105mm f/2.8 VR, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, or D200?

Hey guys, I currently own a D50 w/ lense kit and a decent 70-300mm f4 sigma

lense. I've owned the camera for a good six months, and it's been very useful

with the random photo shoots I've been having to do for my schoolwork (I'm a

design student). (Most of my shooting consists of portraits, street shots,

and product shots at multiple ranges. I also need to print on a regular basis

with my Epson R2400.)

 

However, within this short amount of time, I feel like I've used up most of

the potential that my current simple D50 setup could offer, and so I thought

it was a time for me to get a new lense. I've been looking around and making

comparisons based on what I need, and after observing some of my peer's work

from out-of-state, I've fallen in love with the 105mm VR and the 70-200mm VR.

But I have a question concerning higher-end lenses.

 

My friend mounts these two lenses stated on his D2x. Of course it's

ridiculous to compare the image quality from the D2x with that of a D50, but I

was wondering how much these lenses, either one, will improve the overall

quality of my images if they were used on a D50 (by image quality I mean color

correctness and sharpness in detail). Also, if the improvements aren't that

substantial, would it just be better to sell off my D50 and upgrade to a

D200? I mention D200 and not a D2x because I have a moderate budget I need to

work with due to costly tuition and I can't manage time for a well paying job

until next year. Would I just be better off switching bodies and save up to

buy the lenses later?

 

But yea, which would be a smarter choice? If the lenses did make a difference

on my D50, should I buy one of them for now or should I just sell my D50 and

get a D200? Also, what alternatives would you suggest given the choice of

lenses? What would you guys do?

 

Thanks in advance!

btw, photo comparisons would be nice if such conditions were attainable.

Do I feel like a an apple, a watermelon, or a BLT sandwich? That's pretty much what you're

asking. Do you want a dedicated macro lens, do you want a tele-zoom, or do you want a

new camera? Or, do you want all three? The answers will be much more helpful once you

are clear in your own needs. Good luck in your search.

You need to tell us what is the final form of your completed images, like a print, and its size, 11 in x 14 in, or digital projection, etc. That would have an impact on our recommendations. Also what is the size of your budget? Joe Smith

Well your probably not going to like my answer, but I still feel like the camera takes second place to good lenses when taking pictures. I do not think it is ridiculous at all to compare the D50 to the D2X. Try a real good comparison taken with the same lens between your camera and your buddies D2X. The D2X will be slightly more detailed image but it is NOT going to be the difference between night and day. Try it and you will see.

 

I bought a new D200 back in December. I took it back, because I didn't consider the Image Quality to be much better. I had better things to spend my money on than $1800 on the camera. Don't get me wrong the D200 and D2x are awesome cameras and if you need 5-8 frames per second, weather sealed, lots of buttons, etc then get one. I would love to have a couple D200s, but I make do with my D50.

 

So what would I do. I would get better lenses first. The lens is a biggest part of image quality. I have a 70-200 2.8 VR, 17-55 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 35mm f2, 85mm f1.8 and an 18-200 VR. All of these lenses are awesome and work just fine on the D50. I am not one of those that think just because I have a expensive lens I should have an expensive camera. Again the lens is almost everything to me.

 

For the longest time I only had the 17-55 and 70-200. If you sell your other two lenses and add the money you would spend on a D200 I bet you can get both. Once you see the quality you will never look back.

 

And I know I already said this but really go compare the same lens with your D50 and D2X. Look at them at 100% in photoshop. They won't look that different. My D50 prints look awesome. I have printed up to 16x20. I'd bet the D2X would be a little better but nothing to write home about.

"However, within this short amount of time, I feel like I've used up most of the potential that my current simple D50 setup could offer, and so I thought it was a time for me to get a new lense."

 

Lose that feeling.

Sorry guys for not being clear about my objectives. My budget is around $1500 to maybe $1900 if I push it, and most of my work will end up in print format that are usually 16x20.

 

I think out of the two given lenses, I'd have to go with the 70-200mm VR. I was momentarily swayed by the macro capabilities of the 105mm, but ultimately, I need a lense that'll suit the various ranges I need to shoot my subjects within.

 

But yea, thanks your comments. I'm gonna just stick with my D50 and buy the 70-200mm.

Denali - if you get one of the lenses or the body first does not make much difference :-) Either way you get something of high quality but the other end will not live up to it. On the other hand you could get the D200 and a cheap but high quality lens like the 50mm AFD f1.8. Its only about 100 US$ and one of the best Nikkor lenses made. Excellent for portrait and general use. Get a Kenko extension tube set for product shots if you need to move in a bit closer. Think about an SB800 flash.

 

As for macro - why would you go for the most expensive solution if money is short? You can get an older used AIS lens from ebay or better from one of the stores supporting PN. The D200 will support an 55mm f3.5(must be AIS) or f2.8 lens. Excellent macro is also the older AIS 105 micro or more expensive but still cheap compared to the latest bells and whisles VR micro lens, the 200mm micro Nikkor. One of the best current AF macro lenses optically (mechanically "ok") is the 90mm F2.8 Tamron. I think its a little over 330 US$. Search PN for other -more rare - macro lens sugestions. You can go on a trip with the rest of the money and take great pictures or sit in the sand and dream about super duper expensive lenses .-)

Having upgraded from a D70 to a D200, and having bought a 70-200 VR at the same time, get the lens. No doubt about it.

And by kit lens, do you mean the D50 kit lens (18-55 I think), or the D70 kit lens (18-70)? The 18-70mm is a great bargain...

I got the 18-55. It's been very useful, but I haven't had the chance to try out any other lense within the given range.

Get the best glass you can afford and make it the priority. The D50 is a solid little camera and has lots of potential. You'll see a bigger difference with the lens than you will with the camera. Sure, get a D200 later on but that lens will last a lifetime if you choose. Bodies will come and go.

 

Rick H.

What everyone else said -- lenses before body changes. I have the VR 105mm macro and

just love it but I'm a bugs and flowers (and tropical fish) shooter, so a good macro is

something I've always craved. You can get cheaper macros than the VR 105mm one and if

you're not a dedicated macro photographer, you can get into 1:1 cheaper with a f/1.8 50

mm lens and a reversing ring (though that's quite fiddly to operate). If you mostly do

street shots and portraits, and you don't already have the f/1.8, try that. It's one of the

great lens bargains and the crop is very nice for head and shoulders shots on the D50.

You can get the f/1.8 and a non-VR macro lens for less than $1000.

 

I like the VR macro as a short telephoto, too, and used it to take pictures of a police

helicopter flying over a flood, but the reach could be better for sports (the 70-200 VR will

go better there).

 

I've got the D50 and I'm waiting to see what the year to two years brings -- what I'm

missing is weather sealing and the ability to TTL meter non-CPU lenses.

 

My further advice is that if you get VR lenses, go with the USA imports, so you get the full

5 year warranty. VR is yet more moving parts in a lens and having the extended warranty

made sense to me. (I have two US lenses and one 18-70 import).

 

If you went for the 70-200mm VR lens, I'd sell the Sigma unless you find that you use the

extra reach. (Consider saving the kit lens for shooting when you're just goofing around).

 

Also, you might find that a tripod helped if you don't already have one. For product shots,

that and some off the camera lights would probably serve you better than a $1600 lens.

Since I don't get to see a side-by-side comparison among the images in question, I can only provide some general comments and clearly, I am guessing.

 

Most likely, the other photographer's D2X, 70-200 and 105 VR lenses have little to do with the quality difference among the final images. If you are trying to improve your images by duplicating someone else's equipment, I would say you are likely going down the wrong path.

 

If you have access to that D2X and lenses, try to borrow them even just for a few mintues to take some test shots. If not, I would make a careful side-by-side comparison between your images and the other person's images.

Thanks for all the comments so far guys.

 

Shun, I know you mean well with your comment, but I also do believe that good equipment cannot compensate for shortcomings of skill, and I assure you that my intentions are not to cut corners in such a way. But yea, I'll try out your suggestion. My friend moved out to NY and I'm in CA, so I'll have to go rent a D2x body and do a side-by-side comparison with the lenses I already have. Thanks for the help.

<i>"...but I was wondering how much these lenses, either one, will improve the overall quality of my images if they were used on a..."</i><br><br>

I'll be blunt.<br><br>

There's a point where better gear makes negligible improvement. Your D50 can best any D2X with proper technique. Technique-- not glass.

If you can't decide between the 105mm f/2.8 VR, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, or D200, you are not ready to buy anything. There is no direct comparison between them, so it appears that you don't know what you want or need. When you get to the point that you are losing money because you can't do certain work, or you are racking up rental fees repeatedly for the same piece, then you might consider buying something. Otherwise, it's just NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome).

Perhaps another way to look at it--given a speciic scene you want to photograph--would the resulting photo be better if taken through a 105 VF or a 70-200VF or on a D200? I vote for either of the two lenses; I was astounded by the increased quality when I started upgrading my lenses to "pro" lenses on my D50. Yes, even a D50 is good enough to easily see the difference between the 55-200 lens (which isn't all that shabby for the money!) and the 80-200 or 70-200 lens. For $1500, you could get used versions in excellent shape for both an 80-200AFS and a 105 macro (non-VF). $400 more and you could add VF to one of them.

Denali, I think you are afflicted with a disease known as NAS (Nikon Aquisition Syndrome). You are not alone....many folks on this site suffer with this, including myself, at times. The best remedy is to get out and start taking pictures! Since most of your schoolwork consists of portraits and street shots, use this as an excuse to travel and try your hand at landscapes and sunsets. Before going, read up on what works...and what doesn't. Try different things....and remember that the journey is half the fun! I would suggest that you pick up a lightly-used normal or wide angle lens and a tripod...perhaps this will help you make the transition. Use the tripod and your camera's self-timer, and include yourself in the photos. California is an excellent place (but, what place isn't?) to spend your time travelling and shooting pics....times a-wasting!

NAS is not EVIL!

 

Second-hand NAS is.

Your D50 - while occasionaly frustrating - offers little less quality than a D2x or D200 when your using the same lenses at normal print sizes. I've suffered NAS on a realy tight budget and have just ended up with what I started with after much buying and selling of used gear - from now on I've realised, there is no point upgrading at all until I find a specific need.<br><br>

 

Money is better spent on:<br>

<li>

Photography books (by artists, not how-to guides!)</li>

<li>

Tripod and ball-head</li><li>

SB-600 and later a SB-800 (in that order)</li>

<li>

Decent polarizer and ND-Grad filter</li><li>

Subscription to photography magazine (UK's Practical Photography, Portfolio...)</li><br>

<br>

That said, those things arnt nearly as fun to play with - which is (admit it) the real reason you want to buy another lens / body!

Images are made with lighting, lenses and filters (thinking of polarizers and ND-grads, low contrast filters, ...). The camera body records the result. In-camera algorithms and photoshop can do a lot too, but they do not polarize light or lift the limitations of the sensor. Sometimes you would need filters or better light because of too much contrast, for example. You need to know the limitations of your tools and choose accordingly. Lots of trials and erros result - studying :)

 

You probably know this already, but it's just fun to type:

 

You can go really really close to the subject while photographing to emphasize the front part of the subject and also give it some "distance" from the background, but you will need a wide angle lens so that the whole object fits in the frame.

 

You can also go far away to give a flatter look to a 3D object or make it look closer to its background. If you are photographing people, this might even make skin look smoother (depending also on lighting and filter use).

 

You can control the perspective by using the wide angle and moving the camera back and forth. However, if you move the camera very far away for a flat perspective, then the subject becomes very small and it is difficult to preview it in the viewfinder and the resolution becomes poor when you crop & enlarge the result. You will thus need some magnification - a telephoto lens.

 

Maybe you should then get one cheap wideangle and one cheap telephoto that give the two extremes that you want. In the middle use a 50mm "normal" lens that gives the same perspective as the eye at the same distance. The rest is just walking :)

 

Then with relatively little money you can do these perspective studies and buy a more easily operated tool (and more sharpness) when you can afford the pro zooms. Now you might ask why not buy a cheap consumer zoom instead... but another thing to consider is the depth of field and the quality of the background. If you want low depth of field (blurred background) then you will need a fast aperture. It is easier to get with f/2.8, f/2 and f/1.4 lenses than with f/4-5.6 consumer lenses. I have a f/3.5-4.5 18-70mm zoom but if I photograph a flower, I need my 50mm f/1.8 to get a silky background. The background is worth the extra price and hassle.

 

ps. I want the D200 too, but I cannot afford it because first I need more reach with smooth background for shooting animals and rockstars (=long fast lens, $$$$) and then I need more speed than f/2 for nicer backgrounds and also handheld night shots with a certain atmosphere.

I need to clarify a few things in my post (as I cannot edit it anymore).

 

1) When I write about "limitations of the sensor" I don't mean megapixels, but dynamic range.

 

2) With "one cheap wideangle and one cheap telephoto" I mean relatively cheap fast primes, of course :) They don't cost $$$$

 

3) As you already have the 18-300mm covered, are you looking for better technical image quality or more artistic freedom with less DOF and/or better quality for the out-of-focus areas? The 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 are nice affordable fast lenses...

Denali, here is something else to consider. Look at your d 50 images in Nikon View or in some other viewer enlarged to 1 to 1. If they are not (still) sharp, you need to improve your photo technique. You want to make large prints. Large prints require the sharpest images and that starts with your technique which is then improved by lens quality, more pixels, etc. If you do not own a tripod, buy a good one and use it. And get a cable release to trip your shutter or learn how to use your self timer. And then start focusing those lenses of your manually to make sure they are focusing where you wnat them to focus. Joe Smith

I just recently did a wedding with both my D50 and D200. If you hide the EXIF data from the viewer and ask them to identify which images were taken with which camera, nobody could tell. But does that mean the D200 is a complete waste of money? Hell no. In a frantic wedding pace, the D200 proves to be so valuable because it is highly ergonomic and allows you to save your custom settings into several banks and lets you recall them at will, without going through layers upon layers of menus to reset everything from scratch. The D50 can't do that. If I need to change from AF-S to AF-C? Instead of flipping a switch I have to go through the menus. Change from matrix to spot metering? Ditto.

 

Whether you will benefit from an upgrade to the D200 depends highly on what and how you shoot. If you have time to setup everything, I can't see a huge advantage to the D200, at least not at ~double the price. You're better off with better lenses than your D50's kit lens.

 

Now to your 105VR micro and 70-200VR question, I'd say the 70-200VR is your choice because it is a tremendously useful lens. You didn't mention the 17-55/2.8DX but they are priced within a couple hundred bucks of each others and I'd get that one first. I have both and the 17-55 gets used 80% of the time during a wedding, perhaps more in other such as social settings. I also have the 105VR micro and it is a specialized lens. Its use will be limited unless you have a specific need for it.

Hi Denali

 

You've had a lot of good advice here so I'll keep mine short. Your current gear offers

almost unlimited photographic potential, the only limit is your imagination and technique.

So unless you need really specialised gear such as the macro, don't waste good money on

equipment for the sake of it.

 

That said, if you're determined to blow some serious cash, I'm with everyone who says the

lenses are the thing to get right first. Good glass makes more of a difference than

anything else and will last you years.

 

My advice is to take a long hard look at how you use your existing lenses. Which

focal lengths are your favourites? Whichever ones you use most is where you need to

spend your budget. There's no point spending lots of money on the wonderful 70 - 200

VR if most of your shots are taken with wides to short teles.

 

After all, you can always add more specialised lenses once you're more sure of your

direction.

 

Good luck with your photography!