Posted by Rod Chandler on June 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I need some lens advice. Here is the issue:
I have a Nikon D2XS that I love. It weighs around 180-pounds but, never mind that, I need the exercise. Not only that, the little Norwegian accountant to whom I am married says THAT will be my camera for the foreseeable future. I tried to tell her a Nikon D-700 might help me avoid dying of a heart attack while out on a tough trail. She simply glared. That lady is tough.
I have a Nikon 17-35mm lens that is absolutely fabulous. I would not trade it for anything.
I also have a Nikon 60mm macro lens. I have gotten excellent results with it as well.
My long telephoto is a Tamron 200-500mm lens that is adequate. I do not use it much but the results are not bad from the times I have used it.
THE PROBLEM: My basic lens is a Nikon 28-200mm. I am consistently disappointed in the quality of its results. I even had a lens repair shop look it over to see if it had been damanged. Nope! It simply is not very good glass.
I really like the Nikon 70-200mm lens. My pal Dave Bartlett has one and he gets wonderful images with it. The problem with it is two-fold. It is big and heavy. It also does not cover the range between 35mm and 70mm which I need.
Nikon also makes a really good 24-70mm lens. The combination of the 70-200 and the 24-70mm would give me a range from 17mm to 500mm, all with superior or decent glass.
The problem with that solution is: About $4,000 that the little Norwegian accountant must approve. (That is the biggest problem.) I would have two lenses instead of one. I would have two HEAVY lenses rather than one relatively light one.
I'm assuming you have maybe 2,000.00. I'm also assuming that the D700 is out of the question because you like the D2x which is obviously DX format. Here's what I would do and it may seem extreme because my idea sells the beautiful FX 17-35. But I have the 70-200 and it's what I would call my "lifeline" so anything in my book go's bye bye for this lens. I'm a newbie (compared to others on this site) to photography so when I see something that's an upgrade I get super excited!
I would sell the 17-35, get maybe 1,400 for it. Buy the 17-55 2.8 used for 1000.00. Next buy the 70-200 2.8 vr. You already have a 60mm. Afterwords, you have maybe 500.00 left to pick up a 1.4 or 1.7 Nikon teleconverter to add 80mm-140mm. I have the 1.4 and turns my 70-200 2.8 into a freaky sharp 100-280mm F4.
This is a heavy set-up but once you see the results form these lens you won't want anything else.
I climb mountains with a heavy setup (d-90, 16-85, 70-200 + 1.4 converter, tripod, ballhead and NNinja panohead) but I just have gotten used to suffering more.
You could substitute a Tamron 28-75 for the Nikon equivalent, I have for my 5D and I think its great. Not only that, its also fairly light. Performance is also very good, I never feel like I miss anything in that regard. As for the longer lens, I think sticking to the Nikon may be the better option. Its too bad Nikon doesn't make a lens like the 70-200 f/4L IS -- which is what I have and would never part with.
Posted by Brent Murphy on June 14, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Have you checked out the Nikon 18-200 VR? I've been very happy with it. It's on my D300 90% of the time.
16-85mm + 80-200mm is a great combo. I'm married to a Norwegian program manager and she had no problem with that lens combination. I bought the 80-200mm used and got a great deal. It may be my sharpest lens. Good luck!
Posted by George Hager on June 15, 2009 at 12:18 AM
I might be having a Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 and an 80-200mm f2.8 for sale soon if that helps you. The 35 -70mm for sure. Maybe the 80-200mm.
I had a 80-200mm and now have a 70-200mm, I can't tell the differences between the images. 80-200 was also a smaller lens. The only reason to have the 70-200mm in my opinion is if you do hand-held sports shots. For nature stuff I prefer the 80-200mm. My vote is to sell your 17-35mm, pickup a Nikon 28-70 and a Tokina 12-24 (with no or little out of pocket money) and then pick up the 2 ring 80-200mm for $1000. My secondary lens is a Nikon 28-70 beast, I use it more than my Tokina 12-24 or the 17-35mm.
Discussion
6 repliesI need some lens advice. Here is the issue:
I have a Nikon D2XS that I love. It weighs around 180-pounds but, never mind that, I need the exercise. Not only that, the little Norwegian accountant to whom I am married says THAT will be my camera for the foreseeable future. I tried to tell her a Nikon D-700 might help me avoid dying of a heart attack while out on a tough trail. She simply glared. That lady is tough.
I have a Nikon 17-35mm lens that is absolutely fabulous. I would not trade it for anything.
I also have a Nikon 60mm macro lens. I have gotten excellent results with it as well.
My long telephoto is a Tamron 200-500mm lens that is adequate. I do not use it much but the results are not bad from the times I have used it.
THE PROBLEM: My basic lens is a Nikon 28-200mm. I am consistently disappointed in the quality of its results. I even had a lens repair shop look it over to see if it had been damanged. Nope! It simply is not very good glass.
I really like the Nikon 70-200mm lens. My pal Dave Bartlett has one and he gets wonderful images with it. The problem with it is two-fold. It is big and heavy. It also does not cover the range between 35mm and 70mm which I need.
Nikon also makes a really good 24-70mm lens. The combination of the 70-200 and the 24-70mm would give me a range from 17mm to 500mm, all with superior or decent glass.
The problem with that solution is: About $4,000 that the little Norwegian accountant must approve. (That is the biggest problem.) I would have two lenses instead of one. I would have two HEAVY lenses rather than one relatively light one.
What to do? What to do? Any advice?
I'm assuming you have maybe 2,000.00. I'm also assuming that the D700 is out of the question because you like the D2x which is obviously DX format. Here's what I would do and it may seem extreme because my idea sells the beautiful FX 17-35. But I have the 70-200 and it's what I would call my "lifeline" so anything in my book go's bye bye for this lens. I'm a newbie (compared to others on this site) to photography so when I see something that's an upgrade I get super excited!
I would sell the 17-35, get maybe 1,400 for it. Buy the 17-55 2.8 used for 1000.00. Next buy the 70-200 2.8 vr. You already have a 60mm. Afterwords, you have maybe 500.00 left to pick up a 1.4 or 1.7 Nikon teleconverter to add 80mm-140mm. I have the 1.4 and turns my 70-200 2.8 into a freaky sharp 100-280mm F4.
This is a heavy set-up but once you see the results form these lens you won't want anything else.
I climb mountains with a heavy setup (d-90, 16-85, 70-200 + 1.4 converter, tripod, ballhead and NNinja panohead) but I just have gotten used to suffering more.
Kane