If you had $1500.......

[Wildman]

for those of you Nikon shooters........ Which one would you buy and why?


D300 body

or

70-200mm 2.8 ED VR



I own a D80 now.

[scotty]

If I had neither, I would get the lens.
But since I have the lens, and love it, I would get the D300, and sell my D70s. (I'm thinking about it too)
Great glass is forever, bodys become obsolete.

[Casey]

Lens. I'm pretty sure you're in over your head with the body you have. You can upgrade bodies later.

That's not meant to be a slam, it's just that most of us have not run to the end of the capabilities of our current bodies nor do we do things that require us to upgrade. Seriously, I think you'll get more out of the lens.

[Casey]

Wait a second, what lenses do you have? I might suggest you get a good wide angle like the 17-55 f2.8. Great lens.

[Convert]

I agree, go with the lens, I think it'll give you a much larger photographic return than a new body. I shoot with a D50 and I'm pretty sure even I'd pick the lens in that situation.

[Wildman]

Actually, I have two things that I am leaning toward on the D300 because I have actually out grown some aspects of my 80.

On my 80 I can only shoot to about 1000 ISO before I get noticable noise even on the long exposure setting. The D300 will shoot easily up to 3200 (by examples of pictures on the internet) I have a 80-200 2.8 AF and with a 3200 ISO I think I can have my shutter fast enough to handle most hand held shots up to almost dark.

Second, the D300 is a 12 megpix camera. The D80 is 10. 2 megapixels do not seem like a lot, until you start talking about degradation on photo edits.

The d300 has 4 programmable modes, live view, and a new altogether process sensor.


The 70-200mm 2.8 VR would give me on my D80 the ability to stop down a stop or two. The two VR lenses I have now are great, but they are limited in "action" shots because of my shutter speeds. The 2.8 VR would help in that aspect with the 80.

I will be getting both, but I need to know now, what $$$$ would seem to be spent more wisely.

[Wildman]

Casey, I have the 16-50 Tokina 2.8, 80-20 nikon 2.8 and my 18-200 vr and 80-400 vr

My 2.8s are great lenses, but they shut down too early for me (hand held) The 2.8 vr would give me another hour I would think.

BUT, like I said, the ability with the D300 and getting up to 3200 on my ISO would make the lenses I have now more use for me in that my shutters could come up two or three.

Example. Now I have a 2.8 at 25 or 30 that I have to stop shooting at 1000 ISO.

The D300 at 3200ISO would bump me to around 45 to 60 on my shutter speeds on the 2.8s I have now, giving me PLENTY of hand held ability in low light situations

[Snakelover]

That's not meant to be a slam, it's just that most of us have not run to the end of the capabilities of our current bodies nor do we do things that require us to upgrade.

Speak for yourself, Casey!

[Shane]

If you already have the 80-200, I'd lean toward the D300 as well. Better high ISO performance is as good as faster glass, if not better. If you can shoot the same shutter speeds either way, then what else do you get? VR from the lens. Body gives you live view, higher resolution, and other bells and whistles. I'd go with the body in your case. And then I'd start saving for the VR lens too, with the seed money coming from the sale of my current body.

Of course, a good tripod might be good to add (if you don't already have one, which you probably do). I'm trying to force myself to use mine more, and I like the results. I don't always like carrying it around though.

[Casey]

Of course, a good tripod might be good to add

Great point! Your best pics will come off a tripod AND you can run slower shutter speeds with long lenses if you have the thing on a tripod. You don't want to go below 1/focal length on a lens while handholding. Most of the time, the shake is evident.

People just almost refuse to use a tripod. Once you see the results you get from dropping your longer zooms on a tripod, you'll see why it is a good idea.

[doncom]

Sorry Danny, but for the life of me, I can't figure out how to apply the Canon Filter to this thread.

I have a D80 and a 70-200 f2.8 and I really want a D300, but for the life of me I can't justify it. It was a lot different when I could write all that stuff off. The D300 does some really cool stuff that nothing else on the market is doing, but in my opinion, if I can't make more money with it than the D80, I probably don't need it. And, for the life of me I can't figure out how to make that work.

Buy the lens.

[Shane]

See, that's the difference in a pro like Don and a hack like me. He makes actual money with his camera gear, and I use my camera gear as a means to drain my bank account.

[Wildman]

Got a Bogen Manfrotto 190XDB tripod. I shoot off of it and use it as a monopod at times. I agree, using a tripod is a great option, but that is not what I am wanting to achieve (using a tripod). I am wanting to shoot free hand with fast shutters at low light. You know, what everyone wants

Don, just get the 300 and be done with it. You will never justify your photo equipment, you can only question if you have the best toy.

Don, can you test something for me? Shoot that 80 with the 70-200 vr and let me know when you lose your lens at a 25th 2.8 on 800 ISO (200mm). I will call you tomorrow night for a report.

[Dave W]

A new alarm for your house?????????

Good glass lasts forever.........

[Atfulldraw]

Just a humble Canon opinion

I would buy the lens -- lens prices keep going up - body prices go down.

If you are going to buy both eventually, buy the lens when it is cheaper (now) and the body when it is cheaper (later) instead of the other way around.