I currently have a D80 with a 17-55/2.8 nikkor DX ED AF VR lens and was considering getting this 70-200mm lens as well. I know it would be nice to have the extra range, and I definitely think that i want the 2.8 capability, but I was hoping to get some of your opinions as to if you think this is a good idea.
I was also kicking around the idea of a macro lens, but if I get the 70-200 I think that would put the macro on hold for a while... Anyway, any advice or suggestions as to what you think I should consider next is greatly appreciated!
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 is a fantastic lens and it's in my wish list too. But I can't really say anything as to whether or not it's a good idea for you to buy it. That's something you have to decide for yourself. If you think you need what it offers, or simply want to have it for the sheer fun of it, and are not concerned about the cost, then yeah why not? Go get it. If you're reluctant because of the price tag, there are other options, such as Nikkor 80-200 2.8 (no VR) and Sigma 70-200 2.8 (no VR/OS).
If you don't need the VR, you might pick up the 80-200/2.8. They usually go for around $650 or so anymore. Then you could afford to get a Sigma 105mm, a Tamron 90mm, or possibly the Nikon 105/2.8VR... saaweeeeeeet.
If you don't need the VR, you might pick up the 80-200/2.8. They usually go for around $650 or so anymore. Then you could afford to get a Sigma 105mm, a Tamron 90mm, or possibly the Nikon 105/2.8VR... saaweeeeeeet.
I think that I do want the VR. After playing around with a friend's non-VR zoom, I think that the benefits of the VR are something that I will want from a long term perspective, especially when shooting in low light.
You've given me some things to think about though and I appreciate that!
