How important is AF-S and VR?

[SteveHo]

I am not talking about the merit of these technologies, I have used lenses with AFS/VR and can see the value. I am more concerned with where Nikon is heading. I had pretty much made up my mind to purchase the 80-200 AF-D because I liked the way it handled, the IQ, and of course the price.

The only thing stopping me is the nagging feeling that 5 years down the road I will want the latest camera but it won't fully support my existing AF lenses.

Should I worry about this? Or should I just buy the lens and start shooting?

Thanks.

 

[cadman]

As Randy F. would say, "Just shoot me"

Think of all the great shots you will make over that 5 year period. Then sell it as a classic and recoup 1/2 your initial investment.

Not a bad deal. I thought about the 28-70 2.8 because it was not DX, even though the 17-55 was obviously a better choice for me. Then I thought, who cares It will be at least 2-3 years before I could justify a Nikon FF (assuming it's out by then ) and I'll get so many shots... and who says that by the time I could afford FF that the 28-70 has not been replaced with a VRIII version..

buy it, shoot it, bond with it...........

 

[SteveHo]

Even as I was typing my post I was thinking that I was thinking about too much. Just buy it and start shooting...

Good advice...Thanks.

 

[BostonRott]

That's the spirit!!!! :biggrin:

We're always looking for someone who wants to buy lenses and then sell them "almost brand new" in a few days when they don't fit the mindset.

Go on, buy some stuff!! :tongue: :biggrin:

 

[eng45ine]

The VR option you can probably live without, but the silent wave motor may be another issue. But, you won't go wrong buying the 80-200mm D lens.

 

[SteveHo]

I am certainly willing to buy lenses but I can't seem to convince myself to sell them (although I might make an exception for a certain Sigma 28-70 I bought used on eBay).

 

[fks]

hi steve-

given the D40/x, nikon is making AF-S a must-have on the low end of their bodies. will this migrate up? probably not up to the pro level (too many pros with older lenses), but it may eventually go up to the pro-sumer level. again, this is just a guess as i doubt that anyone here has access to nikon's roadmap :frown:

if you want to play it safe, then by all means spend extra for AF-S. if you're willing to put up with a loss, go for the more affordable AF lens now and sell it later. the money you'll save now can also be put aside for

ricky

 

[PhilY]

The VR option you can probably live without,

I can't.

I did just fine for the first 30 years of shooting without VR or auto focus of any kind but now that I have both, I dare you to try to take either away. I could do without AF (or S) a LOT easier than I could VR. In my previous life I just didn't take the shot. Now it's no problem.

Phil

 

[mugman]

Yeah, AF-S and VR are nice to have, but if the lens doesn't have it, it's not a deal breaker. I'm probably going to pickup a 35-70 2.8 in a few weeks. It doesn't have all the new stuff on it, but it's still a great lens.

 

[billg71]

Steve, I wouldn't be too concerned about where Nikon will be 5 years down the road. It's a great lens at a very affordable price. If you don't need the AF-S focusing speed I wouldn't worry about it. Folks managed to take great photos for a long time before AF-S and VR came along and will probably squeak by for 5 more years at least.....:wink:

Since I can put the old 200/4 AI on the D200 and go out and take great photos I wouldn't worry too much about a current lens being obsolete 5 years from now. And 5 years from now I'll still have the D200 and the F100's to use the 80-200D on. And if all else fails, I'll stick it on the front of the F3 or the Nikkormat and keep on truckin'! :biggrin:

Don't fret so much, life's too short! Enjoy!

My $.02/worth,

Bill