marcus_andrewes Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Hi I have a D200, a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 DX and a Nikkor 70-200 VR 2.8. I work as a general photographer doing advertising stuff for local businesses, event coverage, travel photography and I also run photo tours around New Zealand. In January I am going to Canada and will be spending some time (a week) in the Rockies with a professional guide taking wildlife photos. Wildlife and sports are personal interests and the wildlife part often plays a part in the tours (we can get up close to seals and penguins). Neither have so far proved very commercial but I would quite like them to over time. To shoot effectively in Canada, I need serious reach and have been offered a good price on a new Nikkor 200-400 VR. Although it is a good price it is still very expensive. Whilst I can physically afford it (and of course can put it through my business) I could buy a lot of other stuff for the money - eg a D300 or even D3 as a second body which would save on lens changes in the field. I am torn between the options! I don't think I would regret owning the 200-400 but neither do I think it would be used weekly. Of course it would last at least 10 years and any body they make between now and then will work with it. Any ideas?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie_frank1 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Marcus, only you know the answer. Find a pen and paper, write down the advantages of D300/D3 over your D200, cost of body spread over 2 to 5 years (minus your selling price in eBay), advantages of 200-400, cost of lens spread over 10 years (minus your selling price in eBay), what you miss without D300/D3, what you miss without 200-400, ... Then review your list of pro and con for several days or weeks, then make your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntrbll Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Since wildlife and sports are your personal interest - the thing you enjoy most, I assume - I would buy the 200-400 zoom if you can get that at a good price. There is always the urge these days to upgrade cameras with the technology constantly improving, but good lenses last a long time. For what you are doing a D300 would be nice, but I doubt it offers much, if any, in the way of improvement in picture quality, except in low light situations. Only you can decide if the better low-light qualities make the D300 worth the upgrade. I might also suggest if you buy the lens instead of the camera to rent a D200 or similar body for the trip as a back-up. It might also be nice to have the 70-200 on one body and the 200-400 on another.... I was hunting in New Zealand a coupe of years ago...beautiful country and very friendly people.... Good luck on your trip...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_alger Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Maybe both? If you restrict yourself to the 300/2.8 and may be a 1.4x converter, there should be left almost enough for a D300. However, I would even suggest "two lenses" - the 300/2.8 plus converter and the 12-14, which should be a nice thing for landscapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilly_w Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 You will arrive at that profitable 'commercial' stage much sooner with the 200-400 vs. a new body. No question, lens trumps body. Next up would be a suitable tripod if you lack one. Use proceeds to acquire a new body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Even with VR lenses like the 70-200 and the 200-400 you will still need a good tripod for professional results. (Assuming you don't already have one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich B NYC Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Marcus, That's a lot of money to spend on something that will sit in your bag most of the time. Have you considered renting a 200-400 for the trip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_andrewes Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 Hi All I have a Manfrotto Magfibre which I like - and a matching monopod which is very useful. I think the tripod will perform. I may have to change the head though - I have a magnesium ball/socket (the 468 with hydraulic damping etc) which may "collapse" a bit too easily with such a big lens on it. Looks as though the general view is that the lens is the winner: I would like both but my wife always seems to disagree with that!! The price I have managed to get on the 200-400 is only NZ$1200 more than the 300 2.8. I will be taking my Leica M7 as well. I keep trying to persuade myself to sell it but somehow I cannot part with it! It is a pain to have to scan the film later but the results are so magical that it is usually worth it. My Noctilux f1 lens has got me some great shots in places where flash would be offensive or unwelcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_shearman1 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The answer to the lens vs. body question is almost always the lens. A D300 or D3 can't take any picture you can't already take with the D200. But the 200-400 can certainly take pictures you can't take with the two lenses you already have. If the VR zoom is too expensive I like Michael's recommendation of a 300/2.8 and a teleconverter. VR really own reduces camera shake, not blur from moving subjects, and if you're shooting nature with a lens that long you really should be on a tripod anyhow. But the first thing you should spend money on after the lens is another body. If you're shooting for money you won't get hired a second time if your equipment breaks down on the job and you don't have backup gear immediately at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_andrewes Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 Sadly renting is not an option here in NZ: I can find a 300 plus teconverter but the hire charge for the period I am away amounts to only $3000 less than buying the 200-400. Although I will be on the wildlife part for a week, I am away from NZ for 32 days so will have to hire for the whole period. At least if I buy, I get the asset. Part of the problem is the tiny market here in NZ - we get stuff long after the US and at much higher prices, with none of the rebate schemes and extended warranties that feature in the US and Canada markets. I would be surprised if Nikon sell 5 of these lenses a year here. The list price of the 200-400 is some NZ$3000 cheaper in the US than NZ, as an example. Of course if anyone can tell me where I could rent it for a more realistic cost, I will certainly look at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 You're going to Canada to take photos in the wilderness. If you only have one camera, and it malfunctions, you're whole journey will be a financial loss. If I were you, I'd get a D300, and have the D200 along with me as a backup body. There have been many stories of people who go on once-in-a-lifetime trips with no back-up camera, and the thing fails for one reason or another. Consider this: If your camera body fails, how much is the trip worth to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Canada in January can be very dark and very cold depending where you go. A D3 can help in dark forests but a long lens at 2.8 can do the same. A pro body and a pro lens are more likely to survive wilderness. If you shoot from your car between breakfast and lunch in the motel any camera will do. Talk to your bank and buy whatever you can get in Canada and bring it back home. If the moose did not eat it and the grizzly did not let you drop it and if it is not lost in the snow you can always sell it at home and pay your trip :-) Have lots of fun. The only serious answer can come from yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iambaxter Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Why not try to get a use Lens at a good price and then sell it after your trip. You should be able to get back most of your investment. I know someone who did this and was able to sell the lens for more than he paid for it. After subtracting the cost for shipping (when he bought it) he made a small profit. I would also recommend that you try to get a second camera to take with you as back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Get your 200-400mm and for backup get an F100 mint used $400. You may want to use it B&W or Velvia or some other film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony bell Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 the lens, not the camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Repeat after me: L E N S LENS (unless your camera is Polaroid) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_andrewes Posted December 12, 2007 Author Share Posted December 12, 2007 I have had a look at hiring. I can get a last generation Nikkor 400 for about NZ$1550 for the period and a D300 new (maybe - if delivery happens before I depart, 30 units on back order etc etc!) for another NZ $3000 or so. That is $4500 approx - about $5000 NZ cheaper than buying the 200-400. The current generation Nikkor 400 2.8 prime is about NZ$14,000! I agree that two bodies is essential - both now and going forward - so if I can hire a decent lens I may go that route for this trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john schroeder Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Lens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The lens. It's a no-brainer for what you want to do. A 200mm is no where near long enough as a primary wildlife lens. A camera is just a camera. I would get a good carbon fiber tripod before wasting money on a D300. Kent in SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_burville Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 get the glass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus_andrewes Posted December 16, 2007 Author Share Posted December 16, 2007 Hi everyone Thanks for your input - very helpful. Also useful for convincing the wife...!! The lens is en route to me now! I also bought a pre-owned low mileage F5 as a backup. It was the cheapest way to get a bomb proof body. They cost NZ$5500 in 2004 - I got a known history low use one with 3 months dealer warranty for NZ$950! It is not a perfect solution but it will work until I sell enough work to pay the NZ$7500 a D3 will cost me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now