A question about some "similar" Nikkor lenses.

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by DanAa, Apr 27, 2007.

  1. DanAa

    DanAa

    22
    Mar 10, 2006
    Norway
    I wonder what really differences there are for practical photography between "similar" Nikkor zoom lenses? I'm a amateur nature photographer. I own two zooms that I normally carry in my backpack when doing landscape photography, i.e. an AF-S Nikkor 18-70/3,5-4,5G ED (that followed my D70 kit), and an AF Nikkor 80-200/2,8 D ED. Would I recognize any practical improvement if I invest into the AF-S 17-55/2,8G and the AF-S 70-200/2,8 G (I know that I would have the VR)? Today my camera body is a D200.
    D.
    PS: you might know some Web-links where these questions are discussed.
     
  2. Don't know what your eyes see or want to see, so it's hard to make an educated comment.

    If you don't feel the itch, there's not much need to scratch. Don't rely on others to tell you what you need. If you need a faster lens than the 18-70, then the 17-55 would be good. If you need VR, the 70-200 would be good. If you just think that there will be a magical "pop" in your images like some people claim, you will likely be disappointed.
     
  3. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    I think the lenses you have are fine. Unless the 80-200 is just not focussing fast enough for you, or you find yourself without a very steady hand, then there really isn't a need to upgrade to the 70-200 VR as it is about on part optically with your 80-200.

    As for the 18-70...it will be fine unless you feel like you need the faster f/2.8 glass. If you do feel you need some faster glass, perhaps check into getting a couple of fast primes (35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8 are great ones to start off with) to add to your lens set. IMHO you can never go wrong adding lenses to your kit, but you might regret replacing some lenses as you might miss the ones you got rid of.

    Also, keep in mind the 70-200 and 17-55 are bigger and heavier than your 2 current lenses.
     
  4. Only real difference is focus speed. I find a prime like the 35mm f/2 handier than the 17-55 when I need a larger aperture.
     
  5. Dennyd80

    Dennyd80 Guest

    If you're doing a lot nature photography the 18-70 and the 70-300 VR would be an excellent combination. They are not fast lenses, but for outdoor work they don't need to be fast.

    If you want a an excellent fast telephoto the Nikon 300 f/4 is a great lens and can be bought used for around $450 US. Very sharp for a 300 prime.

    If you can afford it the Nikon 300 f/2.8 AF-S is arguably the best 300mm telephoto available... period. Unbelievably sharp and fast.
     
  6. DanAa

    DanAa

    22
    Mar 10, 2006
    Norway
    Thanks for comments. In addition I do have some primes, old and new, that I certainly will try this spring/summer. I do mostly landscape photography and do normally have lots of time. One of my reasons for buying my D200 was the possibility to once again use my AIS35/2.0 and AI50/2.0. I guess also my AF20/2.8 and AF24/2.8 will serve me high quality shots. But you know, the zooms are easy to carry and so far I have been quite afraid having dust inside too. DanAa.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Nikon 200-500mm VR question Lens Lust Dec 5, 2017
Question about 50mm 1.8 Series E Lens Lust May 11, 2017
A couple questions about the 55mm 3.5 Ai Lens Lust Nov 20, 2016
Question for people with 105mm VR lens Lens Lust Jul 27, 2016
Lens similar to 200mm F2? Lens Lust Mar 19, 2014