I wish... an f2.8 28-200mm lens for Nikon

photocat

I can not spend 1000 dollar on a new one. Who wants a good home for a lens... I will take very good care of it!
I need it badly... I am hoping not to have to beg my husband for money...
I am looking for a Tokina, Sigma or Tamron one... I don't expect to find a nikkor one in my price range...

Thanks for any information

imageswest

photocat wrote:

I don't expect to find a nikkor one in my price range...

You probably won't find one of any brand... no one makes a 28-200mm f2.8 lens. :nah

mmroden

exactly. If such a lens existed, it would be the object of almost everyone's affection

JESTER

Photocat, Nikon makes a 28-70 2.8 and 80-200 2.8. I own both and a D200. I keep the 28-70 on the camera 90% of the time. Both are great lens. It all depends on what kind of photos you are taking. You can also go to www.nikonusa.com for a list of lens they make. You might be able to pick up one on ebay or used somewhere. New, they cost around $1700.00 each:cry Hope this helps

DoctorIt

JESTER wrote:

You might be able to pick up one on ebay or used somewhere. New, they cost around $1700.00 each:cry Hope this helps

whoa, slow down! If you're going to feed photocat extra info, lets make sure its accurate! (80-200 is a discontinued, but great lens, it can be had in numerous incarnations, sharp as a tack, for much less than $1000). Cat, go check it out on your own

photocat

DoctorIt wrote:

whoa, slow down! If you're going to feed photocat extra info, lets make sure its accurate! (80-200 is a discontinued, but great lens, it can be had in numerous incarnations, sharp as a tack, for much less than $1000). Cat, go check it out on your own

sorry guys, I thought there was such a lens... My mistake.
I am on the lookout, will wait a bit longer, and hopefully, someone will come out with a zoom that covers my ranges.
I do a lot of families and weddings, my bridal shots are great with the nikkor 85 2.8, magical lens, so I thought if I could have a zoom, that all of my problems would have been solved. The prime lens is perfect, but you need room to move. With a zoom you can make the camera move for you... which is often the better thing for weddings. I find it very annoying if I have to jump back and forth to get a shot, I think a photographer should not be heard or seen, or as less as possible. I love the blend-in mode, so a zoom would be perfect for that one.
Am I correct to assume that all zooms 2.8 are now mainly in the 70 or 80/200 mm range? I have looked at so much lenses lately that I don't see the forest throught the trees anymore. Or is it the other way around?

gpphotos

several lens makers make an 18-50 f2.8, the nikon one is about 1100, but i bought my sigma from Erik for $350 used. btw erik, its been a great lens so far!

DoctorIt

gpphotos wrote:

several lens makers make an 18-50 f2.8, the nikon one is about 1100, but i bought my sigma from Erik for $350 used. btw erik, its been a great lens so far!

treated me well too

Lexiticus

Theres 17-55, 18-50 f2.8's
then 28-70, 24-70, 28-75 F2.8's
and then 70-200, 80-200 f2.8's and Anything above that is USUALLY a prime.

If your on a budget, and I was, for weddings I picked up a 28-75 Tamron f2.8, You can find one used for around $300. Its almost as sharp as the Nikon 28-70, And about a third of the price.(New!)

I will rely on 2 bodies more so now, A 50 f1.8 (85mm if i had one) And the Tamron 28-75
I rarely find I need more zoom than 75mm, But its not like I can afford a 70-200 f2.8 yet anyway!
Wider angle you can rely on the flash, so sigma 10-20mm for me is decent enough, nasty distortion for portraits with that wide a focal length anyway, so Its relegated to group shots and artsy stuff.

photocat

If your on a budget, and I was, for weddings I picked up a 28-75 Tamron f2.8, You can find one used for around $300. Its almost as sharp as the Nikon 28-70, And about a third of the price.(New!)

Thanks for the good bundle up numbers... I do have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and I am just like you very happy with it. That is why I wanted the same one but longer, grin...
It has become my normal walk around lens. In fact, I shot my whole last wedding with that one. It was a small wedding, only 20 people or so, and a very small church, and it did great.

Maybe I am just being to greedy and/or snotty... I might have changed in a lens addict without knowing it.

I do have the sigma 70-300, which is great for macro (semi macro, it is not a 1.1) with great results. You do need enough light for that one though...
I wonder if I could save one or two stops with the much talked about VR 70-200 that came with the D200. I got my D200 without lenses, as I had them from the D70...

DoctorIt

Has this become a general discussion? If so, we're in the wrong place...

Photocat, gimme the word.

JESTER

Sorry Doc....I meant the 70-200 2.8 AFS VR. I gave my 80-200 to my kid.

photocat

DoctorIt wrote:

Has this become a general discussion? If so, we're in the wrong place...

Photocat, gimme the word.

Grin, I guess it has, swop it to the right place if you want. I have no idea where to go now with this thread... I am interested in more views on this, but if it suits another thread better, just place it there!
Thanks for asking!

DoctorIt

photocat wrote:

Grin, I guess it has, swop it to the right place if you want. I have no idea where to go now with this thread... I am interested in more views on this, but if it suits another thread better, just place it there!
Thanks for asking!

OK, you're being moved to gear - where you might get more suggestions on alternatives, and other lenses to suit this need in general. Feel free to drop a new, but more specific "WTB" back in the flea market.

And of course, holler if you need anything

photocat

DoctorIt wrote:

OK, you're being moved to gear - where you might get more suggestions on alternatives, and other lenses to suit this need in general. Feel free to drop a new, but more specific "WTB" back in the flea market.

And of course, holler if you need anything

That is fine Erik... I just bought the 18-300 tamron to fit on my D200.
aperture 3.5. I will try to post some if I have it and have been able to shoot some pics.

Thanks for moving me to the right thread!

ziggy53

DoctorIt wrote:

whoa, slow down! If you're going to feed photocat extra info, lets make sure its accurate! (80-200 is a discontinued, but great lens, it can be had in numerous incarnations, sharp as a tack, for much less than $1000). Cat, go check it out on your own

Sorry to disagree, Nikon still makes/sells an 80-200mm, f2.8 zoom, specifically the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
http://www.adorama.com/NK80200AFNU.html

It is the "AF-S" version that was discontinued, hence the confusion. Great writeup here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

photocat

It is the "AF-S" version that was discontinued, hence the confusion. Great writeup here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm[/QUOTE]

Thanks Ziggy for that information... I have for now settled for the Tamron 18-300 3.5f... I can now save up some more for decent glass, and who knows, by the time I have the money, someone will have come out with a 2.8 f 28 or 18 300... Still hoping!

DoctorIt

ziggy53 wrote:

Sorry to disagree, Nikon still makes/sells an 80-200mm, f2.8 zoom, specifically the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=124669&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
http://www.adorama.com/NK80200AFNU.html

It is the "AF-S" version that was discontinued, hence the confusion. Great writeup here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

and there you have it. -1 for Doc, +1 for Ziggy - thanks for the clarification!