105mm f/2.8 VR, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, or D200?

[ebogaerts]

"If you can't decide between the 105mm f/2.8 VR, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, or D200, you are not ready to buy anything. There is no direct comparison between them, so it appears that you don't know what you want or need."

 

No offense intended to others who have chimed in on this thread, but Chris' post sums up the situation pretty much. This is not someone who's contemplating which macro lens to get, or which digital camera to get, and so forth.

 

I'd just hold onto your money, Denali. You have to decide what kind of photography you'd like to get into to justify the big cost of either or those two lenses, and whether or not you'd really benefit from the D200.

[mike_wagner2]

While I understand the strong concensus piling up that because the 3 items Denali mentioned cover an extremely wide scope, it makes a definitive answer kind of problematic...however, there is another side to his question, that does merit another look.

 

Every now and then you run across a lens or a body that stands completely apart from any other gear, even though the others are in their own right very good.

 

It may be that Denali has been considering each of these items for reasons of his own...and he simply wanted to know if any of us that actually own and use them might indicate that this one or that one was in that 'stand apart' category.