hey photo geeks
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
Chris Losinger wrote:
what would you do ?
Get a new hobby? ;P
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown "All things good to know are difficult to learn" ~ Greek Proverb "The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary" ~ Vidal Sassoon
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
Very hard choice (when you know you want 'em all ;) ) However...
Chris Losinger wrote:
Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens
You know if you don't go for this one you're going to be continually cursing that you need more length (not that the 300mm will stop this, but at least you'll only start cursing at 300mm, not 240mm :rolleyes: ) Have fun with whatever you decide on!
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
though the 18-200 seems faster, I doubt it is. The 3.5 is probably just at 18mm, when you zoom up to 70mm you're probably also at 4.5 (or worse) just like the other one. I would go for the 70-300, it's cheaper, it's got more length, and as other said, sometimes it's convenient to carry only one smaller lens.
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
I would never, ever by a zoom that was as 'wide' as an 18-200 - the quality will never be as great as separate 18-?? and ??-200 lenses. Lenses like that are designed for convenience, not for the highest lens quality. Seeing as you alreay have a 'decent' 18-35, I would consider the 70-300 instead. And later on get a top-quality 24-105 VR (or whatever Nikon has) But all your lenses are quite slow. So I would plug the gap with a fixed focal-length 50mm f1.4. These lenses are really cheap, and amazingly high quality because the glass is so simple in construction (there's hardly any compared to a zoom). You'll be surprised how much better the pictures are than your zooms. A 50mm can be a really good walk-round lens, especially in evenings when it gets darker. Bottom line - spend the most amount of money on the lens that you will use most of the time.
-
I would never, ever by a zoom that was as 'wide' as an 18-200 - the quality will never be as great as separate 18-?? and ??-200 lenses. Lenses like that are designed for convenience, not for the highest lens quality. Seeing as you alreay have a 'decent' 18-35, I would consider the 70-300 instead. And later on get a top-quality 24-105 VR (or whatever Nikon has) But all your lenses are quite slow. So I would plug the gap with a fixed focal-length 50mm f1.4. These lenses are really cheap, and amazingly high quality because the glass is so simple in construction (there's hardly any compared to a zoom). You'll be surprised how much better the pictures are than your zooms. A 50mm can be a really good walk-round lens, especially in evenings when it gets darker. Bottom line - spend the most amount of money on the lens that you will use most of the time.
i have a 50mm 1.8 and a 105mm 2.8 macro. i didn't list them because they aren't on the list of things that i'd replace with a zoom of any kind. the macro's obviously a special case, and the 50's, as you say, a great walkin-around lens.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses
But then you'll have to lug around a big lens ALL the time. When you just want to take some happy snaps at a party it will be a real pain
that's what the little pocket-size Canon SD is for.
-
i'm in a horrible dilemma. i have the following lenses: Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-.45 Quantary 28-80mm 3.5-? Nikon 75-240mm 4.5-5.6 (all Nikon AF) except for the first, they're nothing special. and even the first is just a decent wide-angle. i'm thinking about getting a new long zoom. i want a VR lens (vibration reduction), and i'd like something a bit longer than 240mm. i do enough really long shots, and nighttime concert stuff that i really want a good long zoom. and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
Chris Losinger wrote:
and... Nikon has a new 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR lens. for somewhere around $500. that would clearly replace the 75-240mm (which i could then sell for maybe, $100). it sounds good, has good reviews, etc.. but, there's also a Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR. it's a little faster than the 70-300mm, though not as long. but it covers nearly all of my existing lenses (so i could sell them all for maybe $300). it costs somewhere north of $650. what would you do ?
hehehe, well... I will tell you what I "did". I was considering just the same new lens, so I did my homework. The history of the VR lens is rather interesting on both Nikon and Canon. I won't bore you with the details, other than we are on about version 2+ on each. So what makes this new lens so cheap when the others are $650 to $1200? The expensive ones are the latest greatest hottest tech in VR, but the new cheap one is reintroducing the older technology of the first generation VR lenses which years ago sold for $1200 also. We happened to have about 10 of those same lenses, the original version 1.0 Nikon VR technology sitting in a cabinet gathering dust. Other than being 100mm-400mm zoom the response is the same as these new cheap lenses. It is still rock solid better than using a lens without any VR!! Sure I noticed the response speed, and okay, I could only go a little farther in time handheld than I could without VR. But that much was instantly noticeable. Why? because every time you can double the time exposure you can increase the light onto the sensor. sports is still a blur, and probably more of a blur, but indoors, cloudy weather, and other longer exposure situations offer more possibilities. Also you can increase your Fstop on other photos outdoors and increase your depth of field with a longer exposure. Sometimes you really want a narrow depth of field, sometimes you don't, but when the light forces you to choose one over the other just to take the shot that you don't want in order to get any shot... well, it gets to me, so choice is good. I haven't yet, but it is on my list of goodies. I still have the lens checked out from work. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)