A&P Nikkor Lens to get next...

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by ftslogger, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I am starting to make some money in Weddings - enough to try to fill in the weak spots with my lenses.

    Currently in my bag is
    D50
    SB600
    SB800
    50 1.8
    18-70 3.4-4.5
    55-200 4.5-5.6

    My weak area is my zoom. I love the 50 1.8 for receptions and portraits, but my weak area is my zoom. Should I put in a order in for the infamous 18-200 VR or get the new 70-300 VR that just came out?

    I have also heard good things about the Tamron, and I haven't heard about the Sigma 18-200 (with their version of VR/IS/OS)

    What do you suggest? I think I am willing to spend around 800 bucks or so. :hs:

    Edit - I have been thinking of another body as well... Like a used 1Dx, or D70s...or just save more for the D80. :confused:
     
  2. Traitor

    Traitor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Science Crew
    If your weak point is zoom why not get the new 70-300, you already got up to 200
     
  3. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I COULD replace two lenses (18-70, and the 55-200) with Nikon's 18-200. I could sell them both and recoup some of the money... :dunno:
     
  4. TurkeyChicken

    TurkeyChicken New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    42,913
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I think my next is going to be a 70-300 :dunno:

    I just got the sigma 10-20 and I'm loving it so far :x:
     
  5. Blair

    Blair Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    18-200 would probably be a good buy for you.
     
  6. Matt-AWD

    Matt-AWD Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Messages:
    38,663
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    OR
    The 70-300 makes a good outdoor 70-200, but it gets soft after 200mm. Also not good for lower light due to the aperture. I replaced mine with a 70-200 f/2.8, though it's significantly more expensive :o
     
  7. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I would love to go that wide, but I don't know how practical it would be for weddings. :dunno:
     
  8. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I really want the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 - but that right now isn't in the budget - I need something that will take me far - and be spot on...I keep thinking that the 18-200 will probably be my "best bet" Although, I am going to wait to get one. :hs:
     
  9. Matt-AWD

    Matt-AWD Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Messages:
    38,663
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    OR
    I have the 18-200. Great walkaround lens since it can do just about any length you'd need, but if you know what you're going to be shooting and want the best results, leave it in the bag.
     
  10. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    want to sell it to me? :o
     
  11. Matt-AWD

    Matt-AWD Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Messages:
    38,663
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    OR
    Name a price :p
    It's only maybe a month old, still in perfect condition :o
     
  12. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I don't really want to pay over retail - since I am in no hurry...I can get on the waiting list. :o If you want to part with it, I am intrested. :big grin:
     
  13. mobbarley

    mobbarley Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    9,256
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Sydney
    If you want to do weddings you should be aiming for a fast midrange zoom of good quality. The majority of your shots will probably be in this range so you should get that one first.

    If you had canon I would say 24-70 2.8L or similar, maybe nikons 'beast'?
    ...nikon guys jump in here...
     
  14. JayKimchee

    JayKimchee OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,506
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bay Area
    I got the 70-300 VR a couple of weeks ago and its pretty good.

    Nice brokeh but the lens itself is pretty massive but its not too heavy.
     
  15. Joetabasco

    Joetabasco The Wing King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I'm in ur cube, eatin' ur wings!!
    Keep what you have and go for the better lenses. If you are looking to make a living from your camera it will be well worth the price
     
  16. Blair

    Blair Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    yes the beast would be the equivalent. i dont know shit about weddings but from my thinking it would be required hardware. i would be very comfortable shooting a wedding with a beast and a 70-200 VR.
     
  17. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I have been doing a little research and I came across an older lens - not too old though. The focal length is 80-200mm and its a constant f2.8 It doesn't have VR, but it is a bit cheaper on the used market than the 70-200 f2.8VR

    This might be the right lens for me until I can step up and get the beast or the VR lens.

    I think I am going to narrow it down to these lenses - for the midrange zooms...

    18-200VR 3.5-5.6 ED
    70-300VR 3.5-5.6 ED
    80-200 2.8 ED
     
  18. Blair

    Blair Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    80-200> all those

    Are you looking at getting the AF-S or the AF-D version? i have the AF-D and it is pretty slow for motorsports or sports but for everything else i :love: it.
     
  19. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    What's gonna be the main advantage over the AF-S or the AF-D Copies of the lens?


    I have been looking on e-bay and Nikonians for prices...seems to be anywhere between $500-900 for the lens.
     
  20. Joetabasco

    Joetabasco The Wing King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I'm in ur cube, eatin' ur wings!!
    The "S" in AF-S is for the focus motor built in. expect MUCH faster focus unless you are using it on the D2xs or D2Hs. the D lens does not have the motor built in and relies on teh focus motor in teh camera to focus.
     
  21. Blair

    Blair Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    8,532
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oregon
    :werd:
     
  22. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I called my local camera shop - I need the ED Version - the AF-S version, with the tripod mount - otherwise it would rip off the face of the camera. :o

    Edit - I said the wrong copy. :mad:
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007
  23. Joetabasco

    Joetabasco The Wing King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I'm in ur cube, eatin' ur wings!!
    Your Local dealer don't know shit

    the AF-S 70-200mm VR is the better lens... not just because its more expensive... clearer, faster focus but it is slightly heavier. as far as I can remember they both have brackets for mounting on tripod. Either one is great although the VR and the focus motor built into the lens puts the 70-200 at an advantage.
     
  24. ftslogger

    ftslogger OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,590
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    CLT
    I never asked about the 70-200 2.8 VR its far out of my price range at the moment. We know its a superior lens. :fawk:

    I want something that will suit my needs, until I move up to a better "pro body", but my focus is on glass right now. :hs:

    If money wasn't an object, I would have a D200, 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 VR, 85 1.4 and the 50 1.4, and 2 SB800's
     
  25. Joetabasco

    Joetabasco The Wing King

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    I'm in ur cube, eatin' ur wings!!
    Somewhere I missed something... after re-reading the whole damn thread I would go with the 80-200 out of the 3 listed above. ok?

    after that my choice would be 70-300...
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2007

Share This Page