DSLRUsers.com

Well my foray into the Canon world has been cut short but budgetary constraints, I have about $4000 - $4500 to play with. I was going to go with the Canon 30D, 1.4 extender and the EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM lens, cost put me at over the $5000 mark for the cheapest (reliable place) in Australia.

So I am keeping in the Nikon family, which I don't really mind at all.

I have D70, kit lens, a crappy 28-80, and the world renowned 70-300 G (this has been a trusty lens and I think I've really achieved the best out of it I can, and that has been some wonderful shots). I will be adding to this to pursue my motorsport passion this year (and aim for CAMS accreditation) with the following;

70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR
1.7 TC IIE

I was also contemplating the 300 f4 AF-S ED as well, but for a few hundred extra I could swap that for the D200 body, which is one of my ultimate aims, a better body to go with some great glass, and allow me to have the D70 as a backup.

Any thoughts, I know this is a personal thing, but any advice from those out there would be great.

As I see it:

PROS for 300 f4.
- extra reach, coupled with the 1.7, superb reach
- great sharp images from all I have seen on the net, even when coupled with the 1.7.
- less expensive than the 300 f2.8

CONS
- would I replace it with the f2.8 version given the chance
- will it hold value like other pro glass if I do the above
- will the focal length be enough or would I look for a 400mm prime

PROS for the D200
- better focusing
- better metering
- higher frame rate if required
- better buffer system!
- weather sealing over the D70

CONS
- is it significantly better than the D70 with decent glass
- will it enable my keeper rate to increase drastically
- and the main one, will it give me enough reach with the 70-200 and 1.7 that I may want with the 300 f4

Of course to add fuel to the fire, I could always wait 3 months and get the 300 f4 if I get the body now, which would be an easier purchase than the body...

As I said decisions decisions.

Thanks for reading.

Brett

1.4x (not the 1.7x)
70-200VR

and a D200 body if the budget streches.

Why 1.4 over the 1.7? IQ loss is still 2/10ths of nothing with the 1.7 over the 1.4 and I will rarely shoot at wider than f8 with it attached for motorsport, the extra reach will be advantageous.

If I need to go wider it will be in low-light where I will have closer access and won't be using the TC.

Not trying to sound condescending, damn the internet and it's black and white text If there is a reason I am not considering please let me know.

Thanks on the body comments though, I am starting to think that me be better option initially...

yraen69 wrote:1.4x (not the 1.7x)

The 1.4 is not that well regarded. The 1.7 is very highly regarded.

bwhinnen wrote:damn the internet and it's black and white text

Is there something I'm missing?

gstark wrote:

bwhinnen wrote:damn the internet and it's black and white text

Is there something I'm missing?

Colour! On the internet!

Na, I just don't want to seem like a know-it-all when asking for advice And sometimes the way I write things can seem a trifle blunt...

Brett,

bwhinnen wrote:

gstark wrote:

bwhinnen wrote:damn the internet and it's black and white text

Is there something I'm missing?

Colour! On the internet!

Na, I just don't want to seem like a know-it-all when asking for advice And sometimes the way I write things can seem a trifle blunt...

We would never call you a know it all. Not to your face, at any rate.

But you're not the first one who who has been accused of saying things in a manner that might be decribed as blunt, and you sure as hell won't be the last.

Getting back on topic, your reasoning for preferring the 1.7 with the 70-200 is sound, although the reach differential isn't all that significant. The D200 will give you the benefit of a bit of extra headroom if you need to crop a little more tightly though, and with the quality of that combo, you will have pretty well the best of all options.

I question your need for a 300/4 prime if you happen to have in your arsenal the 70-200 plus TC, as it'll cover the range of the prime quite nicely.

D200, although the financially unsound decision (bodies will lose value very quickly whereas good glass will lose it slower), I think will make the most of your motorsport foray. The D70, while capable, isn't quite the optimum tool for the job IMO.

gstark wrote:
The 1.4 is not that well regarded. The 1.7 is very highly regarded.

I've got the 1.7 (thanks to Poon and Gary) but I can't recall poor reports about the 1.4. The 2.0 certainly cops a lot of flack. I must lead a sheltered life so I'd be interested to know what the 1.4 problems are as I was thinking of getting one (in addition to the 1.7).

If you are having $4500 to spend, why not invest on a better quality glass? You really need a quality glass for a camera like D200 to shine. By the time you can save this amount again to buy a new glass to couple with the D200, the D200 will be much replaced by a newer model and even better. But this will not apply to high quality lenses, at least for this short amount of time.

The 70-200VR is certainly a plus, but it's speed when coupled with a 1.7x TC will drop by some 1.5 stops.

How about a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8? It has no VR but I'm sure if you aim for motorsports, this will be a blast to use.

Or bite the bullet and go for a Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR.

IMHO, is to get a good glass, the value stays stable for these glasses and you can always get a cheaper D200 (or better) body later in the future to accomodate your glasses.