I need a bit of help deciding between Lensi

[Pine]

For the money you have, may be you should consider older lens instead, like ED AF 70~300mm. It's non-vr, but is much more affordable than the new ones. You should use the left over dollars for a decent tripod. Used lens are also better bang for the buck if they are in good condition.

I'm pretty set on investing in a good lens. I wouldn't dream of getting a lens without a focus motor, and the only reason I considered the 70-300 was for the VR, but without VR, there's absolutely no incentive for me. I have a decent tripod, and I almost never use it anyway; I really hate lugging it around with me. Anyways, I've decided to try and get a used 70-200 F/2.8 VR I. No luck so far, lost an auction by a couple bucks (The winning bid was $1202, I bid about $1196). I have my eye on a few more auctions. I know that if I don't invest right the first time, I'll end up going insane and spending more money on what I wanted all along.

dont know if the last post was towards me but anyway thanks but I have a real good tripod.lol

Haha, Revid, I think he was actually replying to one of my posts. Anyway, yea, the 70-300 has a larger focal range than both the 80-200 and 70-200. However, this is the main difference: their apertures. The 70-300 has a variable aperture of F/3.5~5.6, depending on how far zoomed in you are (Max aperture of 3.5 and 5.6 at 70mm and 300mm, respectively). The 70-200mm and 80-200 both have constant max apertures of F/2.8, and as such, they're great for shooting low light or for extremely fast shutter speeds in good light (Usually for stopping motion without blur). Fixed aperture lenses do come at a price, but you really get what you pay for. Other than that, both the 80-200 and 70-200 have superb optics, and professional grade build quality; they're built like tanks. They feel like a real lens in your hand, as opposed to a couple of their cheaper brothers.

 

[revid]

lol,sorry about that guys.So even though the 70-200 doesn't have he focal range its better in low light than the 70-300?I have the 70-300 vr and haven't used the vr very much because I find it to slow.They say that with the 70-200 f2.8 its really nice for portrait shots as well because you can blur the background,is this right?I would sell my 70-300 and pay the extra for the 200 if I knew it would serve me better all around.I have a nikon d7000/nikkor 70-300 and a nikkor 18-105vr that I just sent in for repairs due to an accident,so i don't know if to pay for the repair or get something else.I kinda like the low light capability of the 200 but I do like the focal range of the 300.What to do????

 

[revid]

Just looking at some of the 70-200s and some got ED,ED+UV,AF,D etc.Some got more elements/groups.Its hard to pick sense out of all this.Anyone can shed some light on the letters and or numbers and which is better?thanks

 

[Stutterfly]

Lensi - the plural of lens

 

[Pine]

Just looking at some of the 70-200s and some got ED,ED+UV,AF,D etc.Some got more elements/groups.Its hard to pick sense out of all this.Anyone can shed some light on the letters and or numbers and which is better?thanks

Well, there's the Nikon, the Sigma and the Tamron.

The Tamron is optically good, built alright. The focus is loud and really slow. The Sigma is optically meh, built alright, focuses pretty well.
Both go for around $700 used.

The Nikon is on a whole different level. It's built like a tank, focuses crazy fast and is sharp at all apertures. Of course, it'll run you anywhere from 1200-1400 to get one used.

For Nikon, the letters and numbers are: ED - Extra low dispersion - basically makes images better . UV = uiltraviolet rays, usually get a filter against that. AF-S means it has a built in motor, AF-D means it can autofocus on cameras with motors in the body.
Not sure about the elements and groups, but I assume more is better :thumbup:

If you're wanting focal range, go for something like a Sigma 150-500. If you want superb photos at a mid-telephoto range for anything from sports to portraits to wildlife, go for a 70-200. The faster max aperture basically shoots better in low light, produces great bokeh (background blur) and it's built (optics included) way better than the 70-300's.