Which one to Upgrade first, Nikon 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200 AFS VR?

<p>I currently have D700 and D200 with the old Nikon trinity 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200 AF-S VR lenses plus 16mm/2.8D, 85/1.4D and 200/2.0 VR. Mostly I photograph landscape. Since I have no cash to replace all the three lenses right now, I am contemplating getting one of new trinity(14-24, 24-70 & 70-200 VRII) prior to my trip to NZ in September. Please let me know what you would do in my shoes.</p>

 

<p>Why? If the gear you have does the job, save your money for the trip.</p>

<p>I don't know about shoes, but I don't think you need new lenses. </p>

<p>If it were me, I'd upgrade the 70-200 to the VRII first.</p>

<p>What do you find lacking in your setup?</p>

<p>You have six good lenses ... why don't you get rid of the D200 and get a D800 to replace it ... :-)</p>

<p>+ 1 to Lorne - </p>

<p>There's nothing wrong (technically) with any of the lenses you have listed. As long as you have good clean copies of them - no scratches on elements, no fungus, etc... Why replace? </p>

<p>Use the savings for the trip or new shoes!</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>If it were me, I'd sell the 85mm and D200 and get a D7000 as a back up body.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The 70-200 VRII is sharper at the edges and has less vignetting than the VR, when used with a full frame camera. Except for that, upgrades for these lenses would yield little in terms of results. I don't use the 17-35 as much with a D3, and have no real need for anything wider, much less at a 1 stop disadvantage (14-24 v 17-35). The overlap, though slight, between the 17-35 and 28-70 eliminates most lens changes at events and weddings. Longer is usually better than wider for landscapes, particularly in mountains. A 17mm will make molehills out of them, whereas they will look more like you remember them at 80-105 mm.</p>

<p>If anything, 70-200 is not long enough, and acts more like a portrait lens for full-frame cameras. If money is burning a hole in your pocket, consider getting an AFS 300/4 and a couple of tele-extenders (1.4x and 2.0x) for your kit. The 300/4 is incredibly sharp, relatively inexpensive, and with the availability of good quality high ISO settings, it can be hand-held even under stage lighting. It uses the same 77mm filters as your existing lenses. Set aside money for an RRS tripod ring. The original is too wobbly to be useable.</p>

<p>I've not used the 28-70 but the other 2 are very nice lenses. You are really only getting minor upgrades, like a slightly better VR on the 70-200, slightly sharper corners with slightly less fall off.</p>

<p>In general glass is first... but with the gear you own I agree that the best upgrade for you will be D800. </p>

<p>The 70-200mm is rubbish on FX as large sections of the corners are horribly smeared (if you use it for landscapes - if you use it for other purposes like portraiture/sports etc it is fine as you largely don't look at the corners). The new version apparently cures that problem well. If you are happy with your 17-35mm I would keep it - mine was great on FX.</p>

<p>I don't think you need to upgrade anything except the D200.</p>

<p>Sounds like replacing any of those lenses is a solution in search of a problem.</p>

The original 70-200 VR is

definitely not a good

choice for landscapes on

FX. If you don't want to

spend the big bucks to

upgrade to the VR II, you

might consider a used

200mm f/4 AIS. They're

cheap, compact, and very

sharp - almost as good

as the original 70-200 in

the center and far better

in the corners.

<p>There are multitudes of nonprofessional photographers who could only wish to be in your dilemma. All six of your lenses are excellent pieces of glass, you would notice only insignificant improvement in images, if any. I would even keep your D200 as the backup...your set is fine just the way it is.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, your valuable feedback is very much appreciated. Yes, there is nothing wrong with my old trinity as several posters pointed out, and actually I was very pleased with their performance until I bought 200/2.0 VR about 3 years ago. From what I have been reading, the difference between the old and new trinity is detectable, I am hoping the latter would produce better photos, though may not be up to the standard of BIG/HEAVY primes.</p>

<p>Because of the vignetting issue, my 70-200 VR only pairs with DX body. Both Lorne and Mihai mentioned that I maybe should replace d200 with D800 first. If so, then I definitely need to get myself 70-200 VRII as well.</p>

<p>Edward - AFS 300/4, actually I have given it a lot of thought (even before I bought my 200/2.0) due to all the traits you stated. It's still on my wish-list last time I checked :-). I have tried TC1.4 , 1.7 and 2.0 on 200/2.0. It doesn't even notice 1.4, though 2.0 does make images look a little soft. Wondering how friendly AFS 300/4 is with various TCs.</p>

<p>Except for the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, I have all of those f2.8 zooms discussed on this thread, and I have used like 7, 8 different copies of the 24-70mm/f2.8 so that I am very familiar with it also.</p>

<p>Part of the reason I don't have the 24-70 is that I find the 28-70mm/f2.8 is still a very good lens, although I do prefer to have the zoom range extended to 24mm. Corner softness on the older 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR around 200mm is a well known issue, and the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S now has similar problems at 17mm on 24MP, 36MP FX DSLRs.</p>

<p>However, for the purpose of landscape photography, I prefer f4 zooms for better portability. For example, the new 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR would be great for landscape photography and at a fraction of the cost. Moreover, the big 14-24mm/f2.8 with a bulging front element wouldn't be my choice for landscape work either.</p>

<p>where o where is the 70-200 f/4 Nikkor ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>where o where is the 70-200 f/4 Nikkor ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed that is a shameful omission - in my Canon days I had the 70-200mm F4 L and it was absolutely brilliant on my 1Ds II.</p>

<p>I would keep what you have. So what if the 70-200 VR is a little soft in the corners, or a little vignettey, use your 200/2 for that focal length, or simply correct in post processing. Generally speaking with telephoto lenses it is the central subject that is most important, so if the periphery is out of focus, then it does not matter that its soft.</p>

<p>The reason you notice such a big difference is because the 200/2 is likely THE best lens Nikon makes. I had a 200/2 AI and still regret selling it. You simply cannot get it's performance from any zoom. I recommend adding more specialty lenses, like the 200/2, to complement your zooms. Something like the 85/1.4, 105 Micro, or 24 PC-E.</p>

<p>I prefer ultrawides and used to have a Nikon 14/2.8 before switching to a Canon 17 TS-E so the one zoom I do recommend adding, IF you find 17mm not wide enough, is the highly rated 14-24/2.8. </p>

<p>As many have already recommended, I also suggest the D800.</p>

<p>I think John makes a really good point, you bought the 200mm F/2 and are comparing it to the old trinity and thinking they are not good enough, instead realizing the 200mm F/2 is really just that amazing. Especially at close focus distances, the 200mm F/2 simply towers above either version of the 70-200mm in my opinion because it doesn't have anywhere near the focus breathing issues the 70-200 VRII does, and is much better in the corners and with vignetting than the 70-200mm VRI. Unless you are shooting at F/8 at normal distances no matter how you look at it the 200mm F/2 is going to pretty much shame any other lens in the 200mm range except maybe the 200mm Macro, but obviously its in a whole other class for totally different purposes purposes. I also concur, a D800 is in order.</p>

<p>Decisions Decisions Decisions :)</p>

<p>I have a 35-70/F2.8 lens that is old but still works very well on the D800. I thought about upgrading to a new zoom but after looking at the price on the 24-70/F2.8 I decided to keep the 35-70/F2.8. I can use the 35-70/F2.8 and put on the 24/F2.8 when needed.</p>

<p>Upgrading the 70-200/F2.8 VR I to VR II would be worth serious consideration. </p>

<p>In the film days I had two camera bodies and I miss only having one DSLR. Having a second camera is very handy.</p>

<p>Then there is the idea of the 300/F4.0. I rented this lens recently and I REALLY want to buy it. It has been on my buy list of decades but after renting it, I REALLY want the lens. However, I want the lens to have VR. Given that I have found rumors going back to 2010 about the 300/F4.0 getting updated to VR, I will not hold my breath. But it should be here any day now. lol</p>

<p>I would look at the cost of upgrading the 70-200/F2.8 to VRII vs selling the D200 and buying a D800. That is a tough decision.</p>

<p>Later,<br />Dan</p>

<p>Yes... WHY?? They are all great lenses. Apart from the impractical 14-24, you have all you would ever need. Landscape does not automatically mean wide.</p>