lens choice

[royalWITHcheese2]

I have about $1500 to spend for new lenses, I'm considering either the 70-200 f/2.8, or getting the 80-200 f/2.8 and something like the 60 f/2.8, which one would you go with...or any other suggestions for similar lenses.

 

[Garbz]

One excellent lens? Or two excellent lenses that you can get more out of...

Remember if you need VR or a monopod, chances are your subject may be moving too fast to get a sharp photo anyway. I'd pick the latter option.

 

[sabbath999]

One excellent lens? Or two excellent lenses that you can get more out of...

Remember if you need VR or a monopod, chances are your subject may be moving too fast to get a sharp photo anyway. I'd pick the latter option.

+1

 

[Phranquey]

I have never owned the 60mm f/2.8, but I have owned the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, and currently own the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. At less than half the price, the AF-D is a fantastic lens, and it holds a pretty good resale value if you want to upgrade to the VR at a later time, which is what I did. Honestly, it comes down to whether you need, or want, the benefits of the VR, and the little bit of extra sharpness.
Owning the VR, I would recommend it to anyone, but I won't downplay the AF-D either. I am not going to outright tell you which way to go, but I can pretty much say that you will not be dissappointed either way.

 

[Village Idiot]

One excellent lens? Or two excellent lenses that you can get more out of...

Remember if you need VR or a monopod, chances are your subject may be moving too fast to get a sharp photo anyway. I'd pick the latter option.

That's a generalization.

 

[sneshanian]

I have about $1500 to spend for new lenses, I'm considering either the 70-200 f/2.8, or getting the 80-200 f/2.8 and something like the 60 f/2.8, which one would you go with...or any other suggestions for similar lenses.

what do you find yourself shooting mostly?

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

what do you find yourself shooting mostly?

everything really...

 

[Mav]

I'd get the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D and the 60/2.8. As good as the 70-200VR is, the only thing I really need from it is the AF-S, and there's no way I'm paying nearly double the price over the AF-D version just for AF-S. If I need some stability, monopods are cheap.

 

[royalWITHcheese2]

Since everyone has said the second choice...do any of you see a big difference in the new 60 f/2.8 and the old one? I know ED glass, but is that worth the $200?