Thread: Nikon 70 - 300mm VR lens

400mm Nikkor's nice but the 600mm is even more impressive

Can I ask why you didn't get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ? Or was that on the war office's contraband list too?

Yes I know.
Basically the war office just about had a massive seizure when I told her the price of $600.00. Also, my D80 already had a 18-200 VR DX lens.
Jees if I had told her the price of the 400 or 600mm lens she would have by-passed the moon and would have been on Mars by now!
Now thats a thought. HeHe
Tony

Originally Posted by dm_td5

400mm Nikkor's nice but the 600mm is even more impressive

Can I ask why you didn't get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR ? Or was that on the war office's contraband list too?

SWMBO stood alongside of me for a few hours whilst I played with a D300s, D700, D3 and the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 both lenses are up around $15,000 each. As we walked out of the store she turned to me and said, "Even if you can work out how to carry one of those lenses you're not getting one".

But I did convince her the D3s was a good thing to buy. Should be available to market in 8 days time and I have my name on the pre-order list

Now f I could pair it with the 400mm ... I'd probably get into BIG trouble

Originally Posted by dm_td5

Now f I could pair it with the 400mm

The lens I have on my shortlist in that range is the 200-400mm f/4. Ok, so it's not f/2.8, but you do save () a couple of grand when compared with the 400, and it's more versatile. It would nicely balance a D3/s/x too

The 200-400mm is definitely a (very) slightly cheaper alternative and I suspect a lot more versatile. I think if I get a longer lens it will be the 300 f/4 though (f/2.8 would be nice but it's 3 times the price of the f/4).

I hope Grumpy's not reading this out to the war office for comment

Originally Posted by dm_td5

The 200-400mm is definitely a (very) slightly cheaper alternative ...

B&H US$8800 vs US$6100. That's a D700 thrown in for the difference
I'm waiting for dollar-parity, then I can justify the 7 grand (once you factor in freight and GST). Mind you, I only have to justify it to myself these days

Originally Posted by dm_td5

I think if I get a longer lens it will be the 300 f/4 though

Agreed, great lens optically but without VR and with a somewhat dodgy tripod collar. Having said that, it was my next choice too until the dollar started to inch past the 85c or so. There's been noises that a replacement is not far away. For US$1400 not a bad buy at the moment.

Sorry to Grumpy for hijacking the tread a little

I've heard rumours of a 300 f/4 update too. There's also supposed to be a new 80-400 coming. Both lenses suffer from a poor tripod collar and I'd hope they fix it on the new ones when they arrive on the market.

I should apologise to Grumpy too. But look at the ideas he can now run with, the excuses he can make to justify not spending as much as he could have on a new lens, maybe even justify a 70-200 f/2.8 as it really is a lot cheaper than a 300 f/2.8

So are we gunna spend 15-20000 dollars for him and get a really good lenses
cheers
blaze