zoom options

<p>I am planning to get me a D90 with the 18-105mm VR kit.<br>

I am also looking at zoom options<br>

At first had the 70-300 VR in mind. (based on affordability, but I actualy wanted more zoom)<br>

After looking arrond more I saw the Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zom lens.<br>

But the price difference is big. What I want to know:</p>

<ol>

<li>Will the 80-400 be a better investment? </li>

<li>If so why would you say so. (what makes it better?)</li>

</ol>

<p>The best investment is to purchase the lens with the required range. If you need 400mm then that is the one. I would not use a TC on either of these lenses which makes it even more important to get it right the first time.</p>

<p>First, your camera gear generally isn't an investment, as you don't expect it to appreciate over time and then sell it. It, rather is a tool of the trade. Most zooms having a broad range to them suffer in doing all jobs well at all focal lengths, so are built with many compromises. At one time I owned the 80-400, but found it unwieldy as a general use lens, although it produced pretty good results. I found that for my work, at least, I prefered using prime lenses which were really optimized for the focal length in use, and tended, in particular, to show less chromatic aberation. Also, since the apertures were larger, they were easier to focus when used in the manual mode.</p>

<p>It will help to know what you're planning to shoot. Sports, under bad lighting (like night football, or in high school gyms)? Wildlife at dawn/dusk? Or... kids playing soccer in broad daylight?<br /><br />What I'm getting at, here, is that the 80-400's fairly slow f/5.6 at the long end may or may not get in the way of the results you're after. So, knowing more about what and how you intend to shoot will get you some better specific advice on what's worth (or not worth) your money.</p>

<p>Lean, I have the 80-400 VR zoom. It is a quality lens, but has some significant limitations. I have written quite a bit about it here...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Sgyg">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Sgyg</a> <br>

Another option is to consider the 300 mm f4 AF-S with a 1.4 TC, but then you don't have a zoom. The 200-400 mm f4 zoom is excellent, but you better be sitting down when you see the price.<br>

Enjoy your camera!<br>

Dick</p>

<p>To cover that entire range with one zoom requires compromises. My 70-300 VR wasn't very good and was quite bad over 180mm, though some people are very happy with them. It does have quick focus, though. The 80-400 has slow focus and opinions on quality at the long end are mixed, though I've seen some stunning photos from them. With the 80-400 you are getting into quite a large, heavy lens.</p>

<p>The cheap 55-200mm VR lens is quite good, and light. Combine that with a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x converter and you have a very flexible setup at reasonable cost. One of the older 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses, either one-ring or two-ring, will give excellent quality and mid cost level ($350 - $650, say), and can also be used with a converter, but you are again into a large heavy lens and you give up VR.</p>

<p>What are you looking to shoot in the beyond-300mm range? Sports? Wildlife? The answers will tend to suggest the direction you should look.</p>

<p>if you dont know that you need the 80-400, you probably dont.</p>