lens purchase for D-70

[photofun]

After much discussion and help from this forum I think I have narrowed my search to these lenses.

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX, ($1100)
and either

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR with TC-20E II 2x Teleconverter for D-AF-I & AF-S Lenses ONLY ($1500 + $400) Ouch!! But is it worth the difference??


or Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod Collar with the TC-201 2x Teleconverter for Wide-Angle to 200mm AIS Lenses ($900 + $300)

Somewhat over budget but I trying to get some quality stuff. However, Old Timer made a good point that these are useable lenses for everyday use as well. (Thanks for the help)

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Happy 4th.:thumbsup:

[another view]

I haven't heard a bad thing about the 17-55. It's not inexpensive but supposed to be very, very good. A friend has one and loves it.

I have the 80-200 f2.8 which I bought used about five years ago. It's been a great lens but I've never used a TC with it. One thing about this lens design (also the discontinued 20-35 f2.8, 85 f1.4 and probably a few others) - the circular ring that changes it from auto to manual focus isn't exactly convenient to use. The ring on my 80-200 doesn't lock anymore so it has a piece of gaffer's tape on it to hold it on auto (only way I use this one) rather than pay for a fairly pricey repair. I think this problem is somewhat common, too.

Really, it comes down to the fact that they are different tools. If you're shooting handheld a lot, especially with a TC, you'll probably benefit a lot from a VR lens. Probably worth however much more it costs to do it because the difference might mean getting the picture and not getting the picture.

[photofun]

I haven't heard a bad thing about the 17-55. It's not inexpensive but supposed to be very, very good. A friend has one and loves it.

I have the 80-200 f2.8 which I bought used about five years ago. It's been a great lens but I've never used a TC with it. One thing about this lens design (also the discontinued 20-35 f2.8, 85 f1.4 and probably a few others) - the circular ring that changes it from auto to manual focus isn't exactly convenient to use. The ring on my 80-200 doesn't lock anymore so it has a piece of gaffer's tape on it to hold it on auto (only way I use this one) rather than pay for a fairly pricey repair. I think this problem is somewhat common, too.

Really, it comes down to the fact that they are different tools. If you're shooting handheld a lot, especially with a TC, you'll probably benefit a lot from a VR lens. Probably worth however much more it costs to do it because the difference might mean getting the picture and not getting the picture.

Thanks for the info....
:thumbsup:

[deckcadet]

After much discussion and help from this forum I think I have narrowed my search to these lenses.

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX, ($1100)
and either

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR with TC-20E II 2x Teleconverter for D-AF-I & AF-S Lenses ONLY ($1500 + $400) Ouch!! But is it worth the difference??


or Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod Collar with the TC-201 2x Teleconverter for Wide-Angle to 200mm AIS Lenses ($900 + $300)

Somewhat over budget but I trying to get some quality stuff. However, Old Timer made a good point that these are useable lenses for everyday use as well. (Thanks for the help)

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Happy 4th.:thumbsup:

Spot on with the 17-55. IMHO though you should definitely get the 70-200 VR. Full time manual focusing, VR works wonders, and optically I find it superior as well. Plus it has a better tripod mount- bigger and has that nifty replaceable foot.

The 80-200 is stellar, but the 70-200 is a better match for the 17-55. Focusing is faster and more precise, VR is a dream, bokeh is great, overall simply fantastic!

As far as TCs go, though, you should not get the TC20EII- too much of a sacrifice in f/stop, and it degrades quality too much IMHO. The TC14EII still gets you out pretty far with virtually no degradation in image quality and only 1 stop down, and the TC17EII has even more reach, 1.5 stops loss, and significantly less quality degradation compared to the TC20EII.

I suppose you know if you were to get that very old TC for the 80-200 2.8 that you would lose AF and ALL METERING. You would be better off with the Kenko Pro 300 DG series TCs, which maintain AF and metering.

Also, thoe kenko TCs work with AFS VR lenses too, so if you want a 1.4 that is a cheap alternative to the Nikon, you can try it.

[JCHKeys]

Since the 70-200mm Nikon VR is such an expensive lens, have you considered the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? I am using it with the Sigma DG 2.0 tele and its a great combo. I know it doesn't have VR, but it has been a great lens. Both the lens and the tele came out to be ~$900 from sigma4less. I used to doubt the quality of the third party lenses, but this Sigma has really impressed me and I would not hesitate buying from them again.

JCH

[photofun]

Since the 70-200mm Nikon VR is such an expensive lens, have you considered the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? I am using it with the Sigma DG 2.0 tele and its a great combo. I know it doesn't have VR, but it has been a great lens. Both the lens and the tele came out to be ~$900 from sigma4less. I used to doubt the quality of the third party lenses, but this Sigma has really impressed me and I would not hesitate buying from them again.

JCH

I have looked at the sigma lineup but was concerned about the quality of the lens....so many good choices....hard to decide what is the right way to go. Thanks for the info....:thumbsup:

[photofun]

I have looked at the sigma lineup but was concerned about the quality of the lens....so many good choices....hard to decide what is the right way to go. Thanks for the info....:thumbsup:

Great comments and advise:
The sigma information is interesting but I think I may stay with Nikon.

OK so far I am leaning as follows.

17-55 is pretty much decided.

Also: if I were to get the 80-200 with the Kenko TC 1.7 the picture quality is no different than with the 70-200? The difference is "only" the ability to handold at lower light levels which may be significant in animal shooting.

Quality being the same, is the 70-200 VR worth the $600-700 more?

Thanks again for the great discussion. I am almost there.:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[photofun]

Spot on with the 17-55. IMHO though you should definitely get the 70-200 VR. Full time manual focusing, VR works wonders, and optically I find it superior as well. Plus it has a better tripod mount- bigger and has that nifty replaceable foot.

The 80-200 is stellar, but the 70-200 is a better match for the 17-55. Focusing is faster and more precise, VR is a dream, bokeh is great, overall simply fantastic!

As far as TCs go, though, you should not get the TC20EII- too much of a sacrifice in f/stop, and it degrades quality too much IMHO. The TC14EII still gets you out pretty far with virtually no degradation in image quality and only 1 stop down, and the TC17EII has even more reach, 1.5 stops loss, and significantly less quality degradation compared to the TC20EII.

I suppose you know if you were to get that very old TC for the 80-200 2.8 that you would lose AF and ALL METERING. You would be better off with the Kenko Pro 300 DG series TCs, which maintain AF and metering.

Also, thoe kenko TCs work with AFS VR lenses too, so if you want a 1.4 that is a cheap alternative to the Nikon, you can try it.

Excellent points....Thanks. Photo quality at the long end with the TC 20E was an issue. I like your idea with the Kenko TC17EII. I will investigate!! Thanmks again!!:thumbsup:

[deckcadet]

The sigma is a nice lens as well, but some people report that certain sigma lenses have a slightly yellowish color rendition. If you don't want the nikon VR, try looking for a used Nikon AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF, which was produced for a relatively short time but is basically optically as good as the 70-200 VR in most cases, is AF-S so it has lightning fast precise AF, is actually a smidgen lighter than the 70-200, has a removeable replaceable tripod collar (Kirk photo makes an even better replacement collar with the arca-swiss quick release), full time manual focusing, and is compatible with AF-S Teleconverters.

I had one and loved it. I upgraded to the 70-200 primarily because I wanted VR and liked the feel of the new lens.

[another view]

I bought my 80-200 used from a friend who had it and also the 80-200 AF-S (non-VR). I tried both on the F100 which was my "main" camera at the time, and really didn't find that much difference in focus speed. The AF-S was faster, but not enough for me to make me want to spend the money on the difference. I have no real experience with the focusing speed on the 70-200VR but I'd guess it's similar or faster. VR would be reason enough for me to get the 70-200 if I was making money with photography. I guess it depends on what you shoot and how big of a deal the extra money is to you.

[shutterman]

Get the 70-200 VR. It is heavy and you need to make room in the camera bag for it, but you cant go wrong with it. I have the teleconverter as well but hardly ever use it.

[photofun]

Get the 70-200 VR. It is heavy and you need to make room in the camera bag for it, but you cant go wrong with it. I have the teleconverter as well but hardly ever use it.

Thanks...:thumbsup:

[deckcadet]

I think the 70-200 has better image quality overall, but that is just my subjective opinion. VR is definitely worth a lot in this case too.

[photofun]

I think the 70-200 has better image quality overall, but that is just my subjective opinion. VR is definitely worth a lot in this case too.

Thanks...:thumbsup:

Image quality with the 70-200 VR and the TC 17 would not be an issue?

[photofun]

I think the 70-200 has better image quality overall, but that is just my subjective opinion. VR is definitely worth a lot in this case too.

Would the Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 DG Autofocus Teleconverter for Nikon AF-D work just as well in your opinion? I could not find the 1.7x.

Also the specifications say the TC 2x weighs 6lbs?? would that be correct?

[deckcadet]

Kenko does not have a 1.7X- that is Nikon only. Kenko TCs might be OK for the 1.4x but a 2X on the 70-200 will probably degrade quality to an unacceptable level. I would suggest teh Nikon or Kenko 1.4x or the Nikon 1.7

[photofun]

Kenko does not have a 1.7X- that is Nikon only. Kenko TCs might be OK for the 1.4x but a 2X on the 70-200 will probably degrade quality to an unacceptable level. I would suggest teh Nikon or Kenko 1.4x or the Nikon 1.7

Very good...thanks for the info.:thumbsup:

I think I am going to go with...

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX, ($1100)
and either

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR with TC-1.7x Teleconverter for D-AF-I & AF-S Lenses ONLY ($1500 + $400) Ouch!!

[Richard Horay]

look at this link: http://nikon.ricky.sk/foto/ - Nikon D70 and nikon 50mm F/1.8 lens

Richard:aureola:

[photofun]

look at this link: http://nikon.ricky.sk/foto/ - Nikon D70 and nikon 50mm F/1.8 lens

Richard:aureola:

Very nice...however I am looking for a little more versatile lens such as with the 17-55.

But nice pictue gallery!!

Thanks,

Photofun:thumbsup: :thumbsup: