Help with Nikon lens decision

[Harley Guy]

Hello & Thanks in advance,
I've had several 35mm's but this will be my first dslr. I've decided on a Nikon D300 & need help with which lens to purchase with it. I'm currently considering a 35-70 AF 2.8 & a 80-200 AF 2.8. Can't decide wheather to go with these or some of the VR lens (24-120VR & 80-400VR) The VR lens literature say they work good in low light even though they are much slower than the 2.8s. Didn't have all thses choices when I was using 35mm. Very confusing. I like to take nature photos, some @ dawn & dusk, also some sports. Found some package deals with these in the $22-2400.00 range. I would appreciate your input.

[Frog]

I'm no expert but think it depends on how much you'd want to use your tripod on whether you go with the f/2.8 lenses or the vr lenses, especially with the landscapes.

[Franglais]

Hello & Thanks in advance,
I've had several 35mm's but this will be my first dslr. I've decided on a Nikon D300 & need help with which lens to purchase with it. I'm currently considering a 35-70 AF 2.8 & a 80-200 AF 2.8. Can't decide wheather to go with these or some of the VR lens (24-120VR & 80-400VR) The VR lens literature say they work good in low light even though they are much slower than the 2.8s. Didn't have all thses choices when I was using 35mm. Very confusing. I like to take nature photos, some @ dawn & dusk, also some sports. Found some package deals with these in the $22-2400.00 range. I would appreciate your input.

Your choice of lenses looks really unusual.

- No wide-angle lenses? Remember that the 35-70 on the D300 has the same view as a 50-105mm on a 35mm SLR. I use the 28-70 f2.8 and the 80-200 f2.8 on my D300 and I feel quite limited if I don't have the 17-35 with me as well
- No designed-for-digital DX lenses? The reports I've seen of the 24-120VR say it was a pretty mediocre performer on film and digital is much more demanding. The 18-200 DX VR lens is excellent (I have that as well).

Comparing the two approaches - VR vs 2.8 constant :

- VR works well as long as the subject is fairly still. In low light with a VR lens you are typically working at f5.6 whereas on the other you are working a f2.8 and that's two whole shutter speeds to freeze the action. Indoor sports, theatre productions - forget the VR
- VR lenses are much easier to live with. The D300+18-200 is almost a compact whereas the D300+3 f2.8 constant lenses needs a huge bag just to carry it all around

[elrosarino]

I have the 24-120 VR and take nice pictures with muy D300. My next target is the 70-200 F2.8VR.....
Marcos

[another view]

In the case of things that move and low light levels, lens speed (larger maximum aperture) will beat VR hands down. Having both (f2.8 VR lens) would be best, but not inexpensive. A friend had the 80-400VR, and I shot with it once. Focusing was really slow but it was one of Nikon's first VR lenses (may have been the first, actually). He has since replaced it with the 70-200 f2.8 VR and matched 2x teleconverter, which also works out to 400mm at f5.6 but is much faster to work with (however, more money than the 80-400).

Like Charles says, the choice of lenses is a little unusual. I think you'd want something wider, like in the 18mm range.

[Axle]

Look at the Nikkor 17-35mm f./2.8 ED lens.