fernando_c

Dear all, after many visits to the shop I decided to go ahead with the Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8D. They allowed me test it, both indoors and outdoors and I was quite happy with the results. The lens was in mint condition and they even had the leather box that goes with it and added for free an Athabasca wide band 77mm lens filter protector. All for 500 dollars, half of what it cost brand new here. Am I happy? Yes, I think so, I was tempted by the 70-200 VR/VR2, but to be honest, it would have meant too much of an investment for me, considering my limited photographic skills. This lens will do just fine as a step up for me into better photographs. Regarding the 28-70... Well, I tested it again and yes, it is an amazing lense too, but having both lenses in my travel camera bag, would have been quite a great substitute of working out. I have spotted a Nikkor AF 24mm 2.8d lense for just 200 dollars second hand that would just do the trick for the time being. It will also allow me to keen on enjoying playing with my 50mm 1.4G and I believe shooting with primes for a little longer will help improving my skills. I hope this will work just fine. Let me know what you think and again thank you sooooo much for all the help and advise during the last days. Best, Fernando

And I forgot to highlight an important point. Most of my photography (but not all) is going to be done indoors for the next 12 months or so. It's basically going to be little baby girl photos, documenting her growing up. The 50mm 1.4g is so far doing a great job but i thought I could use some extra help.

For the little research I've made, the SIGMA 70-200 1:2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM and the TAMRON 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro Lens, are the old generation lenses, with very mixed reviews, and clearly far behind from the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1. I've read many positive reviews regarding the TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. I am way far from being a professional photographer, and I will be lucky if one day I get half as good as you guys. I liked the two options proposed on this threat because they seemed like good quality options, reasonably priced second hand and fun to play with and learn/improve. They also seemed that they will retain some of the investment value if I manage to take good care of them. Shall I stick to 2.8? I went for the 2.8 because I'd rather take photos with natural light than needing to add a flash to the equation, although I already own a Nikon SB-910. Is 2.8 a must? Not really, I feel like it's a good to have rather than a must have. In 12 hours time I will head to the shop and check the goods again, it's taking me 2 weeks to make a final decision, so I hope the owner doesn't kill me during the visit if something doesn't look right and I don't buy them. Thank you Dieter and Andrew for supporting/advising and following up. Cheers, Fernando

@Shun Cheung. Thanks! You corroborate my feelings towards the 28-70. @Robert Bouknight. I will check the 70-200 VR1 tomorrow and see how it goes. I will look know at the 70-200 4/ AFS VR. Maybe to add more confusion to de discussion. Shall I replace the NIkon 80-200 for any of the two models that are also available at the shop? 1. SIGMA 70-200 1:2.8 APO DG MACRO HSM 2. TAMRON 70-200 1:2.8 Di LD IF Both are selling 100 dollars cheaper than the 80-200 mm f/2.8.

Guys, you are making really great points here. @Andrew Garrard, well noted, I will check it out tomorrow. My dealer mentioned that she just got her hands on a 70-200 VR (the first model I believe) and is offering it for 900 dollars. I will try it out tomorrow and as see if I am willing to spend double than what the nikkor AF 80-200mm 1:2.8D is being offered. Thank you for the other recommendations, I will most certainly keep them in mind. @Richard Williams, thanks for pointing out the infamous 'squeak'. The two other lenses were rather noisy at focusing and didn't look as well preserved as the first one. I will carefully look for any potential flaws on the 80-200. @Ditier Schaefer. I actually agree with the weight issue. Each lens would be around a kilo each, plus the D610 is another one... The 50mm is super light, but I have to say when I go on holidays my camera bag becomes really heavy, as I pack all my electronics on it. if I were to add 2 more kilos to it, plus all the baby stuff... Things might get complicated. I will do some research on the 24-120/4 VR tonight. @Edward Woods. Reviews like yours were the ones who really made me consider buying these lenses. Thank you. If you don't mind me asking. If you were to choose/keep only one of them, which one would you choose? The 28-70 or the 80- 200? Thank you all again for your input here. i am really appreciating all the honest feedback being shared here.

@Hector Javkin, Thank you for your comments. I agree with you on not thinking about the 70-300/18-35 mm. Weight is not a big issue (for now) and if they are well built better for me, as I know I will drop them sooner or later. Primes are special and they make me feel more involved in the creative process. My thoughts (please don't tell my wife) were to complement the three lenses with a cool prime (maybe ultra wide) once I needed a new toy. 20/24 were in my mind as fun lenses to have. The 14mm from Samyang/Rokinon also looked pretty fun to play with, but I know I wouldn't be buying a great quality lens to stay with me for many years. @Richard Williams, thank you as well. I've tested 3, 80-200 af-d two touch and that squeak was present in 2 of them. The third lens was the one I had in mind as it was obviously the one with a higher price tag. The 28-70 worked smoothly and I loved it the moment I played with it. Seemed like the lense to use on a regular basis for most of the simple stuff I do. My biggest concerns are the same as yours. What if something goes wrong buying second hand gear... I've used the same dealer in the past, and they seem to be reliable, although their return policy is like 24 hours... Fixing things were I live is not very expensive compared to Europe/US (I am in Asia now), so I feel, that as long as there is nothing major, I can rely on getting it fixed without breaking my bank account.

Hi Mag Miksch, thank you for your response. Very much appreciated. Yes I am fairly convinced about the 80-200. Everybody who has used it says wonderful things about it, a must have. Only negative things I've heard are the weight (not a big issue for me) and a little softening going on at 200mm, but honestly I don't care, no deal breakers and I really want to own it. I don't need a superior 70-300 glass, as I am not going to shoot any high speed action neither I am a professional. I've also read wonderful things about the 180, but I think I could use the versatility of the 80-200. If I could own both, I would be a happy fella. The main concern for me is actually the 28-70. It's the predecessor of the 24-70, as it was discountinued in 2007 with the introduction of the 24-70. I've read the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S D is a spectacular lens (Ken Rockwell's review). It's just as sharp as the newest 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S, and this 28-70 costs much less used today (half of a brand new 24-70 here). I like the quality look of the lens, and the non plastic feeling. Any lenses that looks like a tank seems to be design for me as I drop things quite often. My concerns are two: 1) owning a 50 mm, shall I go for a wide angle lense (i.e. 18-35mm) and with that I would be ok covered? Together with the 80- 200. 2) shall I use the 28-70 + 80-200, and leave the 50mm 1.4g for low light and special occasion in which I don't want to carry the other two heavy lenses? My guts tell me I will be better covered with the 28-70, as it seems like a solid performer and I used an 18-200 lens on the D90 and was quite happy with the 18mm wide angle (equals around 27mm on a fx body). What do you guys think?

<p>Dear photo.net members,<br> i have recently upgraded to the FX world after owning a D90 for over 6 years. i've sold all my DX lenses to decrease the cost of purchasing the new body, and now i am using de D610 with my beloved 50mm 1.4g.<br> After days of research i have found two lenses that could be the ones to play with for the years to come, they are both second hand lenses <strong>(Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D and the Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8d)</strong>, yes both pretty old but i believe still delivery quality results for what I've read in different forums. i could get both lenses, second hand in perfect shape for USD 1,100. My feeling is that this would be killer combination that would get me covered for a while. <br> i am an amateur photographer, i enjoy low light photography, taking portraits of my beautiful wife, i want to document my little baby girl growing up (she is barely 3 weeks old), and capture landscapes and city life. It is a hobby that i am passionate about but i not planning to make money out of my work anytime soon. Photography is becoming my passion, but married with a baby girl i don't want to over spend on new glass, so second hand is good alternative for me. I know it's better to put the money on glass, i've learn that experience with my previous reasonably priced acquisitions for my D90, that i ended up almost giving away for free to the pawn shop. <br> I've also consider not buying the 28-70mm and going for a wide angle zoom (18-35mm) considering i am very happy with my 50mm. But i still feel i would be using more normal range than wide angle on a day to day basis. <br> I've also consider not buying the 80-200 mm and go for the 70-300 VR, but the 80-200 certainly seems like a better option. <br> The thing is that, i've always enjoyed more shooting with primes than with zooms, and i've always got better results as i get more involved in the process, but also in the past, my zoom lenses were pretty much cheap options for my D90. <br> Shall i go ahead with the second hand old but robust glories (28-70 & 80-200)?<br> Shall i take the primes' road and go for an 85 1.8g and 24 or 28 1.8G? <br> Shall i find a cheaper hobby? Nah, just kidding, i love photography a little too much :)<br> Thank you guys in advance. Best, Fernando</p>