Camera or Lens?

[Leeds_VTO]

Im in a Dilemma I have a Nikon D50 but fancy a change,

I don’t know what to get either a Camera body or save abit more and get a new lens.

I’m looking at either the D80,
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/news/digpop/1029.html

Or save up a bit more and get either Nikon AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR D or the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenstech/nikon/80400f4556ded.html
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenstech/nikon/70200f28gifed.html

Comments, anyone used any of these lenses?

 

[ukaskew]

Why do you fancy a change? My D50 is on something like 60,000 cycles in 12 months and the only reason I'm gradually saving for a D300 is that eventually it's going to go pop. A D80 won't offer anything that's really going to improve your photography, it's a great camera but not worth the upgrade imo unless you are moving to D200/D300 territory (you may be able to find D200s pretty cheap now, amazing camera)

WHat lens do you have? If you haven't owned a fast telephoto then be prepared to be amazed by one, a good fast lens will improve things far more obviously than any body. I would go with the 70-200 2.8 personally, the 80-400 is giving you reach, but not much more. You could always add a Nikon 2x Converter to your 70-200 and get a 400mm 5.6 if you find you want the extra reach one day.

I have the 80-200 2.8 AF-S (essentially the same lens, no VR for me though) and it's easily the best purchase I made, it's hard to explain how stupidly sharp and quick (in terms of auto-focus) it is. I won't bore you with too many pics but this is what my D50 and 80-200 do for me...

http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/134986816-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/188117106-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/157180687-L.jpg
http://chrisharrison.smugmug.com/photos/156663390-L.jpg

 

[ukaskew]

and I just noticed this, full-res version of that last shot which has been heavily cropped (gone from 3MB down to just over 1MB), driver was doing 40-50mph and I used 175mm wide open at f2.8, the little sticker on his rollbar says "Passed by MSA Scrutineer, Speed Hill Climb Prescott Hill, 26th May 2007, 129", all from my little 6mp D50.

Full-Res

 

[Rasclart]

I will back what he said about the 80-200 Lens. I have a slightly different version on loan long term. The sharpness is fantastic. I went back and looked at the pictures I took when I started a few months ago and they are REALLY sharp.

 

[unofficialPete]

I'm not sure that's a big enough jump in body to be worth it, get an awsome f/2.8 VR zoom lens! D50 to D200/300 maybe.

 

[jonnyjogpants]

the nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR is like 1200 quid....

i am thinking of the same lense

 

[ukaskew]

the nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR is like 1200 quid....

i am thinking of the same lense

The slightly older 80-200 is waaaaay cheaper than that. If you can do without VR (it's not really needed with 200mm to be honest, the lens is so heavy that it's hard to shake around too much!), the standard 80-200 'D' version (which is fine on a D50, not so on a D40) can be had for around £500-£700 if you look around, and will give you virtually the exact same shots as the £1200 70-200. If you've got a D40 you would need the 80-200 AF-S version for autofocus, much harder to find but does crop up second-hand for £700 or thereabouts.

 

[Leeds_VTO]

WHat lens do you have? If you haven't owned a fast telephoto then be prepared to be amazed by one, a good fast lens will improve things far more obviously than any body. I would go with the 70-200 2.8 personally, the 80-400 is giving you reach, but not much more. You could always add a Nikon 2x Converter to your 70-200 and get a 400mm 5.6 if you find you want the extra reach one day.

Im using a Tamaron AF 28-300mm XR Di LD Aspherical Macro IF f3.5-6.3, would the Nikon lens loose alot of quality if you added the converter?

Taken with the tamaron

 

[ukaskew]

would the Nikon lens loose alot of quality if you added the converter?

You lose a tiny bit of quality and AF speed, but not much to be honest. I use the 1.4x converter at the moment and can't tell the difference when I get back home between when I was using it and wasn't.

 

[Leeds_VTO]

Might get the 200mm without vr and a converter then, just seen the lens group buy thread as well.