70-200vr or D200

[rob_van_valkenburg]

Hi there,

 

I've been shooting digital for some time now and have acquired several nice

lenses over the past few years ( 17-35, 28 1.4, 60 micro, 85 1.4, 180 2.8, 300

4.0). Looking for a bite more flexabillity I got interested in the 70-200vr

and then the d200 came along. My question: Should I upgrade my D100 for a

D200, or wait a little longer (D200 prices are coming down slowly but surely)

and add a 70-200VR to my kit? Any thoughts?

 

Regards,

 

Rob van Valkenburg

[jim_ochwat]

My answer may be a little biased as I already have a D200 and absolutely love it. But, it would seem that your current lenses are sufficient. If it were me, I would get the D200.

[brad_bell]

Rob,

 

That is a no-brainer for me since I own both the 70-200 and the D200. I bought the 70-200 back when my primary body was the D100 and as much as I love the glass, the D200 is far superior to the D100 and since it will drastically improve your photos with all your other lenses, I would definitely suggest that you upgrade to the D200 first. You already own an 85 and a 180 so all you are missing is the zoom and the VR (which is nice) but if you can only afford one of the two, go with the D200.

[j_c38]

Normally I would say a lens goes farther then a body. You already have some nice lenses.

 

Lets think about this. What do you print? What do you shoot? The D200 has more megapixels. If your printing 11x14 and larger this will really come in handy. The D200 forcuses faster, higher frames per second, and has a better buffer. Great for action shots.

 

If none of the above comes in play, the new body may just be a waste of money.

 

By the sounds of what you have, you're really on the fence. You need to think about which one will give you better results.

 

Do both!

[dave_dube]

I agree with Brad and Jim; The best and most used improvement for me is the number of RAW images I can shoot with the buffer size, 23 vs 6-7 with the D100. As for the lens, you don't have anything to compare with the flexibility of the 70-200 lens.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would get the D200 first. It'll make a dramatic difference in the image quality and focusing accuracy with your existing lenses (which are all top quality). However, eventually I suspect you will get the 70-200 VR also. Personally when I bought the 70-200, the D200 wasn't even announced yet, but the D2X was on my list of purchases. I decided to get the 70-200 and I haven't exactly regretted it, it's tremendously useful. But now that I have the D200, I find that at least for me it's much more important than the zoom.

 

Sweet lenses you've got. You'll love the extra quality the D200 will give to all of them.

[hayward]

I have both the 70-200VR and the D200. I tend to think that the marginal utility (to use an Econ 101 phrase) of the D200 vs. the D100 is a good bit greater than the marginal utility of the 70-200mm vs. the 85mm f/1.4 & 180mm f/2.8 combo.

 

It depends a little on what you shoot. The 70-200 will give you more flexibility and focusing speed. but that may not matter to you. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't but it just for VR -- since I mostly shoot things that move, I don't find it terribly useful.

 

On the other hand, the D200 will immediately give you cleaner images and more room to crop, not to mention a bigger viewfinder.

[stephen_bay]

<p>Two years from now, the 70-200 lens will still be worth almost what you paid for it. The D200 will probably be half it's cost or less.

 

<p>I have all three of the items that you mentioned: D100, D200, and the 70-200VR. Personally, I would make the decision for a d200 versus 70-200 lens as follows:

 

<ul>

<li> D200 for enlargements past 12x18. At 12x18, the D100 is still quite good.

<li> D200 if you need to shoot fast bursts of pictures. With the D100 you might get 1-2 frames a second. With the D200 you can gun it and go for 5 fps if you need it.

<li> 70-200 VR if you shoot events where you can't easily move around. The flexibility of the lens, especially with the 1.5 crop is amazing.

<li> The D200 is much better with exposure and white balance than the D100. But of course, this may not be an issue if you are good with adjustments (and have the time to do so).

</ul>

 

<p>

Personally, I haven't noticed a real improvement with the autofocus of the D200 over the D100. But in fairness, I do not shoot much action (no sports or wildlife).

 

<p> The lens will help you get the picture. The D200 will give you more MP and a faster frame rate.

[tristanlaing]

I honestly doubt you will see any improvement in your photos with the D200. Maybe if you

shoot sports. Anyway you cut it, having a 70-200 VR will give you huge new possibilities, and

the body will give you tiny new possibilities. Add a 1.4 TC to the Zoom andyou have a

120-300 F4 VR. Crazy.

[ilkka_nissila]

The D200 is _not_ an action camera. Yes, it's got fast processing and a large buffer, but the autofocus can't keep track of a moving subject well. However, on still subjects the image quality improvement is dramatic, D100 images look artificial and plasticy in comparison, because there just isn't detail enough to cover a 8x12. Even the D70 shows noticeably sharper pics than the D100, and that's just because of the different antialiasing filter.

 

But the biggest improvement is really the viewfinder and autofocus accuracy. You can actually see what you're shooting and focus on it by hand with the D200.

[frank_skomial]

You already have top class lenses 85/1.4 and 180/2.8. Getting 70-200 may give you more flexibility when shooting actions, but certainly do not expect better quality pictures from the zoom lens. If you want to increase quality of your photos, get the D200.

 

Your answer is in what and how you want to shot. If your shooting style with lenses that you already have satisfies you, then get the D200 camera. If you miss a lot of action while shooting, then get the 70-200 VR, so you will get faster AF-S, and better framing.