What would you do w/ $2k?

SPDSpappy

I have had my Nikon D80 w/ the kit lens (18-135) & SB-600 that I've used for the past 2 years. I currently have a credit @ a major online retailer and am trying to figure out what to do with it...
Nikon D300S? Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 w/ VR, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (non-VR), Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8?

I usually shoot outside (kids sports, trips to zoo/FL/HI/Chicago/etc.), but also shoot inside on occaision at family events & kid's activities/sports.

From what I've been reading, a lens would be the best solution at this point. I'm still unsure as to which one would be the most ideal based on what I shoot.

I'm assuming one of the 70/80-200 f/2.8 would be the workhorses of the group and would be my best choice. My kids haven't started basketball yet, so I'm thinking I should hold off on the 17-55 f/2.8 and just get a 85 f/1.4 when the time comes (I should have a better body by then as well).

The question w/ the 70/80-200 would be with or w/o VR? For what I shoot, would it really help & be worth the extra $1k? If it's outdoor sports, I'll probably be shooting fast enough that I wouldn't need the VR (also may lean me towards the 100-400 instead). However, with some of the dusk & landscape shots, I'm thinking that is where the VR would come in handy.

I've used this site for a long time, but just signed up for an account as it's the first time I've not been able to find an answer to my question by searching :clap (this is a personal question). Thanks in advance!!!

ziggy53

SPDSpappy wrote:

I have had my Nikon D80 w/ the kit lens (18-135) & SB-600 that I've used for the past 2 years. I currently have a credit @ a major online retailer and am trying to figure out what to do with it...
Nikon D300S? Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 w/ or w/o VR, Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5.6, Nikon 17-55 f/2.8?

I usually shoot outside (kids sports, trips to zoo/FL/HI/Chicago/etc.), but also shoot inside on occaision at family events & kid's activities/sports.

From what I've been reading, a lens would be the best solution at this point. I'm still unsure as to which one would be the most ideal based on what I shoot.

I'm assuming one of the 70-200 f/2.8 would be the workhorses of the group and would be my best choice. My kids haven't started basketball yet, so I'm thinking I should hold off on the 17-55 f/2.8 and just get a 85 f/1.4 when the time comes (I should have a better body by then as well).

The question w/ the 70-200 would be with or w/o VR? For what I shoot, would it really help & be worth the extra $1k? If it's outdoor sports, I'll probably be shooting fast enough that I wouldn't need the VR (also may lean me towards the 100-400 instead). However, with some of the dusk & landscape shots, I'm thinking that is where the VR would come in handy.

I've used this site for a long time, but just signed up for an account as it's the first time I've not been able to find an answer to my question by searching (this is a personal question). Thanks in advance!!!

SPDSpappy, welcome to the Digital Grin

It really sounds like you're leaning towards a telephoto zoom for sports. I would also remind you of the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. I believe that your D80 can drive it and it might do fine for your needs, as well as leaving some funds available for other stuff.

While not really suited for sports, at least not rapid action sports, the Tamron 17-50mm, F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical is a very nice standard lens and good pairing to the above tele-zoom.

That would give you a pretty good 2 lens kit and stay withing budget. Add an external flash and you are pretty set for many applications.

SPDSpappy

ziggy53 wrote:

SPDSpappy, welcome to the Digital Grin

Thanks!!!

ziggy53 wrote:

It really sounds like you're leaning towards a telephoto zoom for sports. I would also remind you of the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. I believe that your D80 can drive it and it might do fine for your needs, as well as leaving some funds available for other stuff.

That's actually the lens I meant for the "w/o VR," not 70-200... I'll fix the poll.

I'm not necessarily leaning towards sports. If you take a look @ my pics site (www.dpcustomphotos.com), you'll notice I really have a range of things I shoot (can't tie me down I guess -- or a little ADHD, one of the two ).

ziggy53 wrote:

While not really suited for sports, at least not rapid action sports, the Tamron 17-50mm, F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical is a very nice standard lens and good pairing to the above tele-zoom.

That would give you a pretty good 2 lens kit and stay withing budget. Add an external flash and you are pretty set for many applications.

The Tamron seems to be decent for the price, but based on some of the reviews, it looks like it may be prone to fungus :eek .

I'm wondering from what I've been reading on luminous landscape & other various sites, if I might be better off w/ a non-zoom w/ f/1.8 or better (50mm f/1.4 for example), especially b/c my D80 creates more noise w/ higher ISO's. What do you think?

ARKreations

I've been shooting with the 80-200 f/2.8 for about a year now (bought for my D80 and now with my D300) for low light dance and some sports. I chose it as an economical alternative to the 70-200 VR and a better performer (IQ and focus speed) than the Tamron 70-200. In that sense it is a great choice. However, there is no doubt that the AF-S lenses do focus faster. So if you have the funds, go for the 70-200 VR. If you're looking for a cheaper ($) alternative, go for the 80-200 AF-S model. Either way, you won't be disappointed with either lens.

Alternatively, the prices on the remaining D300 stock have come down and the ISO performance blows the doors off of the D80. Unless you need the video/dual card functionality of the D300s, I think there may be more practical choices for your expenditure.

AlexNeo

Go for Nikon 70-200 f/2.8...you may need it for portrait shoot in very low light!!!

swintonphoto

I would get a great standard zoom such as:
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0

and a great telezoom such as:
Sigma 70-200 2.8 (good fast focusing lens)
Tamron 70-200 2.8 (sharp as a tack)

You could buy a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom and still have some $$ to spare.

ziggy53

SPDSpappy wrote:

... The Tamron seems to be decent for the price, but based on some of the reviews, it looks like it may be prone to fungus :eek .

I'm wondering from what I've been reading on luminous landscape & other various sites, if I might be better off w/ a non-zoom w/ f/1.8 or better (50mm f/1.4 for example), especially b/c my D80 creates more noise w/ higher ISO's. What do you think?

We have some members with the Tamron 17-50mm and I don't believe they have had any problems with fungus. I did a quick scan with Google and I honestly don't see a significant pattern, just a couple of isolated reports. I currently use a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC, but if anything happened to it I would go for the Tamron. (The Tamron was not available yet when I got the Sigma.)

The Nikkor 50mm, f/1.8D is a wonderful lens for the money and a true bargain.

SPDSpappy

ziggy53 wrote:

We have some members with the Tamron 17-50mm and I don't believe they have had any problems with fungus. I did a quick scan with Google and I honestly don't see a significant pattern, just a couple of isolated reports. I currently use a Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC, but if anything happened to it I would go for the Tamron. (The Tamron was not available yet when I got the Sigma.)

Thanks for the info! This was off of the fredmiranda.com site that I was seeing the fungus issue reference a number of times. It may be fixed now though...

SPDSpappy

swintonphoto wrote:

I would get a great standard zoom such as:
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0

and a great telezoom such as:
Sigma 70-200 2.8 (good fast focusing lens)
Tamron 70-200 2.8 (sharp as a tack)

You could buy a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom and still have some $$ to spare.

Thanks! I'll look into those. I'll have to see if my local high end camera shop rents those & check them out for myself to see if those would be an acceptable choice.

SPDSpappy

Just thought of something else... Would the Nikon 80-200 2.8 (non-VR) hold its value as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR? That may be one consideration in case I ever go w/ a D700...

Nicolas

70-200 all the way

SPDSpappy wrote:

Just thought of something else... Would the Nikon 80-200 2.8 (non-VR) hold its value as well as the 70-200 2.8 VR? That may be one consideration in case I ever go w/ a D700...

I was in a similar position as yourself a few months ago. I had the D80 and had saved up about $2000 to upgrade my camera equipment. Already had the 12-24, a 50mm and the SB-600. I decided to go with the ultimate must have for any serious photographer, the 70-200 f/2.8. I love it and have no regrets. I know that in five years the d300 (or whatever camera I would have bought) will have been replaced with something else, but my precious 70-200 will be something I use for a long time into the future.

And besides.. other than FPS (and now video) what is the real advantage of a D300 over the D80? Not much.

See if you can grab the old school 70-200 VRI (opposed to the VRII which was recently announced) as it will save you about $500.

SPDSpappy

Nicolas wrote:

I was in a similar position as yourself a few months ago. I had the D80 and had saved up about $2000 to upgrade my camera equipment. Already had the 12-24, a 50mm and the SB-600. I decided to go with the ultimate must have for any serious photographer, the 70-200 f/2.8. I love it and have no regrets. I know that in five years the d300 (or whatever camera I would have bought) will have been replaced with something else, but my precious 70-200 will be something I use for a long time into the future.

Thanks for responding! You don't have any buyers remorse from the sounds of your post and that's VERY comforting. After the poor reviews I've read on fredmiranda from some of the other lenses, I'm a little hesitant to have my first "real" lens be an issue...

20DNoob

I'd look for a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 as another option.