D300 or 80-200 AFS

[howard_owen]

I have a burning case of NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) and I really like the notion of upgrading my D200 to the

D300, primarily for the lower noise and enhanced focusing engine. However, I also am being tempted to keep the

D200 and hang better glass on the front of it, in this case the 80-200 2.8 AFS. Either option will end up costing be

about the same money when it's all said and done. Where to spend my money?

 

Thanks,

 

D200,

Nikon 18-70,

Tamron 90 macro,

Tokina 11-16,

[ShunCheung]

The answer to this type of questions is very simple. If you can go with either the D300 or the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, that clearly indicates that you can live without either one of them. I would say buy neither. To be blunt, NAS is nonsense.

 

I would suggest saving your money for now until you can figure out what is really missing in your toolbox that is limiting your photography. Apparently you have no lens longer than 90mm, has that been an issue?

[frank]

If I were you I would go for the lens. Even if the D300 is a bit better than the D200 (I use both), no one will criticize your pics because of their technical IQ.

But.... ....I would buy the AF-S VR 70-200/2.8. Its image stabilizer is unbeatable for hand-held photography.

[andrew_gale]

Do you ever feel the need to have the reach of the 80-200? If not, like shun said, get neither. Run your D200 into the ground. Its not worth selling used and the D300 is a pretty serious investment that, like a computer, isnt an investment at all. If you never would use the reach of the 80-200 (and it doesnt sound like you do or you would have bought a cheap alternative to tide you over till the 80-200 2.8) then wait for the D400, or a used D300 or a used D700 or a D800 in a year and a half. Cameras are popping up everywhere, and I think that Nikons new strategy is just to bring out as many new models as possible. It keeps people thinking about what is ahead which is exactly what they want. If they can get people always talking about the next nikon upgrade, then they will sell more when it actually comes out.

[dan_brown4]

The 80-200/2.8 AFS is the best Nikkor telezoom ever made. I' d say that's reason enough to tip the scales. The D300 has

already been surpassed by the D700, so like others have said, it just isn't an "investment" in any sens eof the word.

 

But NAS is a good reason to think twice, and then think again :-)

[simon_hickie1]

A lot depends on your type of photography. Like you, my kit is deficient at the tele end (I have the 18-200 VR & 70-210 4-5.6, so I'm covered, but slow). My D80 will make way for a D300 shortly because I need the better focusing, low light capability and metering accuracy for weddings and events. However, I'm sure I'll end up with an 80-200 or 70-210 f2.8 as well, but I'm going for body first.

[joe_a2]

Howard.... Depending on which Nikkors you already own, I'd say go for the lens. But unless you plan to put a Nikon teleconverter behind the 80-200 AF-S sometime, you should consider the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D. The second AF-D, actually (there were two Ds). Look at the AF-D version with the two-ring zoom/focus and the tripod foot. About $600-650 or so.

[ronald_moravec1]

lens and a small back up like a D40.

 

Look into using a surface mask for noise reduction. You mask off the sharp edges, and run NR with the balance of the

image. If still too noisy, make a dup layer. Unless you do a lot of high ISO work and do not want to write the action to do

the surface mask and run it, the D200 is all you need. You can afford to be very aggressive with NR as long as the sharp

edges are masked.

 

This is all written up on The Lights Right Studio website, digital darkroom tab. Go learn.

[dcraton]

NAS is fun and cool. Forget the negative naysayers. I had thought this thing we do called photography was

supposed to be an adventure.

 

Here is a basic rule of thumb: lens first, body second as to priority. With that said, I would recommend the

lens since I have a D200 and the very same 80-200mm lens. It will also give you some reach and a constant f2.8

lens. It is tack sharp and optically a steal at that price. For NR, there are a variety of nice plugins or

stand alone software pieces that when used correctly will really help a D200 in low light. So much so, we shoot

at ISO 800 often. I would recommend Noise Ninja first and DFIne as well. Others may have input and I am using

them both as plugins to Bibble Pro and PhotoShop.

 

Right now, because of NAS, I am down to only 8 lenses, three cam bods, two battery grips, two flash units, one

TC, a bevy of software, etc. NAS rocks. However, they are all paid for and none on credit cards. I just get em

as I can afford them. I use it all and enjoy it all.

 

"To be blunt," NAS is a good thing when combined with common sense.

[elliot1]

"primarily for the lower noise" - the D300 is a bit better but as David states, there are several NR programs that do a really great job and can get you close or equal in IQ to the D300, especially if shooting RAW. I would not upgrade for noise alone as the 'secret' to the D300s low noise ability is basically (but not solely) in camera NR at the cost of some sharpness/detail.

 

"and enhanced focusing engine" - the D300 is sharply improved in this area. I upgrade primarily for this reason alone. There is one low light event I shoot several times a year and my D200 would just not focus at the venue.

 

If you are not having focus issues or severe noise issues, I would go for the glass first.

[howard_owen]

Thanks for all the reasoned replies. Where to start...

 

I *do* miss not having an 80-200 in my arsenal. I am also a Canon film shooter* and I have an 80-200 L for my T90 that I

like. A lot. So, yes, I do feel limited by not having anything longer than 90mm in my bag.

 

I'm curious about Joe A's comment that, "unless you plan to put a Nikon teleconverter behind the 80-200 AF-S sometime,

you should consider the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D." Is that due to focusing speed alone or is there some other factor, like the

other lenses not being compatible with the TC? I have considered the two ring D version for the cost savings. Giving

consideration to buying a D300 makes the AFS look more affordable, though. :) Are there any other advantages to the

AFS besides focusing speed/TC use?

 

The noise floor comes into play when I do HDR work, and I find myself doing it more frequently. Even though I shoot RAW

at ISO 100 (and use NR software), I find there are some renders that are marginal due to noise. Eliminating or reducing

the noise abatement in my work-flow would be a time saver, but not a life saver.

 

I guess the old adage that the lens is more important than the body is still true. The consensus is that the lens is the way

to go and I think I agree.

 

Thanks.

 

 

*long story, short version: Canon FD body, FD lenses no good for EOS, chose Nikon D200 for my dSLR because I liked

the way it fit my hands.

[dcraton]

I have used Nikon TC's and dislike them and have migrated to the Kenko Teleplus 300 Pro. It works on every applicable lens to include metering and AF. It works so well (2X), I use it on the job and it stays in my bag.

 

As to the AFS vs. the AFD, the AFD will focus a bit slower, but nothing to get in a snit about. The AFD is a proven lens and a tank. Very sharp and works well with the aforementioned TC.

 

I have one and simply love it. Joe A is right about the lenses, that is why I went with Kenko and I publishable results. And yes, I even shoot fast paced sports with it. Just have to anticipate a bit. Sometimes I think I get spoiled by all the speed I have and forget where I came from in the 70's.

[dan_brown4]

The current line of Nikkor teleconvertors only work with AF-S lenses. The two-ring 80-200/2.8D-AF ED Nikkor is a scew-

driven lens, so the TC's don't work with it. However, the AF-S version you are talking about will work perfectly.

[ShunCheung]

Howard, it looks like you have answered your own question. I wouldn't necessarily say always buy lenses before bodies. Instead, figure out what is the weakest link for producing great images and spend money on that weakest link, and that could be a body, a lens, a tripod, or a photo class for you.

 

Concerning the AF-D vs. AF-S versions of the 80-200mm/f2.8, obviously AF-S focuses faster and it is more future proof. On its low end DSLRs, Nikon has already stopped supporting AF with AF/AF-D lenses. I don't think they will remove the AF motor from their prosumer models any time soon, but in the longer run, I would go with AF-S.

 

I sold my 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S in Ex condition for about $850 a year ago. Therefore, you can probably get one for about $200 more than the AF-D. The down side is that the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S has a poorly designed tripod collar; its rotation is very rough. Nikon was never able to develop a removable tripod collar that works well.

[dcraton]

And where does one purchase a NEW 80-200mm AF S lens?

[howard_owen]

<i>And where does one purchase a NEW 80-200mm AF S lens?</i>

<br>

Beats me, I shop at KEH... :)<br>

 

Right now, I think the weakest link in the chain (besides the photographer) is the glass.

[howard_owen]

Thanks to all for the insight and clarification.

[ShunCheung]

We have a somewhat similar thread in the Nature Forum today:

http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00QRSa

 

Alex Lofquist and John Vanacore are giving sound advices there.

[dcraton]

Howard, good luck. KEH is a good choice and my question was a bit sarcastic of which is difficult to see in text. Nikon still markets and sells the AF D new. KEH has some nice buys on used ones as you have probably seen.

 

My remarks to you concerning glass being a potential preeminent choice for purchase was based upon your current lenses and body. The D200 is still a fine horse and a nice lens will certainly up the ante for you.

 

If you don't have and this has not been mentioned, I would get a decent monopod for the lens. Better than VR...oops, another argument. Hah!

 

Have a great one.

[kris-bochenek]

Why do we even have NAS?. I recently spent some money for D80 and now looking for Sb600 and 18-70 lens though I already have D40x with Sigma 70-300 and Nikon 50mm plus 18-55, man this is addicting. I need to start controling myself :-)

[kris-bochenek]

oh and I am also looking at Smena 8 haha.