I overcame NAS...

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by ExNavyDoc, Sep 25, 2008.

  1. ExNavyDoc

    ExNavyDoc

    59
    Aug 27, 2008
    Pennsylvania
    For now, anyway.

    I had been seriously thinking about a 200-400VR for better reach for soccer, etc. for about 6 months. I eagerly poured over all the 200-400VR threads on all the forums (fora?), drooling over the outstanding photos I have seen taken with this lens.

    Then, a few weeks ago, I saw that B&H had them in stock. My wife was appalled at the price. She reasoned, "you're not a pro, you get great pictures with what you have now (70-200VR). Why spend the money?" But at last, she said, "well, we can afford it. Do what you want."

    Aha!! The decks were cleared. I had the credit card in hand, and...hesitated.

    Mmm, I thought. It is quite a bit of money. Will I really use this lens enough to justify the cost to myself?

    Instead, I bought the battery grip and the TC1.4E.

    I'm glad I did what I did. The grip and the 8fps has been invaluable, the TC not so much. And after carefully evaluating the pics I've been taking, I realized the 200-400VR would have been just about useless 50% of the time. The field lighting on most of the fields our kids play on is terrible, and sunset comes on earlier and earlier this time of year. I have been shooting my D300 at f/2.8 and ISO 6400 nearly half the time. This will only increase as the lights come on earlier and earlier later in the season.

    So, right now, I am a happy camper. I saved both money and a lot of potential buyer's remorse.

    I am still thinking over the utility of a 300 f2.8 prime, though I would hate to give up the versatility of a zoom. Maybe next year....:wink:

    Mike
     
  2. I'm addicted to lenses. It's my biggest and worst vice second to puppies! :tongue:
     
  3. Good job restraining yourself! I would think that with youth soccer, only having 200 on the short end would limit some of your shots.

    I find that when using my Sigma 120-300 and TC (168mm on the short end) I sometimes find that I'm too close to the action. This happens more often with soccer or lacrosse when a play is coming right at me. The 70-200 and 1.4TC is a great combo - I had the 80-200 AFS and 1.4TC and was very pleased with it.

    I have to admit that I have succumbed to NAS a few times, and I will probably give in again in the next few months for a 70-300 VR (sometimes the 120-300 is just too damn big!).
     
  4. Bolts

    Bolts

    May 7, 2007
    Tampa, Florida
    Is going to the Lens Lust Forum and telling everyone you've overcome NAS kinda like going to a smoking section and telling everyone you quit smoking?

    :wink:
     
  5. pardon my ignorance - but whats' NAS?
     
  6. SpoonFed

    SpoonFed

    300
    Jul 19, 2008
    Bay Area
    NAS = "Nikon Acquisition Syndrome"
     
  7. nht800

    nht800

    Aug 26, 2008
    Missouri, USA
    :biggrin: hahah I could not agree with you more!
     
  8. Mike -

    Great restraint, but I think that you've really only put NAS into remission. You're still lusting after the 300/f2.8 (sort of like my lusting after a 400/f2.8). :biggrin: But seriously, you're doing better than a lot of us!
     
  9. Hey, Mike,

    I am proud of you. You are brave and true, in the best of traditions... just don't get comfortable.:biggrin:
     
  10. I'm going to stir up the NAS a bit for you Mike.
    Pair that sweet 200-400 up with a D3 or D700 and you'll be in hog-heaven.
    You can bump the ISO to cover the F/4.
    Your D300 grip will work with the D700 so look how much money you'll be saving:biggrin:

    Don
     
  11. Humm, I don't have NAS.. Have not even a inkling for the bug for new gear...
     
  12. PeteZ28

    PeteZ28

    Oct 5, 2007
    Newtown, PA
    Ah, sounds like what you REALLY need is an 85 f/1.4 and a 200 f/2.0!!! :biggrin:
     
  13. ExNavyDoc

    ExNavyDoc

    59
    Aug 27, 2008
    Pennsylvania
    True, sometimes. I can get on the sidelines for my kid's games, so that helps. I've also found that if I can nail the focus with my D300, I can crop the heck out of a photo and it will still look quite good. In fact, my personal experience is that the TC1.4 slows the auto focus on my 70-200 just enough, even in good light, that I miss focus ever slow slightly fairly often. I've found its better to leave the TC off, and crop, than to try to get that little extra bit of reach. Plus, the subject isolation is better with slightly nicer bokeh.

    YMMV, of course...
     
  14. ExNavyDoc

    ExNavyDoc

    59
    Aug 27, 2008
    Pennsylvania
    Nah, I won't.

    One of my old college roommates and his family live in Alaska, and he has been after us to come up for a visit. We will probably take a cruise up that way eventually, and stay with them for a bit. I told my wife if / when we do that, I will definitely pick up the 200-400 or something along those lines for the wildlife shots. It won't be for a couple of years yet though.
     
  15. kiwi

    kiwi

    Jan 1, 2008
    Auckland, NZ
    nooo, what you REALLY need is a D3 for the 6400ISO
     
  16. MMarz

    MMarz

    Sep 15, 2007
    Long Island, NY
    Sad to say, I don't think you've put NAS to bed. I see the 70-200 / 1.4 TC as the perfect match for the 200-400!!

    You have a 280/4.0 that is perfectly portable..I think you still *NEED* the 200-400 for the longer reach!!

    That said, the 300/2.8 is killer, especially with a 1.4 TC (420/4.0).

    If I were to do it again, and at some point..I will, I think I might opt for the 200-400 if only for the portability. I don't find the fixed FL of the primes much of a hindrance.. I also think there is a phsycological aspect to consider as well. If you own a 200-400, you'll be using it often as it is a great focal length and will be a natural with your 70-200. If you go the route I have, 70-200, 300/2.8 and 500/4.5, with all the TC's, there will always be at least one piece of big glass sitting at home unused. Since getting the 500, the 300 doesn't get as much use as it used to.

    But I digress... 70-200 + 1.4 TC is super. A 200-400 + 1.4 TC is killer as well!! It's only a matter of time!!!
     
  17. Ruyooka

    Ruyooka Guest

    Pardon my intruding, Paul, but I thought that I should share a little more info regarding NAS, the Nikon Acquisition Syndrome. This chronic and probably incurable medical condition is spreading at a worrisome rate and, if I succeed in persuading the WHO, it will soon be listed in the next edition of the International Classification of Diseases.

    What do we know about it:

    Worldwide occurrence, with the majority of cases reported in North America, the European Union, Australia/NZ and Asia. No reports yet from the poorer countries of the world. Not sure why. :)

    Afflicts men and women in a ratio of 50:1. No age is spared, though the majority of cases are men between 35 and 60 yrs. Majority are amateur/enthusiasts. Rarely afflicts professional photographers who make $$$$$ from shooting photos.

    Starts with the purchase of a consumer/prosumer Nikon camera and a kit lens. Then the patient surfs the internet and discovers Nikon-dedicated sites such as this one, where he reads about the latest and greatest and the yet to come Nikon products.

    Suddenly his current kit feels terribly inadequate. He has a D300 already, but feels helplessly impatient to get his hands on the newly announced, yet to be released D90. And so he buys the next lens and body that have been praised by the “experts” -themselves in the terminal stages of the disease, of course. Then before learning how to really get the most out of the latest acquisitions, the patient learns about the next item that he MUST have. And so it goes.

    The patient checks various Nikon-centric websites several times a day for new announcements from Nikon. He also hates one Ken Rockwell of California for downplaying the magic and absolute necessity of acquiring the best and latest and most expensive from Nikon.

    Within a year or two of onset, the patient will have a collection that usually looks like this:

    D70s, D80, D200, D300,D3, D700, 18-70 3.5-5.6, 12-24 f/4, 17-35 f 2.8, 17-55 f 2.8, 27-70 f 2.8., 14-24 f 2.8, 28-70 f.28, 50 f 1.4, 50 f 1.8, 85 f 1.4, 85 f 1.8, 105 f 2.8 VR, 70 -200 f 2.8, 200 f 2.8, 200-400 f4,TC-14, TC 17, TC 20, SB600, SB 800 X 2, SB 900. Oh, did I mention those tilt lenses? And then.........

    And then the rumours of a D3X start. And then the D90 is released. And then the Nikkor 50 f 1.4 AF-S is announced. And then the patient checks his credit cards for a window of opportunity to.......... you get the drift.

    One great unknown about NAS:

    How often the patients actually shoot photos with their marvelous collection.

    What is the most effective treatment? Become a pro photographer and you'll get rid of most of the stuff. A less effective measure…. Stop surfing the net. Do not read these sites.
    Best of luck!

    Muniini
    A Nikonian in Toronto
     
  18. LOL! Oh man.... you're Evil :wink::biggrin:
     
  19. Hey, Muniini,
    ROTFLMAO! Welcome to the Cafe! I can tell it's going to be fun having you around. You may have just described what my life would have been if I had a high credit limit on my credit cards! Fortunately, I've just had a scaled down version of this experience.

    Are you a sociologist?
     
  20. audu67

    audu67

    337
    Jan 14, 2008
    Decatur, Alabama
    Mike,

    Similar time (B&H a few weeks ago) and story. But I took the plunge and have really enjoyed my 200-400. I tried the TC route and didn't like it. I plan to get a lot of use for Soccer and Baseball.