Nikon Zoom vs Nikon Zoom

Ironheart

Gwolf, what is your realistic max budget? Of all the questions msmoto has above that is one we haven't heard yet. If it is $200 great, but Cadillac will put you closer to $1000, however there are tons of nice Fords out there we can point you to ;-)

NSXTypeR

The 80-200 is better optically and mechanically. In fact, it is almost on par with the 70-200 2.8 optically and you could argue it is superior mechanically.

No arguments there, sure it's a better lens, but he said he was on a budget.

Can't go wrong with the 70-300 for $500. Not too large, pretty light.

TaoTeJared

I'll add the 24-85vr as a option as well. Not a bad "kit" lens at all. It's not the 24-70 2.8 but it also doesn't have the same price tag.

tcole1983

Well I probably came off as a lens snob and I didn't mean to be that way. I just don't understand the large body budget and small lens budget.

I believe and of the newer variable aperture. Lenses would be better options then the old ones. Every new variable lens we have seen released is better then the last one. I think most any lens released in the last 5 years is going to be at least usable where some of the older ones are a bit more marginal. I stick to my save and buy one you really want instead of just dealing with one you don't.

birdman

I actually hear that the *somewhat* rare 70-210/F 4.0 is still very competent. Like most say, the 70-300VR is great (but only @200mm and shorter FLs) and can be found ultra cheap USED. It is better optically than the above mentioned lens. I know because I researched comparison shoot-outs extensively.

Consider the old 24-85/3.5-4.5 (non-VR) also. It's very good for the price and I actually saw one on Fleabay with all original documentation (box, warranty cards, hood) for $199.99 shipped! That is a STEAL.

haroldp

My 70-300VR is good at 300mm when stopped down to F8.

..H