Nikon 70-200mm F4 with a D3200?

[Nikographer]

Yup, a thread about expensive glass and an entry level DSLR.

I think Nikon did an amazing job with the D3200 and I bought it as my first camera end of last year. I think the image quality is superb.

I currently own 3 lenses 55-200mm F4-5.6 VR, 50mm F1.8G and 18-55mm VR(kit lens).

My question is this: Would it be a good idea to save up for the 70-200mm F4 from Nikon? It costs about as much as a D7100 and more than what my camera and 3 lenses cost me. Would this be wasting money? Will the 55-200mm VR that I currently own be enough? Would it work great with my D3200? I expect it to.

Any advice? Thanks.

 

[cgipson1]

Good glass is the best investment you can make! The quality your body can capture cannot be utilized without glass that will provide that quality. Ditch the 55-200 and buy that 70-200... supposed to be an excellent lens!

 

[Derrel]

The 70-200mm f/4 VR would be a fantastic lens to pair with a D3200--or any other Nikon body. The inexpensive kit tele-zooms like the 50-200 and 50-250 range lenses focus somewhat slowly. They are priced for affordability...made to be low-cost...the 70-200 f/4 is a much different type of lens.

 

[cowleystjames]

Good glass is the best investment you can make! The quality your body can capture cannot be utilized without glass that will provide that quality. Ditch the 55-200 and buy that 70-200... supposed to be an excellent lens!

Agree 100%, good glass never loses money and will last you a lifetime.

 

[Nikanon]

My question is this: Would it be a good idea to save up for the 70-200mm F4 from Nikon? It costs about as much as a D7100 and more than what my camera and 3 lenses cost me. Would this be wasting money? Will the 55-200mm VR that I currently own be enough? Would it work great with my D3200? I expect it to.

Go for it! Sell the 55-200mm and put some money towards the 70-200 F4. Like others have mentioned always invest in glass first camera bodies will always lose value but good quality glass will retain it's value for a long time.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

IMO, the 55-200 is a crap lens, and only suitable for the complete novice who's learning the very basics. The 70-200 f/4 is technically superior in every meaningful category, and should perform wonderfully even on your D3200.

It might seem odd to have a high-end piece of glass on an entry-level body, but IMO glass is almost always a better investment.

Good luck!

 

[Nikographer]

Great replies thanks. I was hoping it would make a massive difference that justifies the price and looks like it would according to the replies here. I will save up for it then. Appreciate any input about the lens.

 

[bike4fun12]

I just got my 70-200mm f/4 lens a couple weeks ago. I have the D7100. I have been doing a lot of comparison shoots between my 70-300mm VR and have found the 70-200mm f/4 to be superior. hands down, 70-200mm wins easily. even on tripod, the 70-200mm is better. from edge to edge performance, the 70-200mm is super sharp. the 70-300mm lacks sharpness once you leave the middle of the frame. the 70-200mm is able to keep great sharpness throughout the frame.

 

[Nikographer]

How can I know for sure if I need the 2.8 aperture? I don't think I will though. But want to be sure. I think I can just have the subject further from the background and be closer to it and so on. Play around with other things that could increase bokeh if need be. No ways I can afford a 2.8 anyway.

 

[Nikanon]

How can I know for sure if I need the 2.8 aperture? I don't think I will though. But want to be sure. I think I can just have the subject further from the background and be closer to it and so on. Play around with other things that could increase bokeh if need be. No ways I can afford a 2.8 anyway.

IF you shoot a lot in low light conditions then I would say get the 2.8 version. But if you shoot a lot outdoors during the day then the F4 would better suit your needs.