D200 and Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G

[gregogarrison]

<p>A couple of options are available to me right now.<br>

First option: upgrade from D200 with a 18-200 1.35-5.6 VR to a D300s and a Nikkor 24-70 2.8. <br>

Second option just get the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 (or recommend your lens choice) and use it with my D200 for another year and wait to see what the Nikon body release will be that may upgrade the D700.<br>

I understand the performance gains I would get with the 300s and the fast lens but I'm curious if I would see a noticeable difference in image quality (sharpness/detail/color) putting the fast lens on the D200. Or is this lipstick on a pig...<br>

I generally shoot what moves me. Enjoy post production editing. I travel quite a bit and can take 2000 plus shots on a trip. Latest was taking texture and shape shots of lava fields in Hawaii. Any low light needs are typically social events and bicycle races. I like to travel with a single body and lens. I rent for anything specific, i.e. macro, fisheye. I like the D200, it feels natural in my hands and has always done well by me.<br>

First post but I have read many and value the brain trust here.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I understand the performance gains I would get with the 300s and the fast lens but I'm curious if I would see a noticeable difference in image quality (sharpness/detail/color) putting the fast lens on the D200. Or is this lipstick on a pig...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether you will see any difference upgrading the body and/or the lens will highly depend on what type of subjects you shoot. If you are already hitting the limitations for the D200 or the limitations for the 18-200, an upgrade will help. For example, the D300S has better high-ISO results and much better AF than the D200. If you rarely use high ISO and mainly focus manually, those advantages are meaningless to you.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S has a much narrower zoom range than the 18-200. If you will only carry one lens and need anything wide in the 18-24mm or soemthing long in the 70-200mm ranges, changing to the more expensive 24-70mm/f2.8 will in some sense be a downgrade.</p>

<p>Essentially, you should ask yourself: is either the D200 or the 18-200 currently limiting your photography so that you need to upgrade?</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Shun's giving you good advice. </p>

<p>I have rented this lens many times for paid events and I think it is excellent, especially for flexibility. I am equally happy with the IQ of the older Nikon primes I own. My Zeiss prime's IQ is still better than any of them, IMO, but much less flexible. </p>

<p>What I think is even more excellent than that nice 24-70 lens is having more sensor area: owning the D700. I own a D200 and I like it very well for a lot of what I do, but the limiting ISO gets frustrating for any low-light events. Its AF is rather inconsistent and because of that, I've learned how to manually focus a lens very fast. I ended up preferring manual focus when I can use it. </p>

<p>Where am I getting my opinions? Well, I've rented the D3, the D700 and the D300 with that 24-70 f2.8 lens for paid event shooting. The D3 was just a bit better than the others, particularly for the shoot-in-the-dark (using bounced flash) images, but that's out of the price range here. The D700 gave me, in my eyes, a much better image than the D300 using the same good lens. The skin tones, the texture of my images, was superior due to the full-frame sensor. The way the light spread across the image seemed smoother. It was good light, but still, having shot this particular location several times with these different cameras, the IQ difference was the camera body. Having the full-frame will allow you to do larger prints, if that matters, and if you have to pull up an underexposed shot, the noise will appear less noticeable than the DX sensor for the same print/image size. </p>

<p>I'd wait for the D700 or maybe see if you can buy it used from a reputable dealer.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Gregory,<br>

I fully agree with Shun and Jennifer. You better rent for a week 24-70 to see if you can deal only with this lens, especially on a DX camera. For me this is a very limiting combination. If up to now it was ok to travel with D200 and 18-200 I think you better pick one of the next two options:<br>

D7000 + 18-200 + a fast prime i.e. 50/1.4<br>

or<br>

D700 + 28-200 + a fast prime i.e. 50/1.4 or 85/1.8<br>

I know you want only a lens but why to buy a DSLR if is difficult to travel with two lenses? IMHO both options I offer you means a real upgrade from your actual setup. Don't lose time waiting for future cameras... You don't know when will happen. Enjoy your shooting opportunities with a netter gear today.</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>I would expect the 24-70mm (36-105mm equiv. on full frame) to give you better image quality that the 18-200 on the D200. However you would be limited at the wide end. You also lose VR. OTOH, the 24-70mm on a D700 would give you decent handholdability thanks to the better higher ISO performance. As far as my D300 is concerned, I found a big improvement in image quality when I changed from the 18-200mm to the 16-85mm - better sharpness, contrast and colour. It's slow at the long end though. </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em> "would see a noticeable difference in image quality (sharpness/detail/color) putting the fast lens on the D200" </em> Under normal shooting conditions, probably not. In low light, perhaps (depending on your technique). A fast lens allows lower ISO and better AF in poor light.</p>

<p>You have not mentioned what you don't like about the D200. That might be helpful to know (if there is anything). Sounds like you like your D200 a lot - I know I did. Perhaps all you need is a new prime like a 35mm f1.8 for your low light social shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I could not get by with a lens on DX that only went out to 24 at all. If I knew I was going to be shooting DX I wouldn't even consider it. For the same money, I'd buy the Tamron 17-50, a 35mm f1.8, and a Nikon 70-300 VR and STILL have money left over.</p>

[gregogarrison]

<p>Great feedback...Thanks. I think I know the direction I want to take. I was hesitant to consider it because it seems extravagant.<br>

I want good glass. And I want to receive the best performance from the investment. Saying that I would welcome your suggestions for fast lens to use with a D700. I was considering the D3 but that would be like buying a Ferrari to commute tens miles a day to work. <br>

My primary use for the D700 and lens would be travel (landscape/people), social events(low light/action) and general walking around looking for inspiration (macro/broad application). <br>

Would like to stay under $5000 but would breech that barrier for the right combo.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Wow, Gregory, with that budget I wouldn't hesitate one second to go with the D700/24-70 combo. Add in a tele-zoom of some kind and you are really set.</p>

[peter_koralis]

<p>My vote goes to the D700 & 24-70mm combo as well!</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>If your objective is to get good glass and you have a budget of $5000, you may as well go for the triple crown. Get the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 70-200mm f/2.8, and the 14-24mm f/2.8. These will cover the same focal length range as your 18-200. Keep the 18-200 as a backup lens. Upgrade your D200 at a later date.</p>

</p>