a "new start" D200 kit

ok, after burning out my brain over a 20D set up, I'm ready to throw

everything back on the table.

 

I need your assistance on this, provided that:

 

1- I don't make a living with Photography;

 

2- I don't want to spend my living earning money for it;

 

3- I don't want to get back to film, no matter what.

 

4- I don't have a specific subject/style tendency. I shoot on what

comes to me and find interesting. Be it B&W or colour, I shoot RAW

and post-process it.

 

quite an average guy, I think.

 

What I thought is:

 

- new D200

 

- 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor

 

- 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor

 

- SB-800 Speedlight.

 

Any suggestions that do not go in opposite directions?

 

Thanks to you all, as usual.

First of all why are you getting a expensive professional grade 300mm lens and then the multipurpose zoom lens? Does not make sense. If you wanna tackle it to be same quality I suggest Nikkor 12-24 DX and 17-55 DX lenses and 70-200 VR lens. These 3 with your 300mm f 2.8 would be the kings.

 

If you don't wanna spend that much, why not a 300mm f/4 version? Or just add a teleconverter on the 70-200 VR lens?

 

Tripod? Remote, cable release?

well, I tend to like details. and with my d70 I had pretty shaky results. I thought if I want to shoot that far, either I do it right or it's useless. For the accessories, I'll think of it later.

No one really knows yet what the 18-200 will be like. Even if it has good resolution,

distortion is likely to be an issue (as it is with so many superzooms), compared with

something like a 24-85.

 

You say you had a D70 - did you have the 18-70 lens? If so, what was your opinion of

that?

No one yet has made a great super zoom due to the range, I have doubts about this one aswell given the range. Go with the 70-200 and then the 300 2.8 even then the 300 is a tru pro lens.

 

Better still get the 300 f4 and a D2X instead it'll probably even save you a few bucks or break even. Whilst the specs on the D200 look really good its not a D2x. If you have convinced yourself the 300 2.8 is the way to go look at a 2nd hand one and use the even the last model and put the savings towards the 70-200.

 

Have fun.

Marco - the way many think about zoom lenses with extreme range (like 18-200mm)is that such zooms are very "universal" lenses. For me these lenses are very specialized lenses. These are special in the large zoom range but sacrifice everything else like speed (3.5-5.6), distortions, color reproduction, contrast, size , weight, -.----- Now this new lens that nobody tested or used yet seems at the real extreme end.

 

 

So if you need the large range for some reason thats fine. But for me several specialized primes or high quality zooms like 70-200 F2.8 are really more versatile. This is at the expense of cost and weight ...... etc.

 

As for convinience a point and shoot with a 10x zoom would make more sense and would cost less at about the same image quality, except at low light conditions.

my main concern for wide range is portability and less lens changes. I bring my cameras on snow hikes, boat trips (that's where I lost my D70) and dusty hiking trails. That is why I like the D200 sturdiness and sort-of 'weather proof' capability. Moreover, I don't want to carry three/four lenses and I don't usually have the luxury of moving front/backward for better compositions with prime lenses. I had the 18-70 and a 75-300. I was continuosly switching between the two. dirty Sensor and bajonet wear.

 

I could bear with the 18-70 barrel distortion, if that is what it takes in return of having wide angle and small, light, versatile zoom lens.

 

You guys are right though: I must scale down with the 300/2.8, but I wanted a VR.

If you want a decent telephoto with VR, you might consider the 80-400.

 

Otherwise, the 70-200 VR is long enough to do a lot. You can always also add a teleconverter in a pinch and keep the VR.

 

As far as the 300 2.8, it's certainly the opposite of "portable". Also keep in mind that you'd probably want to spend another $750 or so minimum on a tripod and head that would do it justice.

the 300mm f2.8 AFD is a great lens, but have you ever held one? Not really a hiking lens,

and you better have a monopod or tripod! Suddenly, your pack is getting full!

Tripod? is another luxury I cannot afford. I usually take advantage of rocks, branches... once even a friend's shoulder (better then hand held, anyway!). NO, definetly not the 2,8 (sigh!). But still I want to wait for the 18-200. If it works at least decently, it would save me a lot of trouble. Any other 300 teleprime, then?

There are a lot of people waiting for the 18-200... If you can't wait, the 24-120VR is fine, quite good from f8. Since you seem to need that "mid-range" zoom most, the 24-120VR might be the best best... If you also need wider, the 12-24 is good, and if you need longer, 70-200VR or AFS300/4. That's 3 lenses, low total cost, and you may find the 24-120 might spends most of its time on your camera.

Similar to the 200mm/f2, the 300mm/f2.8 (any version) is a specialized lens. If you shoot indoor sports or wildlife in dim light, it could be a fantastic lens. Otherwise, it is quite long on a DSLR.

 

What exactly are you planning to use that lens for?

I see lots of posts on what lenses for D200. I have agonized over since it was announced,

what zoom, what wide-angle, etc - here's what I'll be doing. I already have lots of primes,

both AF and MF, plus a 28-105 and a very good 75-150 E zoom. I know the effective

range changes on each, but no problem. The only thing I will lose is the 24 equivalent. For

that, well, I'll continue to use that lens with film. I'm always carrying two cameras

regardless.

 

My solution - minimal cost except for the camera. Just use my existing primes. Fast,

sharp lenses.

Get a 50/1.8 and use your feet.

Sorry, we have gone thru this many times. Please do not say "use/move your feet" again. When the distance from camera to subject changes, so does the perspective; e.g. the relationship between subject and background will be different. Moving farther away from the subject yields a different picture, which could still be acceptable to you, but it is not the same again. And in a lot of situations, there is no room or no time to move around. In other words, if you don't have the right lenses, you could lose shots in some, perhaps a lot of, situations.

 

If you have existing Nikkor lenses, you can indeed get the DSLR body first and determine what additional lenses you'll need later. Lenses originally designed for film SLRs do not necessarily work well with digital, though.

How about a 17-55/2.8 and a 80-400 VR. You get good range, 2 lenses, reasonable cost and reasonable quality. you get a decently sharp lens with the 80-400 out to the 300mm range you were looking at anyway and a much sharper lens for your closer range stuff.

 

Find your limits with those then look at some monster cost lens like the 300/2.8VR.

The 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor is a semi-monster, not very nice if you want to go hiking unless you really need some extra weight to build muscles.

 

I normally don't like the zooms you mention but in an sunny day they should be great.

 

I think that you should consider buying a 50mm either F/1.8 or F/1.4 as well.

<i>Please do not say "use/move your feet" again</i>

<P>

Sorry Shun. For a moment I forgot you were the oracle of this forum. Won't happen again!

Jeroen, your earlier comment was simply an incorrect one, and unfortunately, that same comment has been made over and over by various people.

Jeroen,

I think Shun makes an excellent point. Somehow the "move your feet" thing has become a mantra of the prime lens-or-die folk. There are just too many situations where moving your feet is simply not the best thing to do to get the best shot or it's simply not possible to do b/c you can't move either farther back (wall or people behind you) or further forward (moving into an animal's territory, in a blind, or on a cliff edge).

 

Zooms covering the necessary range are essential to many of us that shoot in a huge variety of situations. I know the good stuff about primes, even own 2 myself. But the zooms are my work horses and I'll never give them up.

I think you take the "zoom with your feet" comment too literally. Of course you can't "zoom" with your feet, but what the spirit of that message really is is that if you take your time to find the subject and angle, changing lenses is no big deal. If you "have to" get the shot from where-ever you happen to be when the idea comes to your mind, you need a zoom, but you probably won't have a memorable photograph.

 

(I have nothing against zooms myself, I even own one and use it.)

Actually, the bigger issue is the perspective change when you move. (Unfortunately, the definition for "perspective" itself was often debated too.) Some good examples are David Muench's super-wide large-format landscape images with a plant or tree in the foreground and landscape in the background. You have to use a wide angle (and frequently with large-format camera/lens movement) to achieve that effect. A few months ago there was a long discussion about that and there were a couple of very good posts on perspective change when the photographer moves. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that thread again.

Darn, how those large-format landscapes turn out so well although they don't have zooms. They must be taken by good photographers since they don't let the fact that there is no zoom stop them. Or perhaps zooming isn't as important as thinking and using appropriate light.

Marco,<br>

<br>

The 300/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor is an excellent choice. If its

a special purpose lens then I can think of a lot of special

purposes for it. Motor sports, stadium & arena sports, many

types of wild life, etc.<br>

<br>

The 300/2.8 emphatically does not need to be use with an $800.00

tripod. Heck, if I can hand hold a 400/5.6 ED AI on my D2H, and I

can, why cant you hand hold the 300/2.8G? The 300/2.8G at 2.8KG

weighs twice what my 400/5.6 weighs but Marco you are clearly an

athletic guy given your photo. It will be no joy to hand hold

this lens but with the f/2.8 speed and grainless ISO

400 performance of a DSLR a lot can be done from a $50.00

collapsible aluminum monopod that stows and packs easily. If the

budget allows a very light carbon filbert monopod would be ideal

but one could easily start with a $25.00 used Bogen 3229 Monopod.<br>

<br>

Why would one complain about the reach of a 400/2.8 on film from

a 300/2.8 on DX? At a cost of 1 stop and a TC-14E II one gets to

420/4.0 on a rather attractive budget. On the D200 a 300/2.8 and

TC-14E will give the reach of a 640/4.0 lens. This is ideal for

birds and small mammals. I have seen beautiful bird photography

with 300/2.8 IS and 1.4x Canon film outfit as well as hand

held in a prone position using one arm as a support with a

600/4.0 ED-IF AF-S Nikkor and F5.<br>

<br>

The photographer with the 300/2.8 IS Canon put together a

comfortable pack for under $125.00 using a closeout

mountaineering pack and over stocked shocking lime green SCUBA

type neoprene foam for a protective tube inside. The

mountaineering pack laced up the back to hold the lens

comfortably and tightly to the back for easy packing.<br>

<br>

The 300/2.8G will limit the other lenses that can be carried

comfortably but space surely can be found for a 70~180/4.5~5.6D

ED AF Zoom-Micro Nikkor and a 17~55/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom

Nikkor. Now think of the range of subjects that can be handled

with just these three lenses.<br>

<br>

Years ago I used to carry a 48 lb. (22KG) back pack including (2)

Nikon F2As and four lenses. A 180/2.8, 105/2.5, 55/2.8 and 24/2.8

would be common. These were usually 3 to 4 day packs with maximum

altitudes of 10,500 to 13,000 feet (3,200 to 3,960 meters). Im

not a big guy and I never though of myself as that physically fit.

Many photographers here (including me today) could easily afford

to lose the total 2.8KG weight of this lens. Many are just lazy.<br>

<br>

Marco Ill give a total thumbs up (US meaning to the gesture)

to the 300/2.8G. If this lens fires your dreams, if it fills your

needs, do not be easily persuaded against it.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: for bokeh freaks the samples Ive seen Bjorn

Rorslett post, <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html</u></a>,

this lens gives beautiful out of focus background rendition.

"18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor"

 

I wouldn't go this route, try a proven performer.

 

"300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor"

 

Get an f/4 and learn the tricks to getting the most out of it. You will love it when you do. By a 1.4x TC for it as well. Most portable and useful tele combo out there, IMHO. -Greg-