Dilemna - New body or new lens?

[leonard_forte1]

Hi. I currently have a nikon D200 body and 12-24mm, 17-55 f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8

and 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4. I would like to sell the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens to

buy the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens (I dont find the 80-200mm very sharp and also

difficult to handhold without the VR). Should I buy the nikon 70-200 or buy the

D300 body? I'd like both but can't really afford both.

Is it worth upgrading to the D300 or would I be better off to buy the 70-200mm

lens?

[ShunCheung]

DSLR technologies are improving rapidly. Barely 2 years old, the D200 is now an "old" camera, so will the D300 in another couple of years. The D300 is a clear improvement to not only the D200 but also the D2X in a number of ways as we described in various threads, such as this one:

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

 

If you are on a limited budget as most of us are, IMO you should be able to pin point exactly why your current DSLR is insufficient for you and therefore you need to upgrade. If you cannot, you are probably spending some unnecessary money. For example, if you don't need to shoot beyond ISO 800 or very fast AF, the D300 will only be a minor improvment over the D200; e.g. the large back LCD is nice and so is live view, but most people can live without them.

 

Any one of Nikon's 80-200mm/f2.8 AF lens is quite sharp although perhaps not quite as good as fixed-focal-length lenses. If you are not using a tele on a tripod, that is likely to be the source of unsharp images. There is no real way around it. VR will help to some degree and of course in some situations you simply cannot use a tripod, but if you have not formed the habit of using a tripod as much as possible for serious photography, using/buying one is probably what is going to help improve your images most.

[leonard_forte1]

I've tested the D300 and noticed very little noice at 1600 ISA. I cant shoot at 1600 ISA with the D200. I want the sharpest photos possible so I tend to shoot at ISO 200 with the D200 but I wouldnt have to worry about noise with the D300. I've used a tripod with the nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 and I was not impressed with the images (shot mostly at f/2.8 and f/4).

[tim_knight]

I would go for the 70-200/2.8 VR unless you need something special from the D300 you can not do with your D200. Here is a review on the 70-200. It almost scores a perfect 10 and looking at the other lenses you have my guess you will not be happy unless you have the 70-200/2.8 VR.

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/134/cat/all

[leonard_forte1]

I find it impossible to shoot the 80-220 f/2.8 handheld above about 100mm. Can I not shoot handheld with the the 70-200 above 100mm??

[leonard_forte1]

It just seems the D300 has major improvements over the D200. Less noise, better LCD screen and self-cleaning sensor.

[mjt]

"a body is a commodity, but a lens is forever". investment (if you want to call it that) should be made in glass. the next best body will always be around the corner.

 

what are you using the 80-200 for? sports? wildlife? if so, are you using a monopod and/or tripod?

 

what is it that the D200 is *not* giving you that you feel the D300 will satisfy (name one or more features/benefits)?

[leonard_forte1]

I use the 80-200 lens mainly for portraits and some wildlife.

The main attraction fo me for the D300 is the sensor and the screen.

I havent been able to do my own tests but I was impressed when I took a few shots indoors without flash.

[ShunCheung]

I have had various Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 AF and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF lenses; in fact, I have owned every optical formula Nikon has used in those lenses. At least I don't see that the 70-200 is any sharper than the others; I bought it mainly because of VR.

 

If you want the absolute best optical quality and low-light performance, the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR and D3 would be the choices, for a lot morem oney.

[elliot1]

You probably won't notice any difference in image quality until you get to higher ISOs. Even then, you easily can 'fix' your high images with advanced noise reduction software.

 

Here is an test I did with my D80 at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 (RAW image). I processed both images with DXO Version 5. After processing, I compared them both to the identical ISO 100 image.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6669921

 

If you have Photoshop, another excellent noise reduction program is Dfine 2.0.

 

The D200 is a superb camera, and for what you are shooting, I would just update your lens and perhaps your software.

[dan_brown4]

Get the lens now. Get the D300 later, it's price will be under $1k within days after its

replacement hits the market. That lens will be useful and valuable 10 years from now.

[frank_skomial]

Try to rent the 180/2.8 as this lens is as sharp as it can get. If you cannot get very sharp pictures with this lens, chances are that your shooting technique may need improvement. Then, you will know how your 80-200 compares. The 70-200 may not be much sharper than your lens, unless your lens has a problem.

 

Lend your lens to other photographers and try on different bodies or by different people, chances are that you may not need 70-200 lens, or something is wrong with your lens.

[ShunCheung]

<I>Get the lens now. Get the D300 later, it's price will be under $1k within days after its replacement hits the market.</I>

<P>

The problem is that by then, you wouldn't want the D300 any more as it will be old technology, and in the mean time (perhaps roughly 1.5 to 2 years between now and then), you are not using the best technology you can afford for every single image you capture.

<P>

Again, the issue is whether the D300 (or D3 or whatever new camera) can make a difference in your type of photography. New technology can make a huge difference to some people and will made no difference at all to some others.

<P>

P.S. I agree with Frank, unless Leonard's 80-200 is out of alignment (i.e. slightly defective), he is not going to see a whole lot of difference in terms of optical quality from the 70-200.

[Two23]

I went from the 80-200mm f2.8 AFD lens to the 70-200mm VR version last summer. I didn't see any difference in sharpness when used on a tripod. There is a difference when shot hand held though. If I had to choose between going from my D80 to a D300 or going from the 80-200mm to the 70-200mm VR, I'd pick the lens. No-brainer. For me the lens made a noticeable difference in image quality. A camera body would not. Good lenses you keep; cameras are now disposable.

 

 

Kent in SD

[leonard_forte1]

How do I attach a photo? I'd like to put up a sample taken with the 80-200 lens.

[leonard_forte1]

Here is a sample taken at f/2.8 I beleive. It looks a bit soft to me.<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Leonard, your attached image looks ok to me, but of course I don't judge lens sharpness based on a small JPEG. To do that, I check things at the pixel level, e.g. see what Arthur Yeo and I did in this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NmR9

 

Exactly which version of the 80-200mm/f2.8 do you have? IMO, unless the lens has a built-in tripod collar and you are mounting it on a sturdy tripod, I wouldn't even bother to discuss sharpness. As several of us have pointed out, the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is not any better optically. I bought mine because of VR so that when I have no choice but to hand hold, I have much better odds to beat camera shake.

[leonard_forte1]

Shun, that photo was taken on a tripod. The lens is the most recent version. I just expected to say wow but I cant. Is it possible to have a bad copy of the lens? To judge IQ I look at the photo at 300-400%

[joseph_smith3]

Leonard, the picture looks good to me.

 

My advice is to borrow a friend's tripod, ball head and quick release camera plate and see if a tripod will work for you and improves the sharpness issue. If Yes, buy a Gitzo tripod, a Kirk or Really Right Stuff ball head and forgo the lens and camera.

 

If a tripod does or does not work for you, sell the 80-200mm lens and buy the 70-200mm VR, but use it on a tripod whenever you can even if VR is off. I can't remember if your 80-200mm lens comes with a tripod collar mount. For me, if it does not, that would be one reason to sell it in that I use a tripod almost all the time.

 

The D 300 has D lighting which can be set in the camera. It allows you to add light to areas in shadow. You can do this now with your D 200 during post processing only if you shoot in RAW.

 

Joe Smith

[frank uhlig]

Leonard,

 

shooting portraits at 300mm equivalent film length at f/4 and wanting extended sharpness in a face shot is ... well ... let me call it an oxymoron: Your DOF is how shallow? (google "DOF calculator" and please find out yourself) So naturally, the hair and tip of the chin and the eyes and their lashes CANNOT be in focus at the same time, can they, given your camera settings.

 

Of course, feel free to exchange your cameras and lenses every 2 years or 2 months. Nikon will love you! Your money might - however - be better spent in learning more of the craft (DOF range, ... ) than replacing excellent gear that performs at or near the best level (f/2.8 zooms) that is available with essentially the same gear listed by another model number.

 

So, I suggest studying up a while to get the results that your current gear is well capable of, had it a better photog behind the lens.

 

Happy New Year! We can never learn enough nor understand enough. Good luck.

[leonard_forte1]

Here is a cropped image.

[leonard_forte1]

Here is another image at 85mm.

[photojim]

It sounds like a monopod might help you. If you can't hold the camera and lens steady (which, unless your lens is defective, must be the reason your images aren't sharp - the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor is a fantastic lens), the monopod will help. It's a lot cheaper than buying a lens with vibration reduction.

 

If your images improve markedly but not enough, then you will know that the VR lens is a good investment. Also, your VR lens with a monopod will be steadier than your VR lens without, so the monopod will not have been a useless purchase.

[leonard_forte1]

Sorry, Here is a cropped image of the last one. shot at 105mm at f/4 ISO 200, tripod mounted

[leonard_forte1]

Frank I am familiar with depth of field. There should be enough depth of field at 200mm f/4 to give a sharp photo of a face. The 80-200mm simply does not impress me. I have taken sgarper photos with the 50mm f/1.4 lens and even sharper with the 85mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4