some kit help......

[pirahnah3]

Ok so if some of you remember a while back i was debating on revamping the lens kit, and well some thought has gone into this but the time is comming in the not todistant future to do some more work to it and well theres just too many options nad im finding alot of good thoughts in each so i have a few questions.

Currently the bag holds: D70, 12-24 F4, 18-105VR, 70-210 F4, Tokina 28-70 F2.8, 50 F1.8, and a 105VR F2.8

Ok now that we know whats in there im torn, i made a great trade a few months back with another member for my 70-300VR for his 12-24, what a great deal we are both bvery happy and i had the 70-210 to back it up ok no big deal, but i think i need a better zoom, the 70-210 is nice but i do alot of outdoor shooting where i cant get a tripod into or i want somthing a bit longer and or faster. Help me out here im torn

70-300VR again- this is a great lens, not too heavy, great handheld results at 300mm even at night
70-200VR yeah id prob pickup a used version 1 but this lens has its price and along with the hefty price comes a hefty weight
80-200 F2.8 (any version), great lens kinda inbetween on price while still getting great image results, but again a weighty lens.

Now i know i brought up the weight, i havnt had an issue carrying it around at all jus thinking of long days of shooting and the arms getting tired after a while of using the particular lens.

With the lens choices out there ive been heavily thinking of a body upgrade, the D300 is heavily winning for the used price and the fact that thanks to some advice when i got my D70 i bought the grey batteries that will work in the D300, primarily i want the upgraded ISO of this camera, but this also brings up the point of going all out and spening more money and getting the D700 with eve nbetter ISO performance, but then do i ahve to deal with cropping the sensor with the wide angle DX lens, I think the D300 would win but the D700 is still ratteling aroundin my mind on occasion.

Now onto the rest of the lenses, im going to be picking up an 85 F1.8 soon, I have been thinking with all these great primes, that i could easily sell my 18-105 as i find myself with the 12-24 on alot of the time, i might also sell the tokina lens in favor of the nikon version to have a small zoon, and then make this my walkaround lens, but this comes at a great price for a great lens. If i decide to sell the 18-105 that i have thought about adding the 35 F1.8 to the bag to fill that little void as well.

So with all that said with cash being a partial thought to all of this any advice? also if there is somthing else im missing and you think would be a good addition tell me where it would fill in and why i need it other than well i have a severe NAS problem lol

for some aditional info on lesnes and why i use them, the zoom would spend alot of time at races as im a fan of nascar and local short tracks, the 12-24 is my main lens for going to car shows (im a gearhead in process of a classic restoration) and the rest get played wit hall over hte place, nature, around the house, out for a walk, im just getting into the macro part and im loving it so far with the 105.

 

[lossy]

You will probably see the biggest upgrade trading the 70-210 for the 70-300. A more robust body would be most useful if you were going with an older screw driven lens. I say go with what you know. (Unless of course a lot of time will be spent shooting at night.)

 

[kensington]

When I bought my D70 years ago I picked up the 70-300 4-5.6 and quickly started looking for a replacement, Found a used 80-200 2.8 AF-D 2 ring version for $600 and loved that thing. Had it for like 3 years, sold it for $600, great investment.

I picked up the 70-200 2.8 ver 1 for faster and better focus and love it. Weight was never an issue (I'm not the most fit guy int he world either) and definitely worth the quality. Perhaps if you're lucky you'll find some decent used prices for the version 1 now.

As far as bodies, I had the D70 for a couple years then upgraded to the D200 for 3 years and just got my D700 last week. Huge jump from D200 to D700! I really love this thing!

 

[Pianisimo]

You know how good the 70-300VR is. And you know the IQ and build of the 80-200 and 70-200VR are both pretty fantastic. If you're also looking at an 85/1.8 and a D300 though, and you don't use your tele all that much, I would recommend the 55-200VR. Now before you jump on me, and I know I'm probably pretty alone here, I've gotten some amazing sports photos with a 55-200VR and it's quite a sharp, capable lens. The 70-300VR would be better, but for someone like me who doesn't shoot past 100mm very often, I would much rather have a 55-200VR and an 85/1.8 than the 70-300VR. I just got the 85/1.8 yesterday and it might be my favorite lens I've ever owned so far, I'm not a huge fan of telephoto focal lengths but it's just really fun to use. You already have the 105VR but in my opinion the 105 and 85 are two different beasts. I much perfer the 85 for portraits over my old 50, it has been great for low light so far.

 

[pirahnah3]

ok ill bite, there was a 55-200VR in the hosue that was sold as it just felt too weak to me in the build category, your rright i loved my 70-300VR so why is it better to you?

 

[Pianisimo]

ok ill bite, there was a 55-200VR in the hosue that was sold as it just felt too weak to me in the build category, your rright i loved my 70-300VR so why is it better to you?

I've never owned the 70-300VR but from the samples here and the few I've tried out, basically it produces pro-quality pictures for under $500. You won't have the 2.8 aperture, but you'll have VR and some great IQ, plus AFS and more reach than the 80-200.

 

[pirahnah3]

ahh ok i thought you were saying take the 55-200 over the 70-300

 

[SUN RA KAT]

There is a huge difference between the D70 and a D300, IMHO sort of like going from a 300mm F4.5 ED AIS lens to a 300mm F2.8 AFS lens. I have both a D70 and a D300...and also a D700. The D70 still takes very good photos, but after seeing how much better the D300 is I had my D70 converted to IR by Jim Chen.

I would keep the 12-24 F4 = it's a good lens for DX. I would also keep the 18-105VR, 70-210 F4, Tokina 28-70 F2.8, 50 F1.8, and a 105VR F2.8 = they are all good lenses. I would sell the 70-210 and get another 70-300 VR. All these lenses except the 12-24 F4 and 18-105 VR will work on a FX camera like the D700, and the D700 and D3 series will crop the sensor down to DX size = they will work on FX Nikon cameras, too.

I have both the 70-300 VR and the 80-200 F2.8 AFS, but I use the 70-300 VR a whole lot more than the F2.8 AFS lens because of the lighter weight of the 70-300 VR and close IQ. The 70-300 VR is my go-to lens for daylight telephoto. If I need a telephoto for night work, then the 80-200 F2.8 AFS comes out & usually on a tripod.

To summerize -

1. Get a used D300 or D700.
2. Keep the D70 and have it converted to IR (mine was done for $200 by Jim Chen).
3. Sell the 70-210 and get the 70-300 VR used.
4. Go out and take photos.

 

[heiko]

I would also go for the 70-300VR. I have the 80-200/2.8 AF-D two ring which is a great lens, but it is almost as big and as heavy as the 70-200VR. It doesn't have VR, which would be helpful for such a focal length. I also own the 70-300VR which is usually in my travel kit. I also own the 180/2.8 AF-D.

I am not familiar with the 70-210, but unless you are happy with it, I would change it for either the 70-300VR, the 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8VR. Here is the tricky part: If you find shooting at races at high shutter speed and high ISO at aperture of 5.6, then a f2.8 lens might help. If you like to get motion blur in the background and use a slightly longer exposure, the 70-300VR will be just fine since you can set the VR on active (or whatever it's called) and that will do the trick.

The best of all is the 70-200VR, but that is expensive and heavy.

As for the Nikkor 24-70/2.8, this lens is anything but a small walkaround lens! I tried it in a shop - it would scare off mosquitoes in swamp. You wouldn't want to point with that at strangers (it's a close distance kind of lens). The optics are excellent though. Probably a perfect lens for wedding photogs using a D3 or D700.

Regarding camera, the D200 is pretty inexpensive now. It's no much good for low light, though. If you need high ISO, you should look at the D90 or D300. The D90 is a great camera and I almost bought it, but I wanted the real thing and went for the D700. No regrets at all.

By the way, I had a D70 before and used it until May this year - 5 years in total. I still use it in rare occasions, but what did I buy the D700 for if not for using it.

All lenses mentioned here are also good on FX, if you ever take the plunge.

 

[heiko]

One more thing: The D90 is basically a D300 in a D70 body (well, almost - the D90 has a smaller grip). Picture quality should be identical. The difference is the pro body of the D300, and probably faster focusing with AF-D lenses. Hope I'm not getting burned with this statement. ISO 1600 is no problem, and ISO 3200 is still useful.

The viewfinder of the D90 is pretty decent, MUCH better than the D70 (this and high ISO are almost the only downsides of the D70). The D300 may be even better, but I can't recall or compare now. Viewfinder and high ISO were for me the reasons to choose the D700. I later discovered there are other things to the D700. But I still think the D90 is a very capable piece of equipment.

 

[CraigH]

I'd get a D90 and the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 AFS VII. You'd be in there for around the cost of a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR and have the same basic output as the D300.

On the other hand, if you can stretch to a D700, you'd be golden. It was for me.

 

[neimac]

I say trade the 70-210 for a 70-300 VR, get the SB 800/900 you want, my SB 600 has done more for my photography then anything else I have bought lately.
Choice of camera's is a tough one, I would probably go with the D300, not the D300s save yourself some money.

 

[pirahnah3]

Thanks kenny you know i always take special acount to what my friends have to say (yeah lol he is the one responsible for my NAS to begin with)

Now that i have a few more responses, the 70-210 came inot the fold as my first lens not in the kit that i bought, and at the time i just needed a zoom and didnt know much other than it would work on the camera. It sits around now just because it has come in handy a couple times before the 18-105 came in and shortly after the 70-300 was traded. So its hanging around now just because it reaches to 210 and nothing else does. The iso and shutter quality are the main reason for the body upgrade andi have heard form a few diff people that i talk to that the D700 would be about the last camera i would ever really need, well at least for the next 10-15 years, or major failure.Im leaning more towards the300 thou as it is half the price used typically and i like my free 1.5 teleconverter lol. The 70-300 seems to be calling me to put it back into the bag, so that kinda solves the telephoto issue but what about my thoughtso n primes, i have come to enjoy the challnege of using them and having the F2.8 tokiuna is really nice inside museums and such but it just doesnt focus as fast as i would like it to. hence me looking at other choices on that.

 

[RonAnnArbor]

Wow, it sounds like you have more than lens lust at this point -- it's camera lust too...

Some personal thoughts? If you are looking at the D300, seriously consider the D90 - it has better IQ (really) and it is a fine camera with video capabilities as well. I prefer using it to the D300 on a daily basis. I have upgraded to a D700 for most of my shooting, but the D90 is the backup, not the D300 which I might be selling down the road if I don't give it to my nephew to use in college next year.

I would definitely put the 70-300VR lens back into your kit. As to speedy standard zoom's or primes we have a dozen threads on those herein...you are going to be looking at things like 35 or 50mm primes (I'd suggest the 50mm 1.8 as it's cheap and will work on an FX camera if you upgrade someday...it's also one of Nikon's fastest and sharpest lenses ever). THere are also great lenses like the Nikon 17-55 (1300.00) or the Tamron 17-50 (350.00) which is an awesome fast 2.8 lens. The newer version of it even has vibration reduction (VC in Tamron terminology).

One word of general advise -- if you are happy with the DX format and its focal range, stick with it, and get the best glass you can afford. If you are tempted by FX format, be aware that DX lenses are going to be insufficient if you switch to that format down the road. Getting a FX camera means buying decent FX glass to go with it.