Nikon Zoom vs Nikon Zoom

13»

Comments

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    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 ;-)
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    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.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    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.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    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.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • birdmanbirdman Posts: 115Member
    edited February 2014
    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.
    Post edited by birdman on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    My 70-300VR is good at 300mm when stopped down to F8.

    ..H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.