Downgrade body to upgrade lens...

freddieT

freddieT

Messages
4
Name
Freddie
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi this is my first post here and I hope you guys can help me out.

I currently have a D700 with a sigma 24-70 2.8 and a Nikon D7000 with a 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR II.

I want to get the Nikon 70-200 2.8 as I have heard that it is a fantastic lens but at over £1000 it's not the cheapest!

Is it worth selling my D700 and Nikon 18-200mm and then getting the D300 and 70-200mm 2.8?

Is the downgrade on the body worth the upgrade on the lens? :shrug:
Thanks!
 
:plusone:

and buy the D300 and 70-200 vr

Allan
 
The D7000 wouldn't raise enough for me to get the D300 and a new lens. I need to have 2 bodies (at least) for the wedding photography.
Any other opinions?
 
I'm after the same lens myself, plus thinking of upgrading my Sigma 24-70 2.8 to something better - my God this obsession is expensive lol
 
or save up more and buy the 70-200?

or just go for the sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM mkII, still a cracking lens for cheap.
 
badboy1984 said:
or save up more and buy the 70-200?

or just go for the sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM mkII, still a cracking lens for cheap.
Click to expand...

Would agree with this, it's a good lens. There are also a load of 80-200 Nikon options. I wouldn't want to ditch the D700 if I were doing weddings but can't really see what the 18-200 is giving you so personally that is what I would be off loading.
 
Yeah I was thinking about the sigma lens, will look into that more, thanks guys
 
Look like you using your D7000 and the 18-200 VR as a backup, walkaround (general use) and scout lens.

Sometimes i prefer to use the D7000 and the lens like 18-200 as a walk around.

Yeah either save up more and grab a used 70-200 VRII or VRI or look into the sigma and nikon 80-200 f2.8
 
I heard the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is sharper than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 as well, but its slower on the AF
 
The D700 is an AWESOME body, I really wouldn't do it, but that's just me.
 
As you're not going to be chasing moving subjects you could easily use the older push-pull Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 which has cracking optics and there are a few for sale at just over £300, it's where my money would go in your situation.
 
I'd say sell the 7k rather than the 700!
The D700 & D300 would be ideal if you have to have 2 bodies as the controls and layout are so similar.
There is no way I'd give up my 700 unless I could get the 800.
 
boliston said:
I'd say sell the 7k rather than the 700!
The D700 & D300 would be ideal if you have to have 2 bodies as the controls and layout are so similar.
There is no way I'd give up my 700 unless I could get the 800.
Click to expand...

i think the OP wanted a 70-200mm not a D300.

Selling the D7000 won't get him a d300 and a 70-200.

unless you can get a good decent price onm the d7000 and the 18-200mm.

I should say you can get around 1k minium for that. Then grab a D300 body for around £500 and spend the rest on either a sigma 70-200 f2.8, older 80-200 f2.8 AFD or add a little bit more cash to get a used nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR1
 
freddieT said:
Is it worth selling my D700 and Nikon 18-200mm and then getting the D300 and 70-200mm 2.8?
Click to expand...

I think he wanted both, but maybe if the 70-200 vr is too expensive at the moment, go for a used 80-200 ( sell the 18-200 vr and that should be a big chunk of the 80-200.)
Its a cracking lens, and if you can get the AF-S version, (although its dearer than the others,) it balances really well on the camera and you won't miss the VR.

Allan
 
If it's of any use, I have a 70-200 2.8 VR for sale. You wouldn't regret it, even if it's a push to get it.

Quality wise, i use d300s bodies and it's amazing. It's not a d700 but well.. when i had d200 bodies they produced amazing work. When I had older bodies before that they did too. The lenses are definitely more important

Having said that, we could trade your d700 (depending on condition etc)+cash (if you wanted to sell your 18-200 to someone else that would get you more than enough for that) for my d300s/70-200 2.8 VR... I haven't worked out the maths right now but basically I want a d700 to go with a 24 1.4 lens. So I'd have to sell my d300s to justify it. And I was selling the 70-200 2.8 to justify the 24 1.4.
 
Last edited:
So the Nikon 80-200 2.8 realy is a good lens then?

I read on another forum it's not as good as the 70-200 VR. I'm lost lol
 
Scout n' About said:
So the Nikon 80-200 2.8 realy is a good lens then?

I read on another forum it's not as good as the 70-200 VR. I'm lost lol
Click to expand...

I've owned the 80-200 2.8 AF-S and 70-200 2.8 VR, the 80-200 was the better lens in my opinion (and that was on a D50, the 70-200 VR was on a D90), I shot motorsport with both and the 80-200 had a better hit rate in terms of locking on AF, and I work my lens hard when shooting motorsport.

Gutted I sold it actually, the 80-200 AF-S is like rocking horse poo and I bought it for an absolute steal (£500).
 
I've decided to keep my D700, think I would have been stupid to sell it. I'm going to sell the 18-200 and put the money towards the Sigma 70-200. Thanks for all your comments.
 
ukaskew said:
I've owned the 80-200 2.8 AF-S and 70-200 2.8 VR, the 80-200 was the better lens in my opinion (and that was on a D50, the 70-200 VR was on a D90), I shot motorsport with both and the 80-200 had a better hit rate in terms of locking on AF, and I work my lens hard when shooting motorsport.

Gutted I sold it actually, the 80-200 AF-S is like rocking horse poo and I bought it for an absolute steal (£500).
Click to expand...

Thats the AF-S version of the 80-200 f2.8. Is pretty rare to find one of them these days for cheap. I got to admit is a good lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top