Help..once again..lenses

Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
In a previous post I had requested for primes to carry on an arctic
vacation. Thank you so much for your responses.

I need your help once again: Just a preamble before the question.

1. D200 bit the dust
2. D80 has intermittent battery issues.
3. D70s, nikon here cannot clean a filthy sensor.
4. my granddaughter left key marks on my 20/2.8
5. my 35/2 has oil in the blades ( 3 copy..oooovvvverexposes )

Good news, the vacation is back on track. Loaner D200 has become available and the d80 can act as a b/u.
Seems my zooms have to be put in service.

Suggestions invited for:
12-24 or 17-35 or 17-55?
85/1.4 or 105/2.8 vr or 70-200 ( ouch !! )?
28/1.4 or 50/1.4?

or 18-200? and be done with it. This is a photog vacation.

Please, please don't pair the 17-55 with the 70-200, I cannot manage.
Are 2 camera bodies necessary?
plan is visit sweden, arctic circle, cruise down west coast of norway.

Grateful for your advise. I am going nuts!!
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
931
Location
Home: Columbia, MD, USA; Present: Bogota, Colombia
When my wife and I were in Norway, it was pre-digital. I only had one body (Olympus OM-1) and I only had 28, 50, 100, and a 90mm Macro. I managed just fine. You will to with whatever you take. That aside I would probably want the 17-35 and the 70-200 if I were going today.

Good luck
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
When my wife and I were in Norway, it was pre-digital. I only had one body (Olympus OM-1) and I only had 28, 50, 100, and a 90mm Macro. I managed just fine. You will to with whatever you take. That aside I would probably want the 17-35 and the 70-200 if I were going today.

Good luck
Thanks Scott. I am tending towards the 17-35 myself. The 70-200mm, well I am a small old man with a stent to worry about!!

best.
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
931
Location
Home: Columbia, MD, USA; Present: Bogota, Colombia
In that case you may want to consider the 70-300 VR. It seams like a good quality (non-professional) lens which is very small and lightweight. I haven't shot with the lens but I did try one on my camera about a week ago. It is not a fast lens but the images I have seen from it appear to be quite good. And it much less costly.

Just a thought.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Scott,

Appreciate your input. I have the 70-200 vr, and purchasing another lens
seems distant.

Regards
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom