New body or lens - what would you get first?

[rob_shooter]

I'm contemplating replacing my D80 for a D300 and buying a 70-200 VR and/or

300mm f/4. As the first 2 are going to cost in the region of 1000GBP each, and

the last 500GBP I need to decide which is first as there will be a few month gap

between the purchases in oder to save up for the second etc.

 

Which would you buy first?

 

Currently I have 10-20mm, 17-50mm, and 50mm so am short on the long side hence

my desire for the zoom. Shoot landscapes and my young children (1 & 3 year old)

mainly - mostly outdoor. But would also like to do a bit of wildlife - got a

really good bird sanctury nearby inc herons etc and would like to photograph

them, which is where the D300 comes in with its weather sealing and 8 FPS max,

and possibly the 300 with a 1.4x converter.

 

Just curious as to what you would do?

 

Thanks in advance

[rjeffrey]

You don't say why you want to upgrade to the D300. Perhaps you should buy the lenses first. You may discover that to be enough!

[elliot1]

I would go with a lens first. 200mm is a little short for wildlife photography. The 300mm is an outstanding lens and pretty good with a converter. But I think the 80-400 may be a better choice for you. Although many are not thrilled with its focus speed, I find it works well with my D80 when I use the focus limit switch. I find its images at 400mm are superior to that of my 300mm with a 1.4x converter.

 

I have also found that an image shot at 300mm and then cropped to the equivalent of what the converter would give is superior to the identical image shot with the lens/converter combo.

[ShunCheung]

If the longest lens you currently have is 50mm, I would get the 70-200 over the 300. From 50mm to 300mm it is a huge gap, and 300mm seems to be too long for photographing children.

 

As far as getting a new D300 first or a lens first, that seems to be a very easy decision. The D300 is not even available and won't be for at least 2 more months.

[Matt Laur]

I'll have to echo Shun, here. That 70-200 will become your best friend, and will show you things that you didn't know your D80 could capture. For kid-type shooting, it's stunning. You'll get lots of use out of it immediately, and long past the lifespan of an eventual D300, as well. It may actually make you very comfortable putting off the D300 for a bit. I will say, though, that if you don't have the vertical grip for the D80, you might wish that you did - that lens is going to make the D80 feel a little nose-heavy. It will, when the time comes, feel much more at home on the D300, and all the more so if you add the grip to that body, as well.

[mawz]

Lens first. Alwasy get glass before bodies.

[nickwhite]

Another vote for the 80-400VR, which you can get for about 750 quid now and which will cover the whole range and more of the two lenses you list - Like Elliot I have no issue at all re focus on my D80.

 

Since the D300 is not likely to see the light of day till about xmas here, probably much later in any numbers judging from previous releases, (and is also going to cost 1300GBP not 1000) the obvious choice is to go for the longer lens first.<div></div>

[elnoralouisa]

I vote for a lens for up to 200mm. Going from 50mm to 200mm will be more than enough, and give you SOO much more freedom. Maybe buy a D200 later? You have NO glass right now, if you only go up to 50mm, and paying that much for a camera isn't going to do much good unless you are studio photographer, and never use it outside the studio.

[juanjo_viagran]

nuff said

<img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/the%20equipment/DSC_3735-5-1.jpg">

[ShunCheung]

IMO, the 80-400 VR has unacceptably slow AF. For those who are interested in that lens, I would test it out before you buy. Clearly there are people who are happy with this lens out there, but IMO, that is one lens Nikon should update to AF-S with newer VR soon (in fact, they should have done that already), perhaps with better construction quality. When you zoom to 400mm, it has a plastic barrel that extends very far outward, making it vulnerable. I know multiple people who have dropped that lens in that situation and it splits in half.

[juanjo_viagran]

70-200mm 2.8 VR with a Kenko pro300 1.4X or 2X is the way to go IMHO

[raymond_petty1]

The nice thing about getting a 70-200/2.8 VR is that it is an AF-S lens. With the motor in the lens the D80 will drive it as well as a D200 would due to the fact that they share the same AF CAM module.

If you are satisfied with performance, then you could consider purchasing a 300/4.0 AF-S lens instead of the standard 300/AF. That would only cost you about $500 more. A lot cheaper than a new $2000 body (when available).

[Dieter Schaefer]

Agree that the 80-400 VR has slow AF but the 300/4 AF-S with a 1.4x behind it is no speed demon either. I also have a 300/4 AF and its AF speed appears to be at par with the 80-400 (especially when used with a Kenko extender). I agree fully though that Nikon should have upgraded the 80-400 already as well as putting VR into the 300/4 AF-S.

 

As to the original question, 70-200 first. Then I would indeed consider a used 300/4 AF (not AF-S) and a Kenko extender to see whether the bird photography is something worth pursuing and investing more into. The lens seems to be holding its value fairly well, so if you decide to upgrade to a D300 and a 300/4 AF-S later, it should fetch a good price again.

[mjt]

Glass is forever ... a body is a commodity.

[rob_shooter]

Cheers everyone for such quick and informative responses...

 

Rich - upgrade wanted to D300 to gain 8FPS and weather sealing, can see this as good for outdoor and nature photography

 

Matt - yeah, I do have vertical grip

 

Debbie - I wouldn't agree I have NO glass now, I'm very happy with my Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 17-50mm and Nikon 50mm 1.8 thank you.

 

As for the 70-200 or 80-400 my personal preference is for the 70-200 due to 2.8 which could come in useful for School concerts etc as the children grow.

 

Does anyone know how the 70-200 stacks up with a Kenko 2x or Nikon 2x converter at 400mm compared with 80-400 at 400mm? I presume the 70-200 would become 5.6 instead of 2.8, therefore same as 80-400.

 

As for the general comments, yeah, glass seems the def way to go first.

[alex_lofquist]

After seeing myself in the mirror this morning, I'd go for a new body!

[Matt Laur]

Just this weekend I was out doing sports-ish stuff (dogs in the field, as usual). The 70-200 was along, and I was trying out a Nikon TC17E-II 1.7x teleconverter. Mentally prepared for all of the compromises, I have to say I was really pleased with the real-world results. Lots of shots called for just the 70-200 in all of its native glory. But for a lot of the work, on went the TC. AF was a little slower in darker areas, and of course I lost some of that lens's otherwise stunning sharpness. But: in real, practical terms, the combo was fantastic. Here's a hand-held shot at right about 300mm, f/10, ISO800, 1/400. The right-hand edge of the image is a 100% crop. It's NOT the best of the bunch, only fair/average, and that's my point.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Matt, I think you find that combo works because you where shooting at f10, which is about 2-stops down from wide open (f2.8 + 1.7x TC). Maybe that was why you were shooting at ISO 800, but I almost never shoot a 300mm at f10.

 

Maybe in the future, ISO 800 will be perfectly acceptable with a D3. For now, I would rather stick with ISO 100 and 200 outdoors.

[elnoralouisa]

Gee, sorry, didn't mean to offend you about the glass, just seems you are really restricted by only going up to 50mm especially for bird pictures. I was just saying that a cheap lens that goes up to 200 would open a whole new world for you, instead of paying a mint to buy a new camera.

[rob_shooter]

Cheers Matt,

 

That's it, awesome, you've convinced me ;-)

 

Has anyone any idea how the 2x converter works out, particulalry at the long end? Also, how do the Kenko pro Dx compare to the Nikon converters?

[ShunCheung]

Rob, you can take a look at these threads:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Lb77

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KxbD

[Matt Laur]

Shun: Of COURSE I'd rather shoot at ISO 100 or 200. Like I said, I went into this with compromises in mind. My purpose was to be able to swing that camera around into all sorts of different light (a very contrasty day, and I was on foot following competing dogs and horseback judges in and out of bright fields and woodlines) and not think about it too much. I was in shutter priority mode, and trying a series of shots at no less than 1/400. I'll be adapting that approach over time. But: I walked almost 10 miles that day, up and down hills in 95-degree, 70-percent-humidity weather. BELIEVE me when I say that even if I had the budget this month for a 300mm prime, I wouldn't have wanted the extra payload. This is one of those times when that tidy little TC, compromises and all, made some shots possible, vs. not.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6402773"><b>Right here</b></a> is one from the same day at f/5.6 with the TC mounted, but only used at 180mm (I didn't have time to remove the converter ... quail and dogs don't always wait!).

[rob_shooter]

Is that 180 as shown on the 70-200, or 270 when the DX 1.5x is factored in, or 459 when the 1.7 TC is factored in ;-)

[Matt Laur]

That's 180mm as seen in the EXIF data, as recorded by the camera. So, that's the 70-200 zoomed to about 105mm on the dial, producing an effective 180mm. I feel I should add that quite of few of the shots at 200mm x 1.7 were marginal. But then, so were some of them at 200mm WITHOUT the TC... shooting on the fly while you're huffing and puffing on the side of a mountain in Pennsylvania, and completely missing half of your body's electrolytes is NOT the best way to evaluate a teleconverter. But, there were enough keepers - some very nice ones, in fact - that I'm sold on the utility of having it in the bag. But I'm even more sold on a momma of a big fast prime when I've got the cash, and am doing something a bit more... stationary. I've spent a lot of time following threads (such as those pointed out by Shun) and reconciling myself to the pros and cons of using a TC with a zoom. It's definitely NOT for everybody or every situation. It appears to be an option for me, though. I'm quite certain to sell enough images from the weekend's dog chasing to pay for it ... just not for a 300/f4. Yet.

[rob_shooter]

Cheers Shunn/Matt

 

This is an interesting debate.

 

I've looked at the threads Shun has provided and is it fair to summarise that it seems reults from the 70-200 cropped exceed are 'better' than those where a TC has been used?