What to do with $600? Which lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by 66217, Dec 23, 2007.

  1. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #1
    I'll give a list of the lenses I currently have, for you MacRumors guys and girls to help me.

    D40x with:
    -18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S (Kit Lens)
    -35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 MF with Macro capabilities.
    -80-200mm f/4 MF
    -50mm f/1.4 MF
    -24mm f/2.8 MF

    Right now I use the 18-55 and 35-135 a lot. I love the 35-135. But as you see, all of them except the kit lens are Manual Focus. The 35-135 is good for Macro and I don't mind MF, but the 50mm is almost impossible to focus correctly at f/1.4.

    So my options are this ones:

    1- 55-200mm AF-S VR. Around $230.
    2- 18-135mm AF-S. Around $315.
    3- 70-300mm AF-S VR. Around $500.
    4- Wait to have money for the 18-200mm AF-S VR. Around $750.

    My needs are of a telephoto. And even tough I know the 80-200 is an excellent lens, it is MF. And I would really like having an AF. I don't use the telephoto constantly, so sometimes I think the 18-200 is unnecessary. But I am doubtful about the 70-300 or the 55-200.

    Any recommendations? Or any other suggestions?

    Thanks,:)
     
  2. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #2
    I'd take the 18-135 off your list - it doesn't have VR, and isn't any better over the 18-55 range than what you already have.

    If it were me, I'd probably spend the money on the 70-300 VR. Why do you say you're "doubtful" about this lens?
     
  3. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #3
    I'd really suggest considering a D80, I'm not sure what the trade-in/sale value is on a D40x at this point, but you're $182 off the body-only price at B&H with $600. That way you don't have to get more lenses, as you'll get AF on all of the AF-D lenses.
     
  4. khollister macrumors 6502a

    khollister

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    #4
    The 70-300 VR is really a no-brainer IMHO. I have both a 70-200VR and the 70-300 VR, and the 300 gets used far more because it is so much lighter and compact, and the quality is really nice for the cost/size. I have both a D40X & D80, and I usually go out with the 18-70 & 70-300 and leave my big, heavy fast glass at home (I also have the 17-55/2.8, 12-24/4 and 70-200/2.8).

    Get the 70-300 VR - it is a great lens and one of Nikon's biggest values as far as I'm concerned.
     
  5. 66217 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #5
    I am doubtful if it is worth the $250 more from the 55-200.

    The problem is that currently I don't have any AF lenses. Only the 18-55 kit lens. All the other lenses won't auto focus with any camera.

    And currently I think it would be better to keep the D40x, since it is almost new and OK for my needs right now. But I'll consider your option. Sometimes I think it would be better to keep for now the D40x and later on buy the replacement of the D80. How much would the D90 probably cost?

    Do you find it to be heavy for the D40?
     
  6. termina3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Location:
    TX
    #6
    It would be in the same range as the current D80.
     
  7. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #7
    Hmm... but you said you were doubtful about the 55-200 as well. :confused:

    Anyway, only you can decide whether it's worth it to you. When I look at the two lenses and their reviews, I see the fact that the 55-200 is fairly bad away from the center at the short end; I see that its vignetting performance isn't particularly good; and I see that you're giving away 100mm. You also basically don't have a manual focus ring; you don't have the "good" AF-S (you have to switch it to "M" for manual override); and if you ever go full frame, your lens isn't going to work.

    The 70-300's weakest point is that its sharpness falls off at 300; but it's still very good at the center, and that's covering a range you don't otherwise have available at all.

    To me, between the two it seems like a no-brainer to go with the 70-300. But not everyone wants to manually tweak focus on occasion. Not everyone values that extra 100mm. And for some people, saving money gets more weight than it does for me in making these sorts of decisions (I hope that doesn't come across the wrong way, because I don't mean it in a derogatory manner).
     
  8. carlgo macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #8
    I have the 55-200VR (remember that there is a non-VR version) and I have come to really like stabilized lenses. I wish I had the 18-200VR just so I wouldn't have to change lenses so often. Alas, there was that money angle.
     
  9. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #9
  10. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #10
    You are doubtful the 70-300 VR is worth the $250 more from the 55-200?
    I believe the 70-300VR is a far more superior lense to that 55-200 not to mention you're getting 100mm on the longer end. Finally, you have something that covers up to 70mm and then some. Here's the deal. Focus on the glass and don't skimp where you don't need to.
     
  11. 66217 thread starter Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #11
    Good advice compuwar.

    I am inclining towards the 70-300 VR, I'll have to try it and see how I like it.

    Right now the 80-200mm is excellent aside from being MF, it has an awesome bokeh, but being f/4 and not having VR makes it difficult to use (since I normally don't have a tripod with me). And also, it is HUGE.

    Do you think that optically it is a great loss? I mean, going from the 80-200 to the 70-300?
     

Share This Page