commtrd

Great discussion guys!

The 200/2 was intended to be primarily used for portraiture as part of my photography business. I have not tried to sell

anything yet so have not realized any payback for any of my gear. The argument could be made that the money spent

on a 200/2 could (should?) be spent on the fully awesome 400/2.8 telephoto. And a 300/4 would then bridge the gap

between the 70-200 VRII and the 400/2.8 and that is my plan. But looking at the images from the 200/2 it will be

almost impossible to sell it. It is however a specialty lens but just a darned good one... I have a Sigma 150 EX macro, a Zeiss 100/2 and a Nikkor 85/1.4 for fast primes within the range of 70-200 mm but still do need the functionality of the zoom.

I have always believed in the axiom that if you buy the good stuff first, you spend less than if settling for 2nd best and

then taking a loss to sell that then buying the good stuff. Plus I understand that the VRII is a seamless extension of

the image quality from the 24-70 and have heard that the new 70-200 is even better than the 24-70! So that right

there tells me that those two lenses comprise a fully functional and extreme quality kit which combined with a D700 or

D3s and good support tripod/ monopod have the photographer able to generate absolute top quality work with

basically two lenses covering 24mm to 200mm focal lengths. And if I were starting over now that is precisely what I

would do because for the money spent it would be almost impossible to improve on the images possible with that

basic kit. These things are only discovered by experience. So my focus is on having a lens inventory that is totally

functional while being absolutely minimal as possible for traveling. Because face it to get the awesome shots you have

to end up going where the photogenic shots are located and having the equipment needed to do that and not having

what is not needed helps to optimize the experience vs. investment needed to acquire the equipment.

<p>All my images I have kept using the lens on FX have been cropped to remove the offending areas. Of course where I used it on the D300 there was not a problem. Not saying the VRI is a bad lens at all. Just that it was not really built (or optimized) for FX. I am in the process of really assessing my kit and deciding which lenses to keep or sell. So the 70-200 VRI is definitely going to go in favor of the new version, the 105VR may get sold (I have a Zeiss 100/2 that I just love), and may consider selling the 14-24 as I just don't hardly use it. It is a great lens but I just don't seem to "see" in ultra-wide at least on FX. Strangely enough, I used the lens A LOT more on DX. It was just perfect (for me) on DX but on FX I use it for specialty occasions just not enough to justify keeping it. Will have to think about that...</p>

<p>Look I hi-jacked my own thread! Anyway thanks for the thoughtful replies.</p>

<p>Yes it really does have severe light fall-of on FX. A stellar lens on DX to be sure. Soft corners on FX.<br>

Even though I do have most of the focal range afforded by the 70-200 covered with fast primes, I still need the fast pro-quality zoom for when I travel and for events where the primes are just not practical (where a zoom is of course the tool of choice). I have also visited with others on other forums who have claimed that the new zoom eliminated the need for the 200/2! Strong words indeed because that lens is just over the top as far as IQ goes. I would have a really hard time selling my 200/2. That being said, if I had a really awesome 70-200 (like the new lens) and it really was all that, I might have to think harder about that. Although the 70-200 will never go to an aperture of f2...</p>

<p>Whatever. I am now fully FX and that VRI is just driving me nuts and it has to go. Someone who still shoots DX deserves to have that lens. I much appreciate Shun dispensing with his experience and advice on the new Sigma 70-200 EX. And yes they are quite proud of that lens - well, really all glass has skyrocketed in price. Makes me aware that I need to re-visit my insurance to see if it will replace at current values or what I need to do to re-adjust so that my gear is adequately covered. All my Nikkor glass seems to have appreciated substantially in price over the time I have owned it. Wish the US dollar could say the same...</p>

<p>Has anyone here used or purchased the new Sigma 70-200 EX? Very curious as to how it compares to the Nikkor 70-200 VRII. I have a VRI and would like to sell it due to the vignetting on full frame. If anyone has some experience, especially with both of these lenses, would appreciate some feedback on this. Thanks.</p>

<p>A budding photographer could get the 24-70 nikkor and the 70-200 and either a D700 or the D300 with a speedlight/diffuser and that kit minimal though it may be would enable some beautiful work. Unfortunately photography is a pursuit that carries a huge price tag if one would have the latest / greatest gear. Honestly there is not too much way around that if high-quality fast lenses are desired. Buying used and being patient will help somewhat but inevitably the forces of NAS will prevail...and slowly building up the kit over years of time is usually the way it gets done when the photog is not that well-heeled. Which if you think about it is not too bad since that forces the image-maker to actually work with what he or she has and THINK ABOUT what their results are and then to know what lens they really need before writing in to a forum with the thousandth inane post about "What lens should I get?"</p>

<p>Well if camera company xyz carried inelastic pricing on their product I would probably find my credit card locked inside my inelastic wallet!</p>

<p>Well it is true that there is inter-currency value disparity but really the bigger cause for everything denominated in dollars is the fact that it is fiat currency not backed by anything. Our system is based on debt which takes the form of paper money originating from absolutely nothing. Each dollar bill bill printed up and distributed dilutes the perceived value of every other dollar. Our dollar has lost over 20% in the last ten years alone. Therefore it takes very many more dollars to purchase the same goods. BTW every single experiment with fiat currency in recorded human history has ended in a trainwreck financially for the countries who utilized fiat currency.</p>

<p>So in addition to the exchange rates between currency pairs, we have a rank degradation in the value of our own currency and that process is called inflation. So that your new $2500 lens should really have cost $150 since the dollar has lost around 94% of its total value since it was taken off the gold standard for good. Sad but true...</p>

<p>OK thanks will have to try that.</p>

<p><strong>"However, distracting bokeh ruins most photos."</strong><br>

I disagree. I think crappy composition and inattention to correctly utilizing camera settings relative to current light conditions ruins most photos, followed by marginal post-processing.</p>

<p>I looked at that photographer's work and saw nothing there that impressed me at all. Looks just like a million other shots you can find on any forum taken by amateurs who shoot everything at wide-open aperture and mostly over-exposed with marginal post processing. Whatever...</p>

<p>There is a time and place where shooting any lens wide open is appropriate for that artistic emotion to be implied, but there are so many more times where the correct way to portray the subject and overall composition is to stop that lens down and paint with light. I do in fact own no lenses slower than f2.8 and most of the time end up shooting them around f4 to f8. Sometimes I will shoot the 200 / 2 wide open (OK, a lot of the time!) but then that lens is just such a radically awesome optic that it almost cries out to shoot it wde open. And is still bleeding sharp at that...</p>

<p>Now as to the new 85 / 1.4, I am sure it will be awesome as well. The current 85 / 1.4 I have in my bag will stay right there. I am totally happy with it. I will have that lens until the day I go away unless stolen or something. Same with my "old" 70-200 VRI. I think way too much emphasis is being placed on the latest / greatest lenses and not enough on improving the photographic skills. One good thing about all these who must have the newest stuff, they surely do help make great glass available on the used market at reasonable prices and that is very good. </p>

<p>What is "dragging the shutter"? I like to shoot in manual, setting the SS to manipulate the ambient light and reduce blur etc. but not familiar with dragging the shutter. How would that be done and why?</p>

<p>I actually was put into this position quite a while back and I have only the best professional gear to work with. I still declined because I have never shot a wedding and do not want the responsibility of failing to live up to unrealistic expectations. I prefer to enjoy photography, not try to do something I know very well I am not adequately prepared to do. Now if I could get in with a very experienced professional photographer to shoot second and assist in all the preaparation so that I could learn the correct way to approach a serious event like a wedding, then I would be all over that. Until that happens I refuse to take on a wedding.</p>

<p><strong>I personally WOULD NOT DO THIS</strong>.</p>

<p>This event is a once-in-a-lifetime thing (hopefully anyway) and the bride will not be satisfied with anything less than the best. That is the way women are and that is not going to change. The equipment really is secondary with respect to the total lack of experience in taking on a responsibility like this. Also there is a serious lack of planning for contingencies and it is always the "what-if's" that will get you. They need to hire a professional. You could shoot second but as the main photographer you are asking for a trainwreck. Way too many people think they have a DSLR so they must be a "photographer" right? Nope...</p>

<p>Out of respect for the couple you should immediately decline gracefully explaining why. The friendship will survive and you will live to shoot another day without carrying the baggage of knowing you screwed up recording a wedding.</p>

<p>Well-meaning critique: image is under-exposed and could explore greater usage of rule of thirds in forming the composition. Correct lighting is a huge thing to grasp and apply in photography and one thing that is noticeable in many posted photographs...this is why many here on this thread have said to stick with what you have and concentrate on learning the art of photography instead of burning cash needlessly.</p>

<p>Shun has a really valid point. The gear you have is perfectly fine and does not warrant an expensive change from investment in what you already have. Maybe invest in some more instuction in the specialty interested in? PPSOP has a bunch of awesome classes available. Or maybe you could look into the ancillary macro equipment, like a rail, lighting or something like that. Just a change in camera gear [brand] probably is not going to yield any real tangible benefits, and will cost a lot of money. Just my opinion.</p>

<p>D3 and D700 are both same sensor with the D3 being the pro-grade camera body and features suited for that level of shooting. D3s would provide higher-iso capability and video as well I believe. Really nice macro lenses would include the sigma 150 EX macro, or the nikon 200 f4 macro lens. It could be mentioned that the D300 makes for a nice lower-cost macro camera body as well...just a thought. Also the nikon 300 f4 with the canon 500 diopter will enable some nice close-up also and is going to be my next lens although not specifically a macro lens.</p>

<p>OK I stand corrected. See I was right about not selling the D300! <strong>;0)</strong></p>

<p>If I had to have only one camera it would be the D700 but fortunately that is not the case. For overall useability, I personally have to give the edge to the full frame for the high iso and dynamic range capability. I was going to sell my D300 but never got around to it and glad I didn't. My strategy of early-on buying only lenses that were compatible with full-frame has proved to be very wise. And that is what I would always recommend to someone starting to put a kit together. Focus more on the glass (pun intended) as the components that will be the core of the kit as that is how it works out.</p>

<p>Nothing wrong with that D300. I have both the D300 and the D700 and while I think the D700 has the advantage for high-iso work, for landscapes I don't see any real advantage to the full-frame over the D300. I still use my D300 all the time and in fact it would be great if Nikon would make a fully professional grade D300 (full viewfinder for one thing) as a pro crop-sensor would be really great for hard-core telephoto (birding, wildlife, etc.). So probably unless you just have money to burn, spend on lenses that are compatible with both formats for when you eventually do get serious about ADDING the full-frame body. Notice I did not say UPGRADE to the full-frame; it's just that the D300 is a valid and useful tool and should be considered as such.</p>

<p>Some of my favorite landscape shots were taken with the D300. Just last week I took the boat out for architecture shooting in Padre Isles and I used the D300 with the 24-70. Razor-sharp, beautiful images were the result and the D700 stayed in the bag the whole time.</p>

<p>Just shape the plastic as suggested with a fine-tooth file and protect the front element while doing so. Use the money saved to good use on something else you need...there is always something else! <strong>;-)</strong></p>

<p>Well the lens may indeed be worth 2200 -but- anyone contemplating spending that much on a lens should necessarily ask themselves if the lens will be used to make money with. If the answer is no, then probably it is not a wise purchase. I am the worst offender, having bought a number of lenses of which none is used in a business. They could be, but they are not and so I have over 20000 tied up in lenses not including camera bodies and all the other stuff that goes into photography. So I think buying a lens for 2200 and not using it in a business is a waste. However it sure is nice to have great pro-level equipment to use and enjoy...just now with what I know, I could put together a really nice kit with a 24-70, a new 70-200, and a D3s body with a Zeiss 100/2 makroplanar and have a totally useable and transportable kit to use for a lifetime. Three lenses and a great hi-iso camera body that would take great photos well in excess of what 99.99% of any amateur photogs could ever want or use. Not a cheap kit by any means, but also not 35000 in the hole either.</p>

<p>Again, if the gear is used professionally to make money in a legitimate business, then that changes everything. For an amateur, that pushes the boundaries of common sense. </p>

<p>That lens works awesome on whatever body it is mounted to. FOV a bit wider on FF obviously but still the 85/1.4 is superlative on the DX format. Like anything else, if the FL matches up with the subject, distance, etc.</p>

<p>Great! Sounds like you made an educated decision and sure it will work fine for you. Show us some pictures!</p>