Need a style-specific lens recommendation

[Ejoy]

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

 

[Mark Estrada]

My setup is all Nikon glass

17-35mm f2.8 AFS
50mm f1.4
60mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor
80-200 f2.8AFS
80-400 VR f4.5-5.6

I shoot all kinds of things: sports, nature, macro, people candids, and mostly natural light and low light.

17-35mm AFS is fast and reviews indicate it's about as good as the primes, so I'd keep this in my kit. It's my general purpose wide angle lens

Personally, I wouldn't bother with the 28-85G due to because the central part of the range is covered by my fast primes.

50mm is sharp and fast at f1.4. Cheaper route is to go with the 50mm 1.8 -- not as fast, but just as sharp and gives you f22 if you need it. I shoot everything nearly wide open

60mm Nikkor is effectively a 90mm portrait lens as well as good Micro.

Thought about going with the 28-70AFS f2.8 for speed, but everything I need to do can be accomplished nicely with the primes and minor footwork (repositioning).

For the Telezoom, both AFS 80-200 and AFS 80-400 are sharp and easy to handle in my opinion I like both lenses, but use them in different situations:

AFS 80-200 f2.8 -- low light indoor sports, sports in low natural light, dusk and early evening for speed. It's heavy and can be tiring to use sometimes.

But gives one incredible flexibility in rapidly manually overriding the autofocus without having to fiddle with switches. This is an excellent lens for working fast in moderately low light (as compared to the 80-400)

For all around general purpose tele imaging, I use the 80-400VR. It's lighter and shorter than the 80-200 AFS. VR is good, but nothing beats faster shutter speeds and good technique when shooting with telephotos (this is echo'd on the Canon talk forum as well with all their IS lenses). I actually use the 80-400VR more than the 80-200 because of the better reach and at this point, I can't afford a Nikkor 300mm f2.8 AFS and 1.4x teleconverter (I'm sticking with all Nikon glass).

I started by first purchasing the 80-400VR and used it for my son's soccor and T-ball games with excellent results from wide open up to f/16. I purchased the 80-200 for imaging at dusk when the light started getting low (now field lights). Didn't like the limited range at 200mm, but I still got the shots I wanted. 80-400 doesn't focus as fast as the AFS, but it's focus speed was adequate for what I do. I think when my son gets older and the action gets faster I'll switch to fast AFS primes

With the tele zooms, you're not going to beat a tele prime for sharpness, but I think they come pretty close. Both are sharp to my eye with a slight edge to the 80-200AFS for sharpness. I think the colors off of the Nikon tele zooms were better than what I was seeing off of the Sigma 50-500EX, but that lens has AFS and wil focus faster than the 80-400VR. If you're on a budget and can hand hold pretty well, you can consider the sigma, but on my own tests, I much prefered the images off the 80-400 compared to sigma.

I would suggest you take your camera to a camera store and test out each lens to see how they handle and what they produce for you, then decide. Sharpness of images depends upon your technique as much as the lens (if you can't hold still enough, you'll lose sharpness due to slight motion blur with any of the tele zooms). That is how I determined which lenses to get for my kits. The lenses do what I want for what I like to shoot. Everyone will have different opinions, but what really matters in the end is your opinion about how you feel about the images you can produce with the particular lens.

Remember, as the red baron said ... "it's not the crate, it's the man inside the crate" or as other's have said "it's not the camera/lens, it's the photographer behind the lens" that makes the difference.

Cheers

 

[paulfrye]

Mark did a great job of covering the two lenses. I'll add my two cents worth, too.

I have the 80-400VR and the AFS 80-200. I also have a TC-20E which can double the 80-200...but it becomes very long and heavy.

I have learned that the 80-400VR is going to work fine with my D100 if I remember to shoot at higher speeds for action shots at the long end. This means increasing the ISO. I am trying to capture a hawk. The 80-200 with the TC-20E may be my best bet here.

My bottom line is that the 80-400VR is still a slow lens, both from an aperture and from a focusing viewpoint. If you don't need the action or you don't mind a higher ISO it is a great lens...and very sharp (same as 80-200 from my tests).

But if you are only going to get one, I would start with the 80-200 -- hard to beat for all around shooting.

Regards,

Paul

You can see a couple of my shots...and will be adding more soon. The hawk is with the 80-400VR (ISO 200 and 1/250 at about f5.6) and the lizard is with the 80-200 with TC-20E (ISO 400 and 1/1000 at about f9). They were taken in my backyard.

http://www.pbase.com/paulfrye/the_light_room

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.

 

[Ejoy]

Maybe I should go to Wolf Camera and check out the two lenses. You both made extremely compelling cases for the 80-200 AFS, so maybe I need to see them for myself to get a sense of what I am going to be working with. It's funny b/c I like to take pictures and not draw alot of attention to myself (which is what I think I would do with the AFS). However, I went to see the African Bush Women at Morehouse College in Atlanta, and they asked for no flash photography. I was so close to the stage, and few people were in there, and I am SURE in this situation I would have gottn much more use out of the 80-200AFS, b/c I would have been able to still shoot at a 200-400 ISO, and the CCD would have been getting plenty of light (as opposed to the 80-400, which may have gotten me closer but would have required a higher ISO). Let me know if I am not thinking of this correctly. I am still learning the nuances of SLR photography. A WHOLE lot more complicated than regular digicam shooting. Thanks again for the assistance.

I have the 80-400VR and the AFS 80-200. I also have a TC-20E which
can double the 80-200...but it becomes very long and heavy.

I have learned that the 80-400VR is going to work fine with my D100
if I remember to shoot at higher speeds for action shots at the
long end. This means increasing the ISO. I am trying to capture a
hawk. The 80-200 with the TC-20E may be my best bet here.

My bottom line is that the 80-400VR is still a slow lens, both from
an aperture and from a focusing viewpoint. If you don't need the
action or you don't mind a higher ISO it is a great lens...and very
sharp (same as 80-200 from my tests).

But if you are only going to get one, I would start with the 80-200
-- hard to beat for all around shooting.

Regards,

Paul

You can see a couple of my shots...and will be adding more soon.
The hawk is with the 80-400VR (ISO 200 and 1/250 at about f5.6) and
the lizard is with the 80-200 with TC-20E (ISO 400 and 1/1000 at
about f9). They were taken in my backyard.

http://www.pbase.com/paulfrye/the_light_room

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.

 

[Thom Hogan]

Well, I'm in a contrarian mood today, so I'll offer a different solution. Save some money and buy:

18-35mm ED
24-85mm AF-S
70-300mm ED

Now don't get me wrong, I love the 80-200mm f/2.8. If you need the AF-S or the f/2.8, there is no substitute. And I think the 80-400mm VR is underrated. If you need an all-in-one lens and can suffer the autofocus speed, it's a decent choice. With proper technique, you can even get a bit more handholdability out of it than you normally would with a telephoto, but especially at 400mm.

But let's be realistic for a moment. At f/8 and 200mm, you won't see any difference between the 70-300mm, 80-200mm, and 80-400mm. Most people wouldn't see differences at f/5.6. And most of the difference you will see is going to be in the corners, which are not as critical in most telephoto shots as they are in wide angle shots. The 70-300 is a bit weak at 300mm and wide open. The 80-400mm is a bit weak at 300-400mm and wide open. Other than that, they're both darn sharp. Still, in general, differences in lens quality don't show up at all until you first master handling skills and start using support (e.g., tripod).

At the wide end, the 18-35mm is every bit as sharp as the 17-35mm at 18mm and f/4, though it does suffer in comparison at the corners at 35mm and wide open. It doesn't focus as fast, but focus speed is generally irrelevant with wide angles. Heck, with some types of photography (such as the type I practice), you'd rarely use autofocus with a wide angle anyway, as depth of field is a more important issue (CLIMBS ON SOAPBOX: why the heck haven't any camera manufacturers built a maximum DOF autofocus mode into their cameras? No, I don't mean one where you tell the camera what the near and far objects are, but one that simply rolls the focus to the hyperfocal point for whatever aperture you're using. GETS DOWN FROM SOAPBOX.)

In the middle, the 24-85mm is a nice lens; glad Nikon decided to make it. Affordable, pretty sharp, and focuses fast and quiet. (CLIMBS BACK ON SOAPBOX. Nikon, Nikon, Nikon. Why are you wasting R&D time designing "better ways" to remove a lens cap? Is that really cost effective? Have we really been demanding a more complex, more costly lens cap? I'd be happier if you'd engineered the front element wobble out of the lens... RELUCTANTLY REMOVES HIMSELF FROM SOAPBOX.)

Alternatively:

18-35mm
50mm f/1.8D
Your choice of 80-200mm AF-S or 80-400mm VR

You're not as well covered in the middle focal lengths (though I rarely find I want to shoot at those focal lengths), but you still haven't spent a fortune on lenses.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

 

[William Faulkner]

eJoy,

Just to stir the ant hill a little. You might want to wait to see what the 70-200VR ends up costing and what quality comes out of it. It's going to be a "G" lens on the one hand but it's a VR lens on the other. It does seem that "G" lenses tend to cost less, though I get the feeling build quality suffers. Hey, if it's a hit there'll be some used 80-200s for sale.

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

--
Regards,
Bill Faulkner

 

[Ejoy]

Thom,

I sincere appreciate your reply. I frequently visit your site and carefully read through your reviews. What I like most about your reviews is that you clearly point out the good attributes of both extremely expensive and moderately priced lenses. Some other reviewers listed on the nikonlinks.com website (I'll not mention any names) almost review things from the vantage point that any lens under $1000 sucks, and any lens over $1000 is good-great, b/c their main vantage point is their experience with $2000-$4000 lenses. Your reviews seem more related to value, in that you aren't saying that a $300 lens is better than a $1500 lens (unless it is of course), however your tone sounds like you acknowledge that it is what it is. As such, I am glad to get a reply from a reviewer that I greatly respect.

That said, I think that I may go with the following option:
18-35mm ED
50mm f/1.8 (I already own this one)
24-85G AFS
either 80-400 or 80-200AFS

This way I can have a solid wide angle for doing some landscape stuff that I see on my way home (like this PHAT sunset I saw from my window last night, but had no camera :-( ) and 2 good lenses (50mm EXTREMELY clear) for general shooting of friends and family, etc. On the long end, I will still struggle with the 80-400 or the 80-200 AFS. I would like to get into more candid photography, and I love the thought of sitting in a park near duck and taking pics of people very far away, being very natural. U feel that I could do this better with the 80-400, simply b/c of the range. Frankly, I have taken some good action shots with my F707 (which like many prosumer digicams "fishes" before locking on). Here's one example:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1016871

I assume the 80-400 would be faster than the F707 in terms of autofocus, and I take action shots so seldom that I don't know if I NEED the AFS here (as opposed to needing the extra range). If it's really crucial for me, can't I do what I did with the F707 and just prefocus? I could even just use manual focus and set it myself. There are a number of options, and the lens is smaller (if I am understanding it correctly).

This setup would run me about $2200, and seems like a good place to start. Let me know if you agree.

Well, I'm in a contrarian mood today, so I'll offer a different
solution. Save some money and buy:

18-35mm ED
24-85mm AF-S
70-300mm ED

Now don't get me wrong, I love the 80-200mm f/2.8. If you need the
AF-S or the f/2.8, there is no substitute. And I think the 80-400mm
VR is underrated. If you need an all-in-one lens and can suffer the
autofocus speed, it's a decent choice. With proper technique, you
can even get a bit more handholdability out of it than you normally
would with a telephoto, but especially at 400mm.

But let's be realistic for a moment. At f/8 and 200mm, you won't
see any difference between the 70-300mm, 80-200mm, and 80-400mm.
Most people wouldn't see differences at f/5.6. And most of the
difference you will see is going to be in the corners, which are
not as critical in most telephoto shots as they are in wide angle
shots. The 70-300 is a bit weak at 300mm and wide open. The
80-400mm is a bit weak at 300-400mm and wide open. Other than that,
they're both darn sharp. Still, in general, differences in lens
quality don't show up at all until you first master handling skills
and start using support (e.g., tripod).

At the wide end, the 18-35mm is every bit as sharp as the 17-35mm
at 18mm and f/4, though it does suffer in comparison at the corners
at 35mm and wide open. It doesn't focus as fast, but focus speed is
generally irrelevant with wide angles. Heck, with some types of
photography (such as the type I practice), you'd rarely use
autofocus with a wide angle anyway, as depth of field is a more
important issue (CLIMBS ON SOAPBOX: why the heck haven't any camera
manufacturers built a maximum DOF autofocus mode into their
cameras? No, I don't mean one where you tell the camera what the
near and far objects are, but one that simply rolls the focus to
the hyperfocal point for whatever aperture you're using. GETS DOWN
FROM SOAPBOX.)

In the middle, the 24-85mm is a nice lens; glad Nikon decided to
make it. Affordable, pretty sharp, and focuses fast and quiet.
(CLIMBS BACK ON SOAPBOX. Nikon, Nikon, Nikon. Why are you wasting
R&D time designing "better ways" to remove a lens cap? Is that
really cost effective? Have we really been demanding a more
complex, more costly lens cap? I'd be happier if you'd engineered
the front element wobble out of the lens... RELUCTANTLY REMOVES
HIMSELF FROM SOAPBOX.)

Alternatively:

18-35mm
50mm f/1.8D
Your choice of 80-200mm AF-S or 80-400mm VR

You're not as well covered in the middle focal lengths (though I
rarely find I want to shoot at those focal lengths), but you still
haven't spent a fortune on lenses.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Anthony Medici]

Depending on how long you can wait, you will probably have a choice between three long zooms, 80-400, 80-200 & 70-200 AFS VR. I have the 80-400 VR and have been putting off buying the 80-200 F2.8 AFS for just that reason. I like using the VR so it would be natural for me to get the new lens. But, you'd have to wait until it's released...

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

That said, I think that I may go with the following option:
18-35mm ED
50mm f/1.8 (I already own this one)
24-85G AFS
either 80-400 or 80-200AFS

On the long end, I will still struggle with the 80-400 or the
80-200 AFS. I would like to get into more candid photography, and
I love the thought of sitting in a park near duck and taking pics
of people very far away, being very natural.

 

[Baywing]

Well, for my 2 cents worth, consider the 80-200 2.8 (how about the older non-AFS) and the 70-300. You could buy both for the price of a 80-400 VR. The 80-400 VR I had was a dog, not at all sharp, nor would it AF lock on anything except brightly lit subjects that weren't moving faster than a snail. With the 1.5 "X" factor of the D100, the 70-300 translates to 105-450, a long reach indeed. I had the 70-300 ED and it was a solid performer at a good price, every bit as sharp as my older and much respected 75-300. As for the 80-200, the f2.8 is great, you can't go wrong with this lens. Great AF speed ( I have the older one, non-AFS and it's plenty fast for moving aircraft!) and great sharp and contrasty images. I wouldn't leave home without it! As for weight, the 80-400VR is heavy, too heavy really, my shoulder ached after only an hour, where I can carry the 80-200 2.8 all day.

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

 

[Bill Dewey]

I shoot with a D1H, this is my lens collection:

Nikon 18-35 for the "short end". Much, MUCH, less expensive than the 17-35 AFS, as well as only being an f3.5. As most of my work uses longer focal lengths, not a problem for me, and this is a very sharp little lens.

Tokina 28-70 ATX-Pro, F2.6-2.8. Quick and sharp.

Nikon 85mm f1.8, really nice lens.

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS, fast, REALLY fast, and sharp as a tack.

Nikon 14e and 20e TC's, modified so they can stack.

Now, to your question. Two other options to consider for the telephoto end. The first is the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D lens from Nikon. The only thing you lose is focus speed, but it still focuses quicker than the 80-400VR. A super lens. My very subjective tests showed that the AFS focused about 20-25% faster on my D1H. The other alternative might be the Sigma 70-200 EX-HSM lens. I was speaking with a pro shooting an F5 with this lens a couple of weeks ago and he claims it to be more than sufficiently sharp and almost as fast as the AFS lens, at half the price. Here is a lens comparison page you might want to look at for this info as well:

http://www.cmpsolv.com/photozone/lsurveyNikkor.htm

You will see that the Sigma gets pretty good ratings.

Just more food for thought. Now, if you would like to see the 80-200 AFS with a 1.4TC in action:
http://www.walkaboutimagery.com/SnoqHalfPipe/table1.htm

I was lucky enought to purchase my 80-200AFS for under $1,000, which made it an econimacally viable upgrade from my 80-200AF-D. I gained 2 things with this upgrade, the first is faster AF speed, so fast, and quiet, that there have been times I didn't believe it because I couldn't hear it. The second is bulkier muscles in my left arm . This ain't no light-weight lens.

I would also second, and third, the comment about trying them at the store. Or even rent for a day if you can.

Good luck, let us know what you decide.

I have the 80-400VR and the AFS 80-200. I also have a TC-20E which
can double the 80-200...but it becomes very long and heavy.

I have learned that the 80-400VR is going to work fine with my D100
if I remember to shoot at higher speeds for action shots at the
long end. This means increasing the ISO. I am trying to capture a
hawk. The 80-200 with the TC-20E may be my best bet here.

My bottom line is that the 80-400VR is still a slow lens, both from
an aperture and from a focusing viewpoint. If you don't need the
action or you don't mind a higher ISO it is a great lens...and very
sharp (same as 80-200 from my tests).

But if you are only going to get one, I would start with the 80-200
-- hard to beat for all around shooting.

Regards,

Paul

You can see a couple of my shots...and will be adding more soon.
The hawk is with the 80-400VR (ISO 200 and 1/250 at about f5.6) and
the lizard is with the 80-200 with TC-20E (ISO 400 and 1/1000 at
about f9). They were taken in my backyard.

http://www.pbase.com/paulfrye/the_light_room

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.

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

 

[Ejoy]

Now, I know that I have been extremely Pro the 80-400 VR to this point, but your site has me QUICKLY rethinking that idea. OH MY! Your pictures are INSANE! Now, I know alot of it has to do with your abilities, but WHOA those are nice. I might get this one, or wait for thr 70-200G AFS now. I guess the AFS system really is that sweet. You know, maybe I should just get that particular lens, b/c your pics are BANGIN!

If someone has some 80-400 pics to share that I can drool over, PLEASE share. Whoa, so phat.

Nikon 18-35 for the "short end". Much, MUCH, less expensive than
the 17-35 AFS, as well as only being an f3.5. As most of my work
uses longer focal lengths, not a problem for me, and this is a very
sharp little lens.

Tokina 28-70 ATX-Pro, F2.6-2.8. Quick and sharp.

Nikon 85mm f1.8, really nice lens.

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFS, fast, REALLY fast, and sharp as a tack.

Nikon 14e and 20e TC's, modified so they can stack.

Now, to your question. Two other options to consider for the
telephoto end. The first is the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D lens from Nikon.
The only thing you lose is focus speed, but it still focuses
quicker than the 80-400VR. A super lens. My very subjective tests
showed that the AFS focused about 20-25% faster on my D1H. The
other alternative might be the Sigma 70-200 EX-HSM lens. I was
speaking with a pro shooting an F5 with this lens a couple of weeks
ago and he claims it to be more than sufficiently sharp and almost
as fast as the AFS lens, at half the price. Here is a lens
comparison page you might want to look at for this info as well:

http://www.cmpsolv.com/photozone/lsurveyNikkor.htm

You will see that the Sigma gets pretty good ratings.

Just more food for thought. Now, if you would like to see the
80-200 AFS with a 1.4TC in action:
http://www.walkaboutimagery.com/SnoqHalfPipe/table1.htm

I was lucky enought to purchase my 80-200AFS for under $1,000,
which made it an econimacally viable upgrade from my 80-200AF-D. I
gained 2 things with this upgrade, the first is faster AF speed, so
fast, and quiet, that there have been times I didn't believe it
because I couldn't hear it. The second is bulkier muscles in my
left arm . This ain't no light-weight lens.

I would also second, and third, the comment about trying them at
the store. Or even rent for a day if you can.

Good luck, let us know what you decide.

I have the 80-400VR and the AFS 80-200. I also have a TC-20E which
can double the 80-200...but it becomes very long and heavy.

I have learned that the 80-400VR is going to work fine with my D100
if I remember to shoot at higher speeds for action shots at the
long end. This means increasing the ISO. I am trying to capture a
hawk. The 80-200 with the TC-20E may be my best bet here.

My bottom line is that the 80-400VR is still a slow lens, both from
an aperture and from a focusing viewpoint. If you don't need the
action or you don't mind a higher ISO it is a great lens...and very
sharp (same as 80-200 from my tests).

But if you are only going to get one, I would start with the 80-200
-- hard to beat for all around shooting.

Regards,

Paul

You can see a couple of my shots...and will be adding more soon.
The hawk is with the 80-400VR (ISO 200 and 1/250 at about f5.6) and
the lizard is with the 80-200 with TC-20E (ISO 400 and 1/1000 at
about f9). They were taken in my backyard.

http://www.pbase.com/paulfrye/the_light_room

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.

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

 

[mchabbi]

Well, I'm in a contrarian mood today, so I'll offer a different
solution. Save some money and buy:

18-35mm ED

Other alternative is Sigma 15-30, very low distortion and sharp/wider.

24-85mm AF-S

I guess I would buy 28-105 compared to 24-85(both D and G/AFS),24-120
28-105 simply beats other lenses when it comes to distortions.

Check out Phil's sample galleries of Nikon D1 and D1X/H, he has used 28-105 and you can see the results for yourself.

I somehow liked the color rendition,sharpness of this lens compared to 24-84 lenses. In my opinion it's picture rendition is as good as 28-70 L lens from Canon.

70-300mm ED

This lens is light weight,sharp,focuses fast enough and cheap. Must buy.

(alternatively just buy 70-300 'G' version till you can decide between other big lenses, costs 100$ at B&H and is as sharp as ED lens).

Also consider Sigma 50-500(very HEAVY and good sharpness even after using 2x Sigma TC, and did I say very heavy?)

80-200 versions might be sharp and good lenses, but it is heavy and it is not long enough. No clue about 80-400.

If you ask me,

28-105 and 70-300 are a must buy, you cant go wrong with them. If you plan to spend more money, you can always invest in expensive lenses.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the 80-200mm f/2.8. If you need the
AF-S or the f/2.8, there is no substitute. And I think the 80-400mm
VR is underrated. If you need an all-in-one lens and can suffer the
autofocus speed, it's a decent choice. With proper technique, you
can even get a bit more handholdability out of it than you normally
would with a telephoto, but especially at 400mm.

But let's be realistic for a moment. At f/8 and 200mm, you won't
see any difference between the 70-300mm, 80-200mm, and 80-400mm.
Most people wouldn't see differences at f/5.6. And most of the
difference you will see is going to be in the corners, which are
not as critical in most telephoto shots as they are in wide angle
shots. The 70-300 is a bit weak at 300mm and wide open. The
80-400mm is a bit weak at 300-400mm and wide open. Other than that,
they're both darn sharp. Still, in general, differences in lens
quality don't show up at all until you first master handling skills
and start using support (e.g., tripod).

At the wide end, the 18-35mm is every bit as sharp as the 17-35mm
at 18mm and f/4, though it does suffer in comparison at the corners
at 35mm and wide open. It doesn't focus as fast, but focus speed is
generally irrelevant with wide angles. Heck, with some types of
photography (such as the type I practice), you'd rarely use
autofocus with a wide angle anyway, as depth of field is a more
important issue (CLIMBS ON SOAPBOX: why the heck haven't any camera
manufacturers built a maximum DOF autofocus mode into their
cameras? No, I don't mean one where you tell the camera what the
near and far objects are, but one that simply rolls the focus to
the hyperfocal point for whatever aperture you're using. GETS DOWN
FROM SOAPBOX.)

Canon has this feature (A-DEP mode) in all their cameras(SLRs at least). Dont know how close it is in meeting your expectations.

In the middle, the 24-85mm is a nice lens; glad Nikon decided to
make it. Affordable, pretty sharp, and focuses fast and quiet.
(CLIMBS BACK ON SOAPBOX. Nikon, Nikon, Nikon. Why are you wasting
R&D time designing "better ways" to remove a lens cap? Is that
really cost effective? Have we really been demanding a more
complex, more costly lens cap? I'd be happier if you'd engineered
the front element wobble out of the lens... RELUCTANTLY REMOVES
HIMSELF FROM SOAPBOX.)

Alternatively:

18-35mm
50mm f/1.8D
Your choice of 80-200mm AF-S or 80-400mm VR

You're not as well covered in the middle focal lengths (though I
rarely find I want to shoot at those focal lengths), but you still
haven't spent a fortune on lenses.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

--
Mahendra Chabbi
Nikon F80S+MB16,Nikkor 70-300G,Nikkor 28-105,Nikkor 50mm/1.8
Yashica FX3,Carl Zeiss 50mm/1.7,Yashica 50mm/1.7,Vivitar 28-105/2.8-3.8
Sony DSC - P31

 

[Anthony Medici]

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m/nature/Menu11.html

Most of the "To Show Off" page and all of the "Hummer" page was taken with the 80-400 VR.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

If someone has some 80-400 pics to share that I can drool over,
PLEASE share. Whoa, so phat.

 

[Ejoy]

WHEW these pics are slammin....oh my. The one of the waterfall is so phat...and the river...and the duck...and the elephants....dude, so tight.

Now I am TOTALLY stuck. Thanks man....gonna be a long month or so.

Most of the "To Show Off" page and all of the "Hummer" page was
taken with the 80-400 VR.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

If someone has some 80-400 pics to share that I can drool over,
PLEASE share. Whoa, so phat.

 

[Bill Dewey]

Ejoy, thanks for the kind words, much appreciated. Yes, the decisions are tough, and I see that someone has even mentioned the new 70-200, just to help the mix. Just remember, whichever you choose, the real test is you, the rest are just "tools".

Tony, good to see you here. I was a bit disappointed, however, I expected to see a bunch of Off-Road HumVee pictures on the Hummer page . As always, great stuff from Mr. Medici.

Now I am TOTALLY stuck. Thanks man....gonna be a long month or so.

Most of the "To Show Off" page and all of the "Hummer" page was
taken with the 80-400 VR.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

If someone has some 80-400 pics to share that I can drool over,
PLEASE share. Whoa, so phat.

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

 

[Ejoy]

Thanks for all of the advice and thoughts. Recommendation discussions can go on and on b/c every lens has its issues. I went to see the two telephoto lenses...needlesstosay after handling them both for a while my wrist hurt. Those things are BOTH huge. For some reason I thought the 80-400 was a much smaller lens. My thoughts? I had both lenses attached to an N90s. I really liked the range of the 80-400, even though I felt that there was very little difference between 300 and 400. I know the D100 has the 1.5X, so having up to 600mm I think would make a greater difference. It was noticably slower in autofocusing than the 80-200, but I knew that it would be. The 80-200 was flawless. Smooth as silk. I mean, it was amazing how quickly it focused and was locked on. But, the range was lacking, which I knew it would be.

What I decided to do was remount the 80-400, go to 300mm (the long end of the 80-200 on the D100) and see if I thought that was enough range. It was alot more indeed, but I only had the 400mm of the 80-400 to compared it to. I have heard that 300-400 on the 80-400 is slightly soft, which would be anything from 450-600 on the D100. In addition, on the long end the 80-200 allows for sunstantially more light than the 5.6 of the 80-400. I don't know how teleconverters work on these lenses, but Bill Dewey's pics make me think the combination works just fine. As such, and even though Anthony Medici's pics were just insanely good, I think, at least for today, that I may go with the 80-200. So, b/c of this group, my setup will be

D100
50mm f/1.8 that I currently own
18-35 ED
24-85G ED AFS
80-200 f/2.8 AFS ED

That gives me a pretty good range with some quality lenses for my style. I plan to get the Wide and Normal first, and after I have my D100 go BACK to the store and evaluate the range based on the 1.5 multiplier. At that point, I might be swayed back, but we'll see. Thanks for all the help. I am very confident in my chosen set of products...

Well, until this supposed 70-200 VR comes out and ends up being about $700....then I am REALLY hurting....

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

 

[Bill Dewey]

You are most welcome, and again, thanks for the nice comments.

As to your question on TC's, 1.4 loses you a stop, 2.0 loses you 2 stops. So, without factoring in the 1.5x of the camera itself, the 1.4 on the 80-200 turns it into a 112-280 f4.0, the 2.0 into a 160-400 f5.6 and when I stack mine, not a normal thing but my 2.0 had been modified to enable this, I have a 224-560 f8.0. Let me tell you, that you pay a bit of an AF price with the 2.0, but when the 2 are stacked, well, often manual focus is much better .

Enjoy your new toys, and your much slimmer, but lighter, wallet....

Ejoy wrote:
SNIP

more light than the 5.6 of the 80-400. I don't know how
teleconverters work on these lenses, but Bill Dewey's pics make me
think the combination works just fine. As such, and even though
Anthony Medici's pics were just insanely good, I think, at least
for today, that I may go with the 80-200. So, b/c of this group,
my setup will be

 

[Thom Hogan]

18-35mm ED

Other alternative is Sigma 15-30, very low distortion and sharp/wider.

Well, I often use this lens. But I find I use the 18-35mm more. Why? Because of filters...the Sigma can't handle any at 15mm.

70-300mm ED

This lens is light weight,sharp,focuses fast enough and cheap. Must
buy.

(alternatively just buy 70-300 'G' version till you can decide
between other big lenses, costs 100$ at B&H and is as sharp as ED
lens).

No. Don't. The G version doesn't have the ED elements, and it shows at the long end.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Thom Hogan]

On the long end, I will still struggle with the 80-400 or the
80-200 AFS. I would like to get into more candid photography, and
I love the thought of sitting in a park near duck and taking pics
of people very far away, being very natural. U feel that I could
do this better with the 80-400, simply b/c of the range. Frankly,
I have taken some good action shots with my F707 (which like many
prosumer digicams "fishes" before locking on). Here's one example:

While I like the 80-400mm and carry it with me more often than the 80-200mm, I think making it your only telephoto zoom is risky. It's just too slow on the autofocus side. You will fight that at some point (if not often). For candid photography, it really is a toss-up. The VR wins for its handholdability, the AF-S wins for its very fast focus and wider aperture (for throwing backgrounds out of focus). That's why we're all waiting for the 70-200mm AF-S VR...

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D100
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

 

[Anthony Medici]

I don't consider the 80-200 AFS, 80-400 VR or the 300 F4.0 AFS big. They are not small but they are definately not big. Big starts with the 300 F2.8's and ends with the 600 F4.0's. Those are big. They don't call them big glass and long glass for nothing.

The 80-400 weighs just over 3 lbs and compacts to about 8 inches. My 500mm F4.0 AFS is just over 8 lbs and is 18 inches long. And the 400mm F2.8 AFS weighs over 10 lbs.

Just wanted to explain what BIG really is. None of the lenses you were talking about are big or heavy. Geez, my D1H weighs just under 3 lbs WITHOUT a lens.

PS: I'm glad you like my pictures. One or two that you mentioned were taken with the 500mm F4.0 but most of the ones you listed were taken with the VR.
--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

I went to see the two telephoto lenses...needlesstosay after handling
them both for a while my wrist hurt. Those things are BOTH huge. For
some reason I thought the 80-400 was a much smaller lens.