Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR - thought?

Light Artisan · Jan 7, 2011

Here's one dance recital I shot for my niece... 1600 ISO to get up to 1/500th shutter speed wide open at f/2.8

Brooke - Just For Kix Competition - a set on Flickr

JenLavazza · Jan 7, 2011

Thanks Light Artisan!! Going non-VR will save me $$! And if I don't really NEED it than that's great! I myself hate tripods. I think they are a pain in the rear....for what I shoot anyway!

I'll start shopping around some more and price compare the two non-VR options mentioned. I have two kids and another on the way, so I know it'll get plenty of use

Plus, if I can use it during sessions too that's more of a plus!

gsgary · Jan 7, 2011

Light Artisan said:
Here's one dance recital I shot for my niece... 1600 ISO to get up to 1/500th shutter speed wide open at f/2.8

Brooke - Just For Kix Competition - a set on Flickr

Your Niece is going to break some harts

Light Artisan · Jan 7, 2011

Yeah, she is... Super sweetheart too.

For what it's worth, those shots were with a Sigma 70-200 EX f/2.8 HSM Macro which you can buy new for about $799 and it served me very well.

KmH · Jan 7, 2011

How about a good condition, used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras for about $850?

KEH has a few of them and the AF-S version: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999029183N?r=FE
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999034114K?r=FE

as does B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800746218-USE/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html

JenLavazza · Jan 7, 2011

Thanks KmH...I definitely like the price better! It says it has constant f2.8 maximum aperture through the entire focal range which is something I was wondering about. I had a DX zoom with my D40 and I know at certain focal lengths it wouldn't let you change the aperture.

I wish I could test all these lenses out!!

sobolik · Jan 7, 2011

Light Artisan said:
I'd get the 70-200 VR if you can swing it, or the 80-200 (no VR). VR is only good for objects that are still, so you could spend about $800-$1000 on an 80-200 (2 ring, newest one) or about $1200-$1300 on a used 70-200.

People like sobolik will try and convince people they can do everything with a kit lens and get good quality photos, it's simply not always the case and they have yet to show photos proving their point.

Exhibit "A" The kind that say you "need" a Corvette to drive the kids to practice. They just babble endlessly with a bitter tone knowing that they have been busted for thoughtless knee jerk dumb advice. The following is justy plain stupidity on display. You would think that Nikon and Canon are loser con artist companies listening to these clowns: "a kit lens and get good quality photos, it's simply not always the case"

You can get quality photos for the rest of your life with a kit lens.

That being said if you are indeed rolling in money then buy the fast lens of your choice. It is "better" if cost is no concern. It may be completely unnecessary but technically it's "better" Just the the Corvette may be "better" but is it necessary to drive the kids to school.

Light Artisan · Jan 7, 2011

^ This coming from the only person who has yet to show a single sample of their work, let alone an action shot in poor lighting taken with a kit lens.

ballr4lyf · Jan 7, 2011

I have only had my T2i for a couple of weeks, but I have yet to get a good low light photo with my kit lens unless I use a flash. I would imagine that the flash would be pretty much useless at telephoto distances.

I know I can set my camera on a tripod, set the aperture wide open, and then use a long shutter time to get a good low-light exposure on my subject with the kit lens, but that doesn't work too well when my subject is moving.

Just sayin.

EDIT: @Light Artisan... The quote in your sig, or at least the disclaimer.... EPIC!!! :lmao:

sobolik · Jan 7, 2011

Light Artisan said:
^ This coming from the only person who has yet to show a single sample of their work, let alone an action shot in poor lighting taken with a kit lens.

All a person has to do is search the internet for sample photos from kit lenses. But then again that is not your intention. Your intention is to vent the venom you have within. All you are looking for is an excuse to claim justification for your hateful intolerance of someone who dares question the sacred cow of "everyone needs to spend large sums on fast lenses because kit lenses are no good" RUBBISH!

Light Artisan · Jan 7, 2011

And still, no samples of your work.

Your point is mute since the original poster has stated that they would rather invest in good, fast glass than to sacrifice their photos.

Do you read threads or just search for posts mentioning any faster than f/3.5 and go into attack mode?

Trever1t · Jan 7, 2011

Can't we all just get along?

nothing wrong with kit lenses, man they work great right out of the box but to say they're as good as the faster refined glass is without merrit.

Better is a relative ideal. A Corvette is better than your Subaru for many things, with exception of picking up the kids lol.

Light Artisan · Jan 7, 2011

sobilik just likes to 'attack' for no reason, what he doesn't realize or chooses not to read is how often I've also recommended lenses like the 18-105 and the Sigma 18-250 when it wad relevant.

sobolik · Jan 7, 2011

Light Artisan said:
And still, no samples of your work.

Your point is mute since the original poster has stated that they would rather invest in good, fast glass than to sacrifice their photos.

Do you read threads or just search for posts mentioning any faster than f/3.5 and go into attack mode?

Please identify where the OP said "the original poster has stated that they would rather invest in good, fast glass than to sacrifice their photos."

"Do you read threads" Or just run your hate filled mouth?

Light Artisan · Jan 7, 2011

Is this good enough for you?

Any suggestions for a better lens? That's not WAAAAAY over $1,000. I'd be willing to pay around $1300 or so. Also willing to buy non-Nikon brand lenses.

What about the 70-200 2.8G IF VR? Looks like used they're not too much more than what I was wanting to spend.....Is it worth it?

I'm just not big on "collecting" equipment, so if I need to spend more to get what I want/need than so be it. I can't think of any other scenario I would need a different lens for than my 50mm 1.4 and a good zoom lens....for what I shoot anyway.

Many recommendations were made that aren't Nikon's current top glass such as the 80-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 which is almost half the cost.

At any rate, sobolik - I'm done with your pointless drivel, you're the first one going on my ignore list - congrats.