify the expense, then I wait until I can. |
|
|
|
03/20/2007 11:02:12 PM · #28 |
The 80-200 2.8 AF-S is without a doubt a keeper and far from a temporary addition in my collection.
It has the same optics as the 70-200, the only thing it lacks in comparison is 10mm on the short end and the VR. That said if you feel you need the VR the yes by all means get the 70-200VR. However I purchased my 80-200 AF-S for $650.00 used but in fantastic condition. So I got the long and the short of it (80-200 and the 12-24) for about 1200.00.
More bang for the buck at the time. Good luck in your decision. Spending that kind of cash is always a thinker. :-)
|
|
|
|
03/20/2007 11:38:00 PM · #29 |
Never seen a Nikkor 70-300mm F2.8. Where did you find such a beast? It's got to cost a fortune. I had a 120-300 Sigma F2.8 for a while. I got muscle fatigue using it. Tripod use only. I got rid of it.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2007 12:16:02 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
The 80-200 2.8 AF-S is without a doubt a keeper and far from a temporary addition in my collection. |
Very true, and I definitely didn't intend to suggest that it was. I'm referring to my own mistakes. Specifically I bought the Nikon 70-300 because I wanted a long lens and ended up buying the 70-200 VR within a year.
I then bought the 1.7 times converter, hated it and bought the Nikon 80-400VR to fill my wish for an even longer reach within a year of buying the 70-200 VR.
To do it over again, I wouldn't have wasted any money on the 70-300, the Quantaray 18-125 (what was I thinking???), and the 1.7 times converter.
Message edited by author 2007-03-21 00:22:42. |
|
|
|
03/21/2007 12:20:29 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
To do it over again, I wouldn't have wasted any money on the 70-300, the Quantary 18-125 (what was I thinking???), and the 1.7 times converter. |
Oh! Yeah for sure. I did the same thing I have a 28-200 Quantaray. I have almost never used in the box in the closet. I could have spent the extra cash on the SB-800. Live and learn.
Message edited by author 2007-03-21 00:20:46. |
|
|
|
03/25/2007 08:20:42 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
To do it over again, I wouldn't have wasted any money on the 70-300, the Quantary 18-125 (what was I thinking???), and the 1.7 times converter. |
No kidding. I have a 70-300 sitting on my desk looking for a buyer. But the 80-200 2.8 AF-D is definitely a keeper. I do most of my shooting on a tripod, so VR isn't that useful for me, and it's smaller and lighter than the 70-200 VR. Definitely a plus for lil ol' me.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2007 11:46:58 AM · #33 |
My Vote is for the Nikon 80-200 Very nice lens. Only took one look through it to become my favorite lens.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/27/2025 02:23:54 AM EDT.
