70-200 dilemna

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mematsu, Jul 30, 2007.

  1. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    I feel fortunate to have amassed quite a few lenses in my short time with digital slr photography. One of them being the 70-200vr. It is "the" lens for me regarding image quality in its focal range.

    Being that it is quite large it really doesn't make it out too much. In the year that I've owned it, it is my least used lens. I like to be inconspicous and when I use it I feel very strongly that I am not.

    Anyway, I have in my kit now...
    10-20 sigma
    17-55
    30 1.4
    85 1.4
    180 2.8
    70-200vr

    I am thinking about selling it and getting an 18-200vr and the 70-300vr. My basic uses for the 70-200 are for my kids. Leisure time along with soccer and baseball.

    I am thinking the 18-200 would be very convenient for outings and the 70-300 would substitute for the soccer and baseball. My concern is mostly the focus speed on the 70-300. Also, it is nice to have something in between my 85mm and 180mm with a narrow dof.

    Do you think its a good idea? Or should I just get over my silly inhibitions?
     
  2. May suggest you something else? I have downgraded to 80-200 2.8 Af-D due to the same weight issue and I am happy with this.
    Thanks
     
  3. Cope

    Cope

    Apr 5, 2007
    Houston, Texas
    John, there are some things, such as a 70-200 2.8, that you can't always justify on a day in-day out basis. The 18-200 will not satisfy for Soccer and baseball. I would say keep it for the pictures of your kids, they can't be replaced.
     
  4. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    Hey Sam.
    I think the 80-200 is too similar in size.

    Hey Cope.
    I was hoping the 70-300 would satisfy the soccer/baseball need. What do you think?
     
  5. mr2monster

    mr2monster

    269
    Jun 29, 2007
    Arizona
    The 70-200 is a top notch lens. I would keep it. As far as image quality goes it's some of the best glass (IMO) that nikon makes. The 18-200 is a very versitile lens(I own both) but it wouldn't suffice if you are used to using the 70-200.

    I pack both and I know how you feel about the 70-200. It's not very discreet and it's not the lightest either, but i think the trade off is excellent images.

    I'm sure you could find more stuff to shoot with it. I just purchased mine about a month ago and It's only come off my body one time. and that was in exchange for the 18-200. They're my two favorite lenses.


    Every time i get a new lens I find it hard to break into the usage of it because I systematically go to a lens I already know and like... to break that habit, i generally force myself to shoot with nothing but the new lens for about a month. That forces me to see the lens in a different way, it forces me to think creatively about how to use the lens the best, and make shots work given what I have to use. I remember when i bought my 50mm 1.4 (the fist time) I didn't use it but maybe 3 times, got discouraged, and sold it. Now, I own it again (couldn't resist after seeing images on the net) and forced myself to take an entire vacation with only that lens and now it's one of my favorites too.

    Cliffnotes: Just force yourself to use it more, you'll change your mind.
     
  6. Take the hood off when in a crowd

    It is much less intimidating without the hood. I say keep it even though you have good alternatives in the same range with the 85 and 180.
     
  7. sreeves31

    sreeves31

    117
    Jun 25, 2007
    Mason, OH
    John-

    I can understand where you are coming from. I own the 18-200 and the 70-200. I actually purchased the 70-200 after the 18-200, one of the big reasons being a lens to use for soccer and baseball. The 18-200 performs OK for sports in good light but my "keeper" rate has increased tremendously since I began using the 70-200. There is just something about a good action shot at F/3.2. I am not an 18-200 hater, in fact it spends more time on my D200 than any other lens. But it is not the lens I take to the sports field with me.
     
  8. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    This is why I wish Nikon still made an f/4 constant aperture 70-200mm ish telephoto zoom lens like they used to, and like Canon still does. A bit of extra speed and tighter DOF when you need it, but half the weight and price of the bulky and enormously expensive f/2.8 glass. A Canon 70-200 f/4 IS is around $1000 vs what, $1700? for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR? The weight difference is huge too.
     
  9. CAJames

    CAJames

    Sep 6, 2006
    Lompoc, CA
    For me, there is no substitute for the 70-200. It is my favorite lens. But, I understand exactly how you feel. It doesn't matter how "good" the lens is, if you aren't using it you shouldn't keep it, esp. since you should be able to get most of your money back buy selling it. I haven't used the 70-300, but I expect with practice you'll be able get plenty of great action shots.
     
  10. Tell you what, John. I feel your pain, so I'll make you a deal...................

    You've got that heavy and conspicious 70-200VR and I've got a light, very unconspicious 18-200VR. I'll trade you and we'll both be happy. Of course, I might end up a whole lot happier than you!!!!!!!!!:wink::biggrin::wink::biggrin::wink:
     
  11. Keep it !!

    I went through the same thought process last year and sold mine - big mistake.
    It did not take long to start regretting it - last month I ended up buying another one and I swear I will not make the same mistake again.

    I also have an 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR and still would never part with my 70-200.

    The 18-200 VR is the most least used lens I own and interestingly enough the 70-300 VR is one of my most frequently used lenses. But neither one can replace the 70-200 when it comes down to speed and IQ.
     
  12. ibcj

    ibcj

    732
    Dec 19, 2006
    New York
    Maybe you can borrow a 70-300 and see how it does with your sports photos ?
    Both of the lenses that you list as alternatives are very capable lenses, but I'm not sure how they would compare for sports photos, now that you have the 70-200.

    My 70-200 vr doesn't get as much use as I'd like either. I went through a very brief, and similar, thought of "I should really sell this because I don't use it enough" and I listed it for sale. I went out and shot with a few other lenses while it was listed, and I quickly came back and pulled the listing. I realized that I would miss it too much for my shooting needs (children's sports).
     
  13. No, no, no! Don't tell him to keep it!!!!! I want it. :wink: I told him I'd trade him and I meant it. He'd be so much happier with the 18-200VR. (yea, right!):rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    John, get rid of that ol' klunky thing. It's too big and way too heavy. And heck, when you go out it public it's way too conspicious. Trade with me, trade with me!!!!!!!:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
     
  14. Do you like micro?? The 70/200 is so versatile, slap some tubes it and you have one heck of a macro lens that traps shoots very well, add a 1.4TC and only loose a little light and have a digital 420MM!! It is just a great lens , I walk around with it by hanging the tripod foot behind my belt, weight problem solved!!!!

    Micro shot with 70/200!!
    http://www.pbase.com/solorguy/image/59169395/original
     
  15. I went the opposite direction and sold the 18-200 for the 70-200 and have not regretted it a bit.
     
  16. Sell me yours. Lol.
    I'm looking for 70-200mm. But B&H doesn't even have one in stock. Is that a sign of Nikon is about to launch new lenses?
     
  17. sypher

    sypher

    May 24, 2006
    Cougar Country
     
  18.  
  19. gadgetguy11

    gadgetguy11

    Nov 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    I own 2) 18-200s, 2) 70-300s, and 1) 70-200VR. There is as large an improvement in sharpness to my old eyes between the 18-200 and the 70-200 as there is from the 70-200 to the 200/2.0VR.

    If you sell the 70-200, I believe you will regret it "big time". Note there is not as great a difference in sharpness between the 70-300 and 70-200. But the constant aperture and faster speed make the 70-200 a keeper, without question.
     
  20. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    Thanks

    Thanks to all for the advice. I will keep it and "learn" to use it more often. Regret has already set in and I haven't even let it go yet. Maybe I'll save and get a 18-200 later.

    Thanks again.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Dilemna Lens Lust May 20, 2006