What lenses are you going to buy for your Nikon D300?

[David Chin]

I'm still having a tough time deciding which lens to choose:
- Nikkor 70-300mm VR
- Nikkor 70-200mm VR
- Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D AF

I already have the following for my Nikon D70:
- Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF (my favorite by far)
- Tamron 28-75mm
- Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
- Nikkor 28-200mm f/2.5-5.6G (my second favorite lens)

[Alessandro]

for me, Nikkor 70-200mm VR.

[Jim Phillips]

Is not the 18-200mm VR I I amazingly versatile?

[10dency]

My vote would go for the 70-200, too. Having f2.8 on a 200 lens is pretty neat.

[David Chin]

Thanks for the suggestions!

My main motivation for getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR would be to take pictures like this :> http://www.pbase.com/flowsnow/image/86866159/original

I currently don't have any lenses that can do f/2.8 at 200mm, so I might end up getting that 70-200 anyway!

[ORANGUTAN]

Hello fellow brothers ( and sisters ! )
Very tempted by FX format. As such may consider 24-70 in lieu of 17-55 standing by for future upgrade to next generation FX in D300 body size.
May consider AF-S 400 VR or 200-400 VR. ( Frustrated with insufficient reach of 70-200VR with TC 1.7 for bird photography. ) No doubt only an amateur. But we only live once ! Use the best there is whenever bank account allows. (So there goes the wife's trip to Alaska !!)

[David Chin]

I was afraid someone might say that the 70-200 VR + TC isn't sufficient for bird photography. I know I'm being unrealistic thinking that the 70-200 VR could do it all ... looks like I'd better put that thought aside.

OrangUtan - the Nikon 200-400 will be exactly what you need. I wouldn't mind owning that lens too, especially after seeing the great images one can get with the 200-400VR, which I've linked up at :> http://www.dpnotes.com/nikkor-200-400mm-samples-and-reviews/

The 400mm VR would probably give stunning images, at the expense of zoom flexibility I guess.

[ORANGUTAN]

Hi David!
My local Nikon dealer until today can neither confirm the delivery of the precious D300 nor the price for it. So what do you suggest we do for the time being ? Lots of subjective conjecture and furore are being submitted at sites like dpreview. Yet really not much " real beef " are there for our consumption. Luckily for some of us we are upgrading from lower than D200 so the defensive stance of " not worth upgrading to D300 " is entirely unnecessary. 3 months ago an upgrade to D200 was more than good enough . Now with the D300 coming on steam it can not be any better given the similar prices ( may be 10-20 % more ? )

I have been shooting some pitchers with the 18-200VR ( my favorite all this while ) because of the versatility and left the 105VR in the bag cold most times. Lately I picked up the 105VR again and went through some rounds with it for non-macro works on some upper pitchers of Nepenthes Ampullaria. I examined similar types of shots on my 19" LCD Acer screens ( sorry my monitor is not calibrated. I am weak at the post processing and pretty lazy to learn the ropes ) and " redicovered" the beautiful sharpness and bokeh of the 105VR over the 18-200VR . ( Actually this 18-200VR copy of mine is awefully sharp as well for most intents and purposes. Its not a sour lemon like some lamented..) Ok I long realized it 's common knowledge that a prime lens is often better in most respects over the superzooms. But like me if one has to lug all the gears up a hill slope without porterage it is hellish after some hours of hard labour.
So I wonder if you ever regretted not bringing more of your gears especially they are already paid for and are there at your disposal. I must confess my sins of using my 70-200VR the least becos' of the weight and the distance I have to lug around my gear bag most of the time.
Cheers.

[David Chin]

Hmmm, what should we do while waiting for the D300 ... well, I got myself a 40D and am in the painful process of writing a 40D review, lol. I now appreciate Phil Askey's reviews more than ever, because it's so darn hard writing a credible and useful review.

Now, I'm not recommending that ya'll go out and get yourself another camera system just for the heck of it. I got the 40D, lenses and flash with the intention of re-selling it for a definite monetary loss, but had to buy the system anyway due to the possibility of getting some jobs while waiting for the D300. It would have been so perfect if only the D300 came out the same time with the 40D.

But the 40D managed to get me an "audience" with the famous Hong Kong star Simon Yam, so I've no complaints :-) (I even managed to get his autograph on the Canon 580 EX II Speedlite case).

Back to your question, I don't have your experience because I've never had big lenses. Into the bag goes the D70 and SB-800, always, with the 50mm f/1.8D AF mounted on the camera, plus the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G EF-IF. Or I could choose to mount my Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 on the camera and carry the 50mm f/1.8D AF.

But I can imagine that, yeah, I would most probably commit the same "sin" of not bringing the 70-200 VR with me on more casual, non-photographic outings. It would be great if Nikon manufactured the equivalent of Canon's 70-200mm f/4 series of lenses - they truly are a light and high quality lens.

[Thundrr 1]

While I don't have a large budget for lenses, only having the prosumer 17-55 and a 55-200 VR so far, my first prime lens is going to be the 1.8 or the 1.4 50 mm. I intend to make the camera pay for the upgrades. I drool over some of the avalible lenses and realize that they are the part of this field that will retain the most value, down the road. The bodies will come and go, but the glass will be where the money should be placed. Next would be that 70-300mm VR.

George

[David Chin]

George, I think you meant the prosumer 18-55mm, and not the 17-55mm? I might be wrong.

But your strategy of accumulating some money with the camera first is an excellent idea. With my Nikon D70, the only lens I had from the start was the superb 50mm f/1.8D AF (see my mini-review of it). I then added lenses as I became more sure of the type of photography I wanted to do.

[Thundrr 1]

David, you are correct. I was confused, as usual. I no longer have "senior moments", it's now "senior week". And it's a lot more fun than the first senior week I ever had. Yes, I did get my first prime and it is the 50mm f 1.8. I am now awaiting my D300 and am looking forward to giving both of them a workout. I've read your write up on the 1.8 and learned much from it. Being that it's made in China, I'll be sure not to lick it. Don't need the lead paint syndrome. Thanks for the correction.

George

[ORANGUTAN]

Hi David,
My present collection of lenses are - , 18-200VR, 105VR, , and 70-200VR , Tokina 12-24 ,TC 1.7, 50 1.8.( I bought them in that order during the last 4 months. Now that I am 50 sliding down hill I thought what the hack time waits for no one . Never mind I am no pro; never mind I have yet to learn photoshop etc D300 it will be . ( I must admit a little bit shamefully If not for the "equal rights to spend" demand of the other half very possibly I might have plunged silly for the superlative D3 - I do know very well D3 will not improve my compositional ability and aesthetic levels of appreciation for matters beautiful. And neither would pitcher plants begin to grow legs and race around to suit the 11 frames/ sec D3 if I do get one. Hack even my present D80 is not used fully. I haven't even bought the SB 800 to try out flash photography !! )

I for one find it difficult to advise u on the choice of the 3 lens alternatives u proposed to purchase.

From my own experience when going out trekking in the bush for hours looking for exotic plants I tended to pack the 18-200VR, 105VR and the 12-24. Even though 70-200VR has superior optics its weight just become unbearable after a while on foot ( pls don't blast me for that ! It's definitely no fun straining one's neck for hours with such load ). I only use the 70-200 when not much trekking is involved. I bought it with the TC 1.7 with the intention of shooting some egrets , sea eagles and the like, But after realizing the immense learning curve and discipline required I opted for the time being to go for static subjects instead. So far my 70-200 has only been used to shot a local rafting / jet ski competition and sunset shots at seaside. Very much under used.

Just out of curiousity 2 months back I did a 3 way test over the 105 VR, 18-200VR and 70-200 VR. I did it indoor in my bed room . The first sets of sample was done shooting at newspaper pasted on wall about 10 ft away on tripod with cable release and Mirror up shutter delay feature . I expected the 105 the sharpest , then the 70-200 and last 18-200. Surprising it was 70-200 , 18-200 and last 105VR. The 105VR shot under identical situation was slightly under exposed and less sharp. With that finding I complained and returned to the vendor who had another 105VR in stock. We did an A , B test over the 2 samples of 105VR and found my copy inferior. My vendor talked to Nikon Malaysia and because my copy was less than 1 months old a simple swap was done to my delight and my current 105VR is now performing stellar duties.
Your 28-200 other than non VR seemed to have most perspectives covered . With out much knowledge of your present priority I would suggest u skip your 70-300 & 70-200 and may be go for some 12-24 , 105 macro lens types instead. 70-200 is sharp no doubt now that I own one with hind sight some times I do wonder for the weight and expense "Did" I really "need" it !

If I said anything sub -standard I stand corrected. Pls don't blast me !! SMILE.

Cheers again.