Nikon Lenses

[epic]

Hey guys, I finally moved into the DSLR world this year. I started using the lenses that have been collecting dust with my N90S for the past 10 years or so. A 24-120 and 75-300 neuither one of them is great, but they both do OK. I am using it mainly for skiing photos and MTB, but of course, shots of the kids, zoo, etc.

After this season, I have a better idea of what I want to do for lenses. I'm thinking 28-300 VR is on my list for sure. It seems like it's actually a pretty good lens, I was super-skeptical about a 10x zoom lens, but it gets decent reviews. I think the VR could be pretty nice, and it'll probably perform better than both of my zoom lenses rolled into one. It's not much bigger than the 24-120 and I don't like changing lenses on the hill (don't want snow or dirt in body).

I've also been eyeing a used 35-70 f2.8. Often times, I just take the 50mm 1.8 skiing, and I don't feel like I missing out on much, but there are times where I wish I had a slightly wider or slightly longer lens. This lens will take nice pictures and is pretty small and cheap esp. compared to 24-70 f2.8.

Finally, I like the looks of the 80-400 zoom, but I hear that it's focus is slow and one place it would be used is shooting my daughter's ski races. My wife has been using 75-300, but doesn't want to walk up the hill so most of the shots are a green dot on a white background. 400 won't get her that much closer, so maybe this would be a waste of $.

Any thoughts? 28-300 seems like a no-brainer. Not sure about the others.

[Mathematics]

What camera do you have? DX (crop) or full frame? From the lenses you mentioned interest in it seems full frame?

if you have that much money to spend on lenses (28-300 retails $800+) I'd get an 80-200 2.8, which is sharp & fast enough for skiing, then a 28-75 2.8 (tamron) that is cheap & light, but probably as fast & sharp as the old 35-70. A 2.0x teleconverter for the 80-200 would put you in the 400mm range.

my $.02 but get whatever you think will work for the focal range you shoot in most. and sign up at FredMiranda or another photo forum, buy used.

[epic]

D700

I'm not sure I'd want to take a 80-200 skiing with me. It's awfully big, and as I said, I'm pretty happy shooting near 50mm. I kinda don't want to take more than one lens skiing and get snow or water in the body when changing. I was thinking about TC, but what are the negatives. Obviously, it makes the F-stop slow, but what does it do to AF and what-not. If it is pretty seamless, I could see getting the 80-200 (which I'd really like to have) and a TC instead of 80-400. I don't mind spending some money on the glass, and will do it at an affordable pace. I've had my current lenses for about 20 years, so I'm sure that in the end, I'll get my money's worth.

[Mathematics]

80-200mm is definitely a big lenses to carry around, if weight is an issue the 28-300mm might be the lens for you. I guess from my perspective I'd just rather have the speed of a 2.8.

The new 2.0x TC Nikon just put out has got nothing but rave reviews...you lose a couple stops, but you'd lose that with the 80-400 anyways. Search google image for nikon tc 2.0 and you'll see some pretty sharp shots.

[smmokan]

I would think you'd want something wider for some of the skiing shots... one of the 18-XXX lenses maybe?

IMO, a f/2.8 lens isn't as important for skiing photography.

[54-46]

If you like shooting around 50mm, then get an 18-70mm for less than $200 and you won't have to worry about it.

ex: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digi...99070184J?r=FE

review: http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm#drawbacks

[hop]

The 80-400 is a piece of junk, and that's all I've got to say about that.

[Trainwreck]

I would think you'd want something wider for some of the skiing shots... one of the 18-XXX lenses maybe?

IMO, a f/2.8 lens isn't as important for skiing photography.

Actually the angle of view at 28mm on a D700 is only 2 degrees smaller (74 versus 76) than an 18-x DX lens. I'm not sure how the math works but the 17-35 on a full frame body offers a max 104 degree angle of view, the 18 - 55 DX on a DX body gives you 76 degrees

I have a D700 and I want the 28-300 for a walk-around lens badly. It is getting rave reviews and to carry the same range in 2.8 glass requires a back pack. They are going on FM forums for just under $800 now.

[smmokan]

Oh, I didn't know the D700 was a full frame body.... that would make a difference, agreed.


Nice to see you wander into the photo forum.

[epic]

The 80-400 is a piece of junk, and that's all I've got to say about that.

Good to know, cuz it's not cheap.

[Mathematics]

IMO, a f/2.8 lens isn't as important for skiing photography.

ya we dont have those fancy f/4 lenses you canon guys have. and the 70-300 I had, while fast enough to catch some shots, is slooooooooow compared to the 70-200 I have now, that doesnt ever miss a single shot, evar.

[epic]

ya we dont have those fancy f/4 lenses you canon guys have. and the 70-300 I had, while fast enough to catch some shots, is slooooooooow compared to the 70-200 I have now, that doesnt ever miss a single shot, evar.

Do you mean slow focusing, or slow f-stop? I assume you mean focusing. How is it that the 70-200 costs 2-3x as much as the 80-200? They both have VR and ED glass I think, so what's the difference?

[crackboy]

could be construction, or gearing

[Trainwreck]

Do you mean slow focusing, or slow f-stop? I assume you mean focusing. How is it that the 70-200 costs 2-3x as much as the 80-200? They both have VR and ED glass I think, so what's the difference?

Slow focusing, the AF on the 70-200 2.8 is hard to beat even on the VR1 version. The 80-200 doesn't have VR either.

[Big Tuna]

Check out kenrockwell.com he has good honest reviews on all things Nikon. I have bought numerous things based on his reviews and have always been pleased. Also check out KEH.com for buying and trading camera gear.

With the low noise of the D700 at high ISOs, I don't really see the need for 2.8 lens unless you just like carrying around a big heavy lens. I have an 80-200mm 2.8 and it stays home on most trips due to the weight.

Good luck.

[pointedem]

The new 24-120 f/4 is nasty (not the 3.5). Poor mans 24-70. You lose a stop of light still have Nano coat, ED glass, VR and AFS. This would be the single lens I would invest in if I were just building my quiver... hands down, no question.

80-400, too expensive for initial investment, overpriced as well. Find a older 80-200 2.8 AFD. Tack sharp glass and the AF isn't bad at all... Snappy on a pro body actually.

Add the 50 1.8 and 35 2.0 and you are mostly there. Look to the Tokina 12-24 for your affordable WA. Only thing it gives up to the Nikon version is flare control, and that's minimal. Nikkor 20-35 2.8 is also a great bang for the buck right now.

[Chainsaw_Willie]

I have an 18-35 f3.5 - 4.5 I've been trying to sell. Takes really nice pics, quick focusing, etc. Makes a real nice WA on an FX camera. I'd let it go for $250.

I never found it useful for skiing, I like longer lenses for that as you're not usually all that close to your subject. The 24-120 is a great focal length for skiing pics and the new F4 version looks like a pretty sweet lens.

That said, the 28-300 on an FX body would probably be a "quiver of one" lens except for when you're shooting the ski races. I think the 80-200 with the TC would be a good choice there except as you noted in your OP that the 300mm lens isn't getting close enough so the 400 won't be a huge difference. Getting reach beyond 400mm gets awfully expensive. Any way you can get closer to the racers?