Equipment advice needed
Discussion
I'm thinking about spending a *little* cash.
I currently have the following: 10-20mm, 18-55mm, 50mm, 70-210mm, D50 body. So what would be my best option. I like shooting cars, motorsport, buildings, landscapes, people shots outdoors and indoors, plus i'm often disappointed with the noisy results my D50 gives from anything other than minimum iso.
options:
D200 body £760
Reasons: less noise, backlit lcd display, more resolution, wireless controller for sb flash units (no wireless controller on D50), better AF, truer colour representation - D50 gets rather blue in low light. Plus i should get £250 back for the D50 body.
18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 £550
Having to change lenses often is tedious and i look like Mr. Bean doing it.
Carrying less stuff about is good, camera bag not even needed for most things.
I could sell my 18-55 and 70-210 nikkors and get £100+ back.
70-200mm f/2.8 VR £1000+
f/2.8 is something i like. Although i get by without it currently.
Better capture of action photos, especially in low light.
I'd still be changing lenses just as much as before.
Bulky, heavy, cumbersome.
More future-proof.
Its too expensive at the moment, I'd have to wait a while longer for it.
Is the optical quality of this lens going to be noticeably better than the 18-200VR? eg. at 70mm on a sunny day taking a landscape shot?
Is a D50 body good enough to get the best results from the 70-200 2.8?
If i bought the 18-200VR would i soon wish i'd gone for the 2.8 glass?
Sorry for the longwinded post
I currently have the following: 10-20mm, 18-55mm, 50mm, 70-210mm, D50 body. So what would be my best option. I like shooting cars, motorsport, buildings, landscapes, people shots outdoors and indoors, plus i'm often disappointed with the noisy results my D50 gives from anything other than minimum iso.
options:
D200 body £760
Reasons: less noise, backlit lcd display, more resolution, wireless controller for sb flash units (no wireless controller on D50), better AF, truer colour representation - D50 gets rather blue in low light. Plus i should get £250 back for the D50 body.
18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 £550
Having to change lenses often is tedious and i look like Mr. Bean doing it.
Carrying less stuff about is good, camera bag not even needed for most things.
I could sell my 18-55 and 70-210 nikkors and get £100+ back.
70-200mm f/2.8 VR £1000+
f/2.8 is something i like. Although i get by without it currently.
Better capture of action photos, especially in low light.
I'd still be changing lenses just as much as before.
Bulky, heavy, cumbersome.
More future-proof.
Its too expensive at the moment, I'd have to wait a while longer for it.
Is the optical quality of this lens going to be noticeably better than the 18-200VR? eg. at 70mm on a sunny day taking a landscape shot?
Is a D50 body good enough to get the best results from the 70-200 2.8?
If i bought the 18-200VR would i soon wish i'd gone for the 2.8 glass?
Sorry for the longwinded post
I moved from a D70 to a D200 and it's by far the best purchase I've made since starting out.
I know a couple of folks on here have the 18-200 and love it - I haven't used one myself but I can't see how it's anything other than a compromise - whenever someone asks about VR/IS lenses on here, I think it's Poah who always asks, "would you buy it if it didn't have VR?" In this case I suspect the answer is "no way".
Out of interest have you considered the sigma 70-200 f/2.8?
I know a couple of folks on here have the 18-200 and love it - I haven't used one myself but I can't see how it's anything other than a compromise - whenever someone asks about VR/IS lenses on here, I think it's Poah who always asks, "would you buy it if it didn't have VR?" In this case I suspect the answer is "no way".
Out of interest have you considered the sigma 70-200 f/2.8?
I can only compare to the D70, but in addition to your points the 200 has better metering, better contrast and colour, better viewfinder, better handling (more of the important controls are on the body not in the menu), the zoom feature when reviewing pictures kicks the D70 all over the shop, I'm sure there is more that I've forgotten!
_dobbo_ said:
I know a couple of folks on here have the 18-200 and love it - I haven't used one myself but I can't see how it's anything other than a compromise - whenever someone asks about VR/IS lenses on here, I think it's Poah who always asks, "would you buy it if it didn't have VR?" In this case I suspect the answer is "no way".
I have it and yes - it is a compromise and no - if it didn't have VR I would NOT have bought it. This lens IMO is not a substitute - it should be an addition.I wanted a no tripod and one not too big lens with VR for trips , and for that it's OK.
I have a D80, and 24-120 VR, 17-50 F2.8 and 80-200 F2.8 lenses. The 24-120 VR is for sale...
I've had enough of comprimise optics, even if they do have fancy VR. To put things in perspective the 17-50 F2.8 Tamron was £215 new (HK) and the 80-200 F2.8 £250 SH (older push-pull version). Cheaper than an 18-200 and far better quality, plus I love the wide apperture.
I'd go for a fast std lens then consider possibly the VR 80-200 and a D80, std 80-200 and D200 or SH 80-200 and a Fuji S5. The High ISO noise on that is hardly visible.
That said my experience of the 18-200 is limited to a few shots with a friends, but it felt cheap and isn't wonderfully sharp at the top end.
I've had enough of comprimise optics, even if they do have fancy VR. To put things in perspective the 17-50 F2.8 Tamron was £215 new (HK) and the 80-200 F2.8 £250 SH (older push-pull version). Cheaper than an 18-200 and far better quality, plus I love the wide apperture.
I'd go for a fast std lens then consider possibly the VR 80-200 and a D80, std 80-200 and D200 or SH 80-200 and a Fuji S5. The High ISO noise on that is hardly visible.
That said my experience of the 18-200 is limited to a few shots with a friends, but it felt cheap and isn't wonderfully sharp at the top end.
Just thought i'd tell you i bought a lens in the end. After a day at a VW show, my old 70-210 stopped focusing to infinity. It sounded like it was catching on something internally. I took it apart and found that a screw had worked itself loose, so i tightened it then put it back together, but its now slightly soft at infinity 
Guess i'll have to take it apart yet again.
Anyway, VXDuncan's post got me thinking about 2.8 glass so i bought a second hand 80-200mm nikkor f2.8 (tripod collar version) to replace the 70-210. I like it. Its very sharp, but surprisingly heavy!
Body upgrade will have to wait a bit longer
Guess i'll have to take it apart yet again.Anyway, VXDuncan's post got me thinking about 2.8 glass so i bought a second hand 80-200mm nikkor f2.8 (tripod collar version) to replace the 70-210. I like it. Its very sharp, but surprisingly heavy!
Body upgrade will have to wait a bit longer
VxDuncan said:
Hey! Good one! The 80-200 2.8 is a great lens. Bit of a legend. Mines the older one-touch (at the moment....) so a bit slow to focus but bloody sharp, even wide open. Might swap it for a newer one some time, but it only cost me £240 so not too bothered...
Yes! i did a bit of reading up on them and went for the one with the collar in the end. I missed out on a couple of ebay auctions but eventually got one for £345 + £15 delivery so not too bad. The push-pull one you have seems to range on ebay from 200 to 340! Perhaps some people don't realise there's a few versions?I like the look of the tamron 17-50 2.8 you have too, it looks like a great lens.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff