Group,
Going to be picking up D100 in the next 2 weeks. I plan on getting
3 lenses. Ideally, I want the 17-35 f/2.8, the 24-85 AFS G, and
one nice telephoto. However, I can really only afford ONE > $1000
lens, and I would ideally like to have zoom lenses (even though I
appreciate the greatness of primes as I currently have a 50 f/1.8
for my old Nikon N50).
As such, I am considering 2 lenses: the 80-400 VR, and the (all
hail) 80-200 AFS f/2.8. I personally think the 80-400 is a better
all around lens for me at this time, but I want to get some advice
first b/c SO many folks LOVE the 80-200.
What do I shoot? Whatever. Feel like I never met a picture I
didn't like. Total amateur...don't make a dime doing this (but I
aspire to in the next year or so, but part-time). Just want really
nice pics. People shots, nature, skies, travelling pictures, trick
shots (panning, night-lights, etc), and some actions photos (but
not too often). Currently own an F707, and an N50. I like large
pics, and I find the pics from my F707 on my S9000 plenty clear and
sharp. I have PS7, and have a new PC enroute with plenty of power
for editing and other things. I hear that RAW will give me more
control and better clarity, so I'll probably shoot RAW alot.
I think the 80-400 is the right lens b/c it's small or it's range,
it average speed (but for me might be fine) and has a great focal
range with the VR. However, people, especially pros, LOSE it over
the AFS 80-200. The range would be good (but not as great as the
other), and I have read that the clarity is superb. I often wonder
would my amateur eyes be able to clearly see the difference. Is
there a situation where I would actually be disappointed in the
80-400 and wishing I had the other? If so, when might that happen?
I have never handled either, so thoughts are appreciated.
The other option - scrap both and get the AFS 17-35, b/c people say
it's just PHAT. Help me out....thanks in advance. DPreview rocks.
EJ
