nikkor 80-400vr?

[cryssi]

anyone have this lens? do you like it? is it going to be too heavy? thanks!

 

[Furgus]

Don't have it but I would like too
Only weighs about 3 pounds, which is about the same as the 70-200 f/2.8

 

[handicap18]

Don't have it but I have tested it out in store. It is a big sucka. Not as long as the 70-200, but much fatter. Its biggest drawback I've been reading about over on the nikon boards is that it lacks AF-S focusing and its the older version of VR. The VR still does work and it works well, but the VR II is better as is AF-S.

I don't know that I would pay full price for it (I believe it is a $1400 lens), but if you find a good deal maybe. Also what is your intended use for it? It is a big hit with the bird photographers.

 

[cryssi]

lol, um...still have to do my research huh? Thought of taking it to the World for versatility...?? should I just get the 18-200 instead?? DH might let me get a lens for the trip!

 

[handicap18]

lol, um...still have to do my research huh? Thought of taking it to the World for versatility...?? should I just get the 18-200 instead?? DH might let me get a lens for the trip!

Its a monster of a lens to carry around WDW. Not that it can't be done. It would definately come in hand at AK.

What is your current lineup of lenses?

I recently got the new 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR. The VR on that lens works great. I can easily take hand held shots with no camera shake what so ever at 300mm. I've been able to get acceptable shots on the 300mm end with a 1/6th shutter speed. Last night I was able to take a picture of the full moon without using a tripod. VR worked as advertised. All my previous moon pics needed a tripod to keep the lens steady at the 300mm end. Plus this lens is almost 1/3rd the price of the 80-400.

The 18-200mm is also a great lens. Very hard to come by and many times when it is available its $300 more than retail.

 

[DebºoºS]

I don't have any experience with it but wow, that's big and 2.8 very good 3lbs even better! You could see what the birds in AK had for lunch with a 400.

Just got the 18-200 VR for xmas. So far it's a dream lens for me. Here are some pics taken with my new D200 and the 18-200VR. They're not perfect pics but I'm learning day by day.

 

[cryssi]

I've been drooling over the 18-200 since we bought our camera! DebºoºS, I'm jealous!

We have the 18-70 kit that came with our D200, an 80-200 AF and a couple of other Nikon lenses from DH's grandfather's old camera (btw, love the 80-200 but it's kind of big). LOL, big and I'm considering another monster? I'm going to look into the 70-300 right now...would that be a good companion to our 18-70? I really only wanted to take 1 lens so I didn't have to change anything, but it's not really going to be that much trouble to take another (since DH will be carrying it ).

I'd love to see what our D200 will do at AK...

 

[handicap18]

Last trip to Disney I took the 18-70 and my old 70-300 along with the 50mm f/1.8. Most of the pictures I took were with the 18-70. For me there is no way I do Disney with 1 lens. I would like to replace the 18-70 with the 18-135 (really want the 18-200, but price wise it might be out) to have the extra reach on the walk around lens. I used the 70-300 a lot at AK and also at MK to get some close-ups of various things.

I guess having just the 18-200 would work out for most as the 200mm on a dSLR is 300mm with the crop. First 2 trips I did use the 70-300 on the film SLR so that will work.

I really like the 300mm end on the dSLR at AK (450mm with the crop). Got some great face shots of some tigers and gorilla's.

Also think about getting the 50mm f/1.8 or maybe a Sigma 28mm f/1.8. These wide aperture lenses come in handy for the night parades and indoor rides. The 50mm is priced low enough that just to have it for any use is good. I use it a lot for candids and portraits of the kids. The Sigma 28mm is wider and more useful for general lens as it is wider and more like the 50mm is on a film SLR. Its also a macro and will focus up to about 4 or 5 inches which is pretty cool.

I'm jealous of your 80-200mm f/2.8. I'd LOVE to have that. You could also consider getting a 1.4x teleconverter for it. You would lose 1 f/stop, but that still makes it f/4 at 112-280 plus the 1.5 crop factor.

Just throwing out ideas while I wait for my 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens to arrive.

 

[cryssi]

thanks so much for all the suggestions! I can't wait to go home and actually inventory what we have, then make a list to present to DH with all the reasons why we need them...

will also look into the 1.4x teleconverter...

is it summer yet?? is it time to go home yet?? maybe I should get back to work...

 

[Furgus]

If you don't need the VR and want to save some money on the 70-200 f/2.8, look at Sigmas version of it. I have read a lot of great reviews of this lens and I am going to be getting one very soon....maybe I will order it now.....

 

[DebºoºS]

Sounds like you have your shots covered with the 80-200. A very good lens. Your 18-70 & 70-300 and all your bases are covered! Especially if DH will carry it for you. But the 80-200 covers a lot of shots too Depends how up close and personal you really want to get.


If I had the sherpa Groucho is going to need I'd bring my whole kit

 

[garris3404]

... should I just get the 18-200 instead?? DH might let me get a lens for the trip!

I have that lens. It's a great general pupose walk around lens. I like the fact that I could carry just 1 lens and not have to switch lenses. With its range and VR, i love it. I took 2500 pictures on our last 2 week trip. I do plan on getting the 70-300 VR lens. There a few places I would like the extra range.

 

[Steve's Girl]

The 18-200mm is also a great lens. Very hard to come by and many times when it is available its $300 more than retail.

I ordered this lens through Ritz in early Nov. and it was delivered to my door about 6 weeks later. Ritz also had the best price I could find. Have not had much time to use it yet, but think this will be a good general purpose lens for me. With three little kids tugging at me all the time, changing lenses is not very easy. Not to mention that my husband doesn't have too much patience for it either. So, hoping this with the 50mm 1.8 will cover most of my next Disney trip.

 

[Ratpack]

I would also recommend the 18-135. We just spent Christmas in WDW and the only time I removed this lens was to put on the 50mm 1.8. Now we didn't go to AK, but I have the 70-300mm for that if we had went. But for general walking around WDW the 18-135 was great and at half the cost of the 18-200.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Here is my plug for the 18-200 VR. This photo was one of the first I took with this lens. I was experimenting to see if the VR was really all it was cracked up to be and worth the extra $. This is 1sec. shutter, 100 ISO, handheld, no remote shutter release. Not a great picture by any means, but did show the difference VR can make with slower shutter speeds.

I also agree with the above post regarding the 18-135. I bought this with my camera not knowing how long it would take to get the 18-200. On our last trip to WDW, the 18-135 was the only lens I had. It really was a great lens. At AK, there were a few times I would have liked a bit more zoom, but with 10mp, I figured I could crop those photos. Can't wait to try the 18-200 at Fantasmic. Now, that is where some extra zoom and VR would have been really helpful.

 

[cryssi]

ok, so I looked at our extra lenses (and forgot the list at home), but I know for sure that there is a 180mm 2.8, and I *think* the 17-35mm 2.8...I can't remember darn it...I wrote them down too...ah, well, it's something like that...??

oh and of course the 80-200...

 

[handicap18]

Instead of the 17-35 f/2.8 look at the 17-55 f/2.8. It is more expensive, but has better focusing with the AF-S instead of just AF. Heck if you looking at the 180mm f/2.8 then you might as well kick it up a notch to the 200mm f/2 VR. Sigma also has a 10-20mm that is a joy to work with, not the constand f/4 like Nikon's 12-24, but it is just as sharp, goes to 10mm vs 12mm and is 1/2 the cost.

Ok this is bad, I need to stop looking at lenses. DW is going to shoot me!

 

[cryssi]

ah, I mean those are the lenses that are currently sitting on my bookshelf...lol

other than the 80-200, I haven't tried out those other 2...think I still need to buy a lens? I'm seriously considering the 70-300...

thx!

 

[handicap18]

Looks like I misread your post. You have a very good lineup of lenses. If you really do want to get a new lens then the 70-300 will give you more reach than you already have (I have this one and love it so far, VR works excellent), the 18-200 covers pretty much what you have, but is a one lens things, although it doesn't go as wide as lenses you have (your f/2.8 lenses are excellent, the 18-200 will only go as wide as f/3.5 and thats at the 18mm end, its small the longer you go), and then another option is a SWA (Super Wide Angle) like Sigma's 10-20mm and Tokina's 12-24mm (IMO, Nikon's is not twice as good as either of these, but it is twice the price). Sigma also makes a 50-500mm lens that looks interesting.

Good luck.

 

[cryssi]

thanks! I'm kind of ignorant when it comes to these things...haven't had the time to really play, and I didn't want to take everything to wdw. I suppose if I didn't get anything new, I could just take the kit lens and lug the 80-200mm? All I know is that I had that lens on the camera for 1 hour during the Long Beach Grand Prix, and by the time I got back to the office I was sore!

I think the 70-300 might be at the top of the list, though...