ellery

<p>Ok, so I have spent many hours combing through previous posts and need a bit of a push from PN folks I think.<br /><br />I have been in the past 5 years slowly adding to my kit, and I am in a position now to consider an addition I have been salivating for.<br /><br />I have a D90, a 17-55mm f2.8 and my two tamron macros (90mm and 180mm).<br /><br />I am simply an avid amateur.<br /><br />When I get the time to shoot (I have a new baby and a 2.5 year old at this point) I enjoy macro photography and have began to have a real itch to shoot more nature. I also obviously shoot children and portrait of family members (outdoor candids when we get together).<br /><br />Anyway, since I got my 180mm macro, I have loved the looks of it for portraits, and also enjoyed it's reach for trips to the zoo....oh, and my first attempts at hummingbirds while I was in Maine last year:<br /><br />http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1038399<br /><br />I missed an amazing passing shot of a moose while there because for the moment we passed by it and it crossed the path, the focus on that macro missed the mark and the opportunity passed...its no secret that the 180mm macro is not fast in the focusing department - its downright annoying (although I greatly enjoy it as my macro lens so far)<br /><br />I have read and read and read and read on this subject on many websites and I am dizzy :)<br /><br />I ruled out the 80-200 because in many situations I simply cannot tote my tripod at this stage in life.<br /><br />I ruled out a prime or two because I shoot kids and family, and the zoom gives me more flexibility to compose.<br /><br />I have not figured out vr vs. vr2 still....so many conflicting views on the interwebs on this subject.<br /><br />I have contemplated IF ever I would go to FX....im not really sure I will care to in the future....it would seem for my photog interests, the DX format will continue to serve me just fine....for macro arguably best? <br /><br />I got my D90 12/08 - I probably have not put a terribly high number of clicks into it, it probably has many years left of life in it....but I am not sure if I would care to replace it or add to it later an FX body....no desire at this moment (forbidden fruit?).<br /><br />Anyway, adorama has the Vr1 lens for prices ranging 1300 to 1600 - this is about 800 dollar difference compared to VR2.<br /><br />For that 800 difference, I would be buying 1 stop with VR, slightly better sharpness (questionably noticeable with DX?), a 5 year warranty, a bit shorter length, a bit heavier, more elements and nano coating.<br /><br />Oh one difference I noticed is that the VR1 has a larger reproduction size, so perhaps better for closeup/macro stuff - wondering how this lens will be useful (with or without my extension tubes)<br /><br />Also, because I like the idea of buying a teleconverter, I would like to know more about the comparison between these two with nikon TC's (1.7 vs. 2.0x)....<br /><br />Part of me feels like after reading all that I have, I am buying next to nothing practically with the 700-1000 dollar difference except a warranty and a bit better of VR...perhaps I am undervaluing the better VR or the improved optical performance....I think If I was an FX shooter this would be an easier choice.<br /><br />I should say that I have the money to blow on the VR2 if I would be happier with it ultimately, but if it represents such a tiny difference, then I am skeptical....<br /><br />Also, the VR1 might be better for closeup macro?<br /><br />If the VR2 would perform better with TC's that may sway me as well...<br /><br /><br />BLAH BLAH BLAH...<br /><br />THoughts?</p>