D300 or 70-200 2.8 VR?

WELL,

my 18th bday is coming up, and my parents have offered me a sort of interest free loan to get something i would like (i have to pay it back, but no interest AND its pretty flexable obviously lol.) So thats ace, BUT i have a problem.

I would love a 70-200 2.8.... i currently dont have anything above a 125mm and even then its like f/5.6 at that length. So that would be brill, but then i gaze over at the D300 and think....sweeeet. Its mainly the ISO performance that makes me want it.. im currently using a Fuji S3 Pro, which is a nice camera, but you dont really want to push it past iso 800.

They both cost about the same, but i guess the question im asking is. Do i upgrade glass wise or body wise. My thinking was the 70-200 will be in my bag for many, many years, whereas the d300 will most likley become outdated.

Any advice or what you would do would be grand.

Thanks

Dave

 

I would just get the glass! But the D300 does sound tempting.

 

Man Dave, I wish I had those choices to make. My delema is now refinance or home or upgrade from d70 to d300. Never the less, although I want to say go d300, it is best if you upgrade the lenss. since it's also 2.8 then i say go lenes. I hope you get both.

 

I'd go with the glass.

 

Hahaa I love that big struggle between life and passion.

 

All right, I feel bad 'cause I didn't really go in-depth as to why I say glass.

I upgraded from a D80 to a D300 in the beginning of December, and then got a 70-200mm VR just this week. And I'd say, the body, is amazing (see kundalini's thread below, or above, it's in this section at least, and I posted a review about the D300) but the glass is something I know will far outlive the body. A body, my friend, is only as good as what you put in front of it.

 

If the only reason you want to upgrade the body is ISO, then I would say rather go with the lens. Its an awesome lens, especially if you are looking for a lens in that focal range.

Once u have that paid off, by all means upgrade the body - I am sure the D300 plus that lens is superb!

Either way, good luck with the decision.

 

Hold up folks, that is a nice (maybe great) lens but it is just one lens.

If in fact the D300 is as good as claimed then this upgrade will also upgrade all the lenses in his/her ("Which is fate anyway?", he asked rhetorically.) bag.

You can get great IQ from a 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D (or the non D as it has the same glass in it) which for most applications will be as good as needed for the prints (not so good if you put a lot of stock in being able to say that you have an $1800 lens).

The ability to up the ISO and still get clear photos will negate the advantage of having an f/2.8 down to almost no light. I own one of the non-D versions and it is as sharp as my 50mm f/1.8. I also see them regularly on e-bay for under $80.

$.02


(to test different focal length lenses -as in the 70-210mm to the 50mm- just step back until the larger one shows the same image size. May not be scientific but plenty good enough for 'Kentucky windage'. )

mike

 

IMO 80-200 f/2.8 and a D200.

 

Thanks for the advice guys, i'll take it all into consideration when i make my descision

 

Unless your current body is incapable of taking the images you want, get the lens. Bodies come and go, so you will always be wanting the newer model with this and that. Good glass will stay with you a lot longer. I seen me a Rebel XT (silver body) with a EF 400 f/2.8 L IS, talk about an odd coupling, but it had spectacular results. More in the glass than the body I presume.

 

I second that, you already have a decent camera.