# Bought a D300 out of impulse...



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

I have a weakness for fps.
Went to Best Buy and they had a D300 with the 18-200 VR as a kit lens.
I pushed the shutter button and a machine gun burst ensured. They claim 6 fps, but all I could tell is that it was darn fast. I was sold. 
The fact that I had a 12% coupon pushed me over the fence. :yikes:

$2200 and change + tax for the kit. Did I do good? :dunno:
I'm having buyer's remorse. Can still return it within 14 days if I don't open the box. :angel:

If I keep it, I'd have to sell my existing 18-200 VR, which I bought last summer. 
Oh, I would also need to buy the battery grip accessory, for 8 fps. :yikes:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I have a weakness for fps.
> Went to Best Buy and they had a D300 with the 18-200 VR as a kit lens.
> I pushed the shutter button and a machine gun burst ensured. They claim 6 fps, but all I could tell is that it was darn fast. I was sold.
> The fact that I had a 12% coupon pushed me over the fence. :yikes:
> ...


Please, give me a good deal, seriously.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

I've never felt much of a need for the 8fps speed on my D2X, while I have frequently wanted a lighter, more compact body. I never used the battery grip on my old D100 either. I'd think long and hard on that purchase.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> Please, give me a good deal, seriously.


Syoo, what's a good deal? :eeps:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Cliff said:


> I've never felt much of a need for the 8fps speed on my D2X, while I have frequently wanted a lighter, more compact body. I never used the battery grip on my old D100 either. I'd think long and hard on that purchase.


Maybe my D50 would be perfect for you then. Small and light and accepts all Nikon lenses ever made.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Please, give me a good deal, seriously.


I just checked ebay and it's going for +/- $600. I paid $800 last summer. 
Make me an offer. I'm very motivated to sell. I will give *you *free shipping.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Boile said:


> I just checked ebay and it's going for +/- $600. I paid $800 last summer.
> Make me an offer. I'm very motivated to sell. I will give *you *free shipping.


Pffft! Try dropping $999 on it Dec, 06!  Mine is still in the classifieds.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Boile said:


> Maybe my D50 would be perfect for you then. Small and light and accepts all Nikon lenses ever made.


No thanks - there are too many compromises on that camera (autofocus and the viewfinder would be at the top of that list). I'm waiting on an FX sensor in a D300 size body. In the meantime, I can take plenty of terrible photographs with my D2X and don't need a new body right now.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Cliff said:


> No thanks - there are too many compromises on that camera (autofocus and the viewfinder would be at the top of that list). I'm waiting on an FX sensor in a D300 size body. In the meantime, I can take plenty of terrible photographs with my D2X and don't need a new body right now.


Please enlighten me... what're the compromisses on the D50?
From my research at the time, the D50 specs looked better than that of the D70, except for the lack of a few functions that I didn't need (like depth of field, IIRC).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page26.asp


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Boile said:


> Please enlighten me... what're the compromisses on the D50?
> From my research at the time, the D50 specs looked better than that of the D70, except for the lack of a few functions that I didn't need (like depth of field, IIRC).
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page26.asp


Dude, lose the Poli Sci confrontational approach to forum discussions. It doesn't facilitate communication.

I'm not comparing the D50 to a D70, I'm comparing it to my D2X. I'm not willing to trade the functionality of the D2X for the reduction in size and weight offered by the D50. The D300 is actually a very desirable camera body, but I'm not in the market for a new body right now. I think we'll see a D300 sized body with an FX sensor in the next few years. I can afford to wait for it.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Cliff said:


> Dude, lose the Poli Sci confrontational approach to forum discussions. It doesn't facilitate communication.
> 
> I'm not comparing the D50 to a D70, I'm comparing it to my D2X. I'm not willing to trade the functionality of the D2X for the reduction in size and weight offered by the D50. The D300 is actually a very desirable camera body, but I'm not in the market for a new body right now. I think we'll see a D300 sized body with an FX sensor in the next few years. I can afford to wait for it.


I was being genuinely interested. I respect your opinion in photography topics and that's why I asked.
Perhaps you read it in a different light...

I wouldn't for a second think seriously that anyone would trade a D2X for a D50. I was joking around. Tongue in cheek. 
But you made a statement about the D50's autofocus and other limitations that surprised me. I owned the camera for almost 2 years, took over 6K pictures with it and have never noticed any limitations on autofocus. Nor have I read anything on that aspect during my research (before buying the camera; I stopped reading anything after).
So I was curious as to what those are. I'm not being defensive or anything. In all likelihood, I'm selling the D50, so I don't care. Just curious to see if something you might mention would match my experience... like "oh, yeah, that's what it was, it wasn't my technique after all" type of thing...


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

The D2X has a much more capable autofocus system than the consumer bodies, and the D300/D3X improves on that still more. There are several different modes of operation including predictive modes. You can easily select the focus point in a scene. The AF motor is more powerful in the D2X and results in snappier performance in non-AF-S lenses. The viewfinder in the D2X communicates more settings information and has 100% frame coverage. 

Those are some of the differences. The D300 is a superset of the D2X, so you'll discover some of those differences on your own.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Boile said:


> I have a weakness for fps.
> Went to Best Buy and they had a D300 with the 18-200 VR as a kit lens.
> I pushed the shutter button and a machine gun burst ensured. They claim 6 fps, but all I could tell is that it was darn fast. I was sold.
> The fact that I had a 12% coupon pushed me over the fence. :yikes:
> ...


Enjoy your new D300. I received mine late 11/07 and very anxious for the weather to warm up and the racing season to begin so I can put the D300 through its paces. I purchased the MB-D10 vertical grip from Roberts Imaging and they have the best price @ $229.97. I am using rechargeable AA batteries to get the max fps out of the D300. I also own a D2H and can use the battery in the D300, but the required BL-3 battery cover is no where to be found in retail stores.

BTW, don't sell the used 18-200 VR. Sell the NEW lens for max return. Just my 2 cents.

Regards...JL


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

From what I'm seeing, I may have to return the D300.
Even with the generous 12% coupon, after taxes and all, I still would need to sell the 18-200 VR lens for $650 or more (very unlikely) to end up with a D300 body for $1790.
I can simply get one such body from amazon.com for $1750 today, no hassles, no haggles. 
When I bought last night, I thought the camera was back ordered everywhere. Apparently, that's not the case anymore. :eeps:


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Boile said:


> From what I'm seeing, I may have to return the D300.
> Even with the generous 12% coupon, after taxes and all, I still would need to sell the 18-200 VR lens for $650 or more (very unlikely) to end up with a D300 body for $1790.
> I can simply get one such body from amazon.com for $1750 today, no hassles, no haggles.
> When I bought last night, I thought the camera was back ordered everywhere. Apparently, that's not the case anymore. :eeps:


Return the kit and purchse the D300 body online. Contact Roberts Imaging and tell them you are a member of Nikonians. I believe they are giving members a discount.

Good luck....JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Indian buyer.  3fps is enough for me.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Indian buyer.  3fps is enough for me.


what's an indian buyer? :dunno:


----------



## JBss (Feb 19, 2007)

pfft canon>


:eeps:


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

i'd take an 18-200 for $399. anyone? anyone?

i'm also struggling with my d40 and thinking about listing it on CL and buying a new fuji s100fs when they come out in another month or two (assuming the reviews substantiate the specs, as i suspect they will).


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> what's an indian buyer? :dunno:


similar to an Indian giver. :rofl:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

goodkarma said:


> i'd take an 18-200 for $399. anyone? anyone?
> 
> i'm also struggling with my d40 and thinking about listing it on CL and buying a new fuji s100fs when they come out in another month or two (assuming the reviews substantiate the specs, as i suspect they will).


$200 and you got a deal.


----------



## Rennsurfer (Jan 17, 2008)

*The D300 is one badassed camera. My friend just got one. I dig the huge review screen on the backside of the body. Can't go wrong with Nikon bodies and lenses. I shoot with a D70 and love it. One of these days, I'd like to find a used SB600 or SB800 Speedlight. Till then, I'll be fine with my SB28.

Did you return your camera?*


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Rennsurfer said:


> *The D300 is one badassed camera. My friend just got one. I dig the huge review screen on the backside of the body. Can't go wrong with Nikon bodies and lenses. I shoot with a D70 and love it. One of these days, I'd like to find a used SB600 or SB800 Speedlight. Till then, I'll be fine with my SB28.
> 
> Did you return your camera?*


I did.
I don't need a new camera until the spring (even though soccer season has already started, it's too cold and gray out there to be shooting). So I can afford to wait for the prices to drop a bit more.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

I just ordered a D300. Body only. $1630 delivered. :wow:
Not in my hands yet.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

I looked closely at the D300 but there is not much there to draw me away from my D200 and D70. I'd rather invest more money into additional lenses than another camera body. As cliff said, the fps is meaningless once you get above 3 fps. I don't even use high speed fps (5) when I shoot sports, I still use low speed (3). That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

Now, if I had a D50, I CERTAINLY would take the D300 over that as an upgrade.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Boile said:


> I did.
> I don't need a new camera until the spring *(even though soccer season has already started, it's too cold and gray out there to be shooting).* So I can afford to wait for the prices to drop a bit more.


Wimp. My best sports shots have been overcast days. Sun is your enemy, especially high noon!


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Rennsurfer said:


> *The D300 is one badassed camera. My friend just got one. I dig the huge review screen on the backside of the body. Can't go wrong with Nikon bodies and lenses. I shoot with a D70 and love it. One of these days, I'd like to find a used SB600 or SB800 Speedlight. Till then, I'll be fine with my SB28. *
> 
> *Did you return your camera?*


If you got the cabbage, I highly recommend getting *2* SB-600's and 1 SB-800. You can get some pretty good flash photography with the -800 as master and slaving the SB-600's to it. :thumbup:In my studio I prefer to use one of my SB-600's directly overhead with a soft box. Works great.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Brian said:


> I looked closely at the D300 but there is not much there to draw me away from my D200 and D70. I'd rather invest more money into additional lenses than another camera body. As cliff said, the fps is meaningless once you get above 3 fps. I don't even use high speed fps (5) when I shoot sports, I still use low speed (3). That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!


I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing that shooting football is a lot different than shooting soccer.
In football the most interesting shots are of the receiver catching the ball (not the throwing). You have a good several seconds from the time the ball is thrown until it reaches the receiver's hand. You can even follow it's trajectory and predict the exact moment.
Soccer is more like baseball. The interesting shots are of the ball leaving the player's foot (or the baseball bat). And you can't exactly predict when he'll make the shot. Half a second too early and the foot is not even making contact. Half a second too late and the ball isn't even in the frame anymore. 
I stood next to a parent with a D200 this past weekend. He was basically machine-gunning every shot. He must have taken 500 shots, while my typical session is 50 shots per game. Guess that will change now.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

I sorta disagree with you about Soccer. I think it is an action packed sport, unlike baseball where you wait for hours to get the great shot. Soccer is more about facial expressions than anything else. It's not as action packed as football though, there is so much to shoot in football, the O-line, the center making his big hit, running the ball...those catches you see are hard to get, its all about timing, and if you're not focused on the QB watching him throw that ball through the viewfinder... or peaking above your shutter, you'll miss the great catches every time. I decide in advanced what player or players I'm going to shoot in advance so I get the best shot for the money.

During football season, I shoot about 250-400 shots per game, but then there is sorting through all of these to pull out the good ones. A typical football sunday for me (5 games) is roughly 1500 pictures. It takes time to sort through them, throw out the bad ones, upload the good ones, etc. It's worth the effort though, this past season we did $12,000 gross in sales. Not bad for a hobby and since I'm already going to the game to watch my son play, getting paid to do so helps. 

Edit: One thing you always look for in soccer is the ball in the frame when you shoot...if you don't get the ball in the frame, then its just a guy running!


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Brian said:


> I sorta disagree with you about Soccer. I think it is an action packed sport, unlike baseball where you wait for hours to get the great shot. Soccer is more about facial expressions than anything else. It's not as action packed as football though, there is so much to shoot in football, the O-line, the center making his big hit, running the ball...*those catches you see are hard to get, its all about timing*, and if you're not focused on the QB watching him throw that ball through the viewfinder... or peaking above your shutter, you'll miss the great catches every time. I decide in advanced what player or players I'm going to shoot in advance so I get the best shot for the money.
> 
> During football season, I shoot about 250-400 shots per game, but then there is sorting through all of these to pull out the good ones. A typical football sunday for me (5 games) is roughly 1500 pictures. It takes time to sort through them, throw out the bad ones, upload the good ones, etc. It's worth the effort though, this past season we did $12,000 gross in sales. Not bad for a hobby and since I'm already going to the game to watch my son play, getting paid to do so helps.
> 
> Edit: One thing you always look for in soccer is the ball in the frame when you shoot...if you don't get the ball in the frame, then its just a guy running!


Please don't misunderstand me.
I'm not saying one sport is "better" than the other. 
Facial expressions and all the other things you mentioned can be taken with any camera. Probably that's why you don't need a machine gun.
For the things that you do need, you acknowledged it yourself (in bold). 
All I'm saying is that in soccer, there're more of those shot opportunities that need timing.
I agree that in baseball there's a lot of waiting time to get one shot. My point is that the one shot you've waited requires perfect timing (ball leaving the bat). It's a lot safer and easier to machine gun it. For that you need a fast enough camera.

PS: not just the ball in the frame, but the ball has to be off the ground, or it's still a guy running (after a rolling ball).


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Brian said:


> I looked closely at the D300 but there is not much there to draw me away from my D200 and D70. I'd rather invest more money into additional lenses than another camera body. As cliff said, the fps is meaningless once you get above 3 fps. I don't even use high speed fps (5) when I shoot sports, I still use low speed (3). That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!
> 
> Now, if I had a D50, I CERTAINLY would take the D300 over that as an upgrade.


Rockwell is very bullish on the D300.
I can see why some people don't like him. He's not affraid to call it as he sees it. :lmao:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm


Ken Rockwell said:


> The Nikon D300 is far more revolutionary than its specifications suggest. It completely obsoletes everything that came before it, and especially sends the D200 and D2Xs to the dumpsters of digital history.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

`


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Boile said:


> Rockwell is very bullish on the D300.
> I can see why some people don't like him. He's not affraid to call it as he sees it. :lmao:
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm


OMFG, my D2X is only fit to use as a doorstop!!! Oh Noes!!111!!!

Rockwell is a farking idiot.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Yo Brian
:eeps:


Rockwell said:


> My D200 is history. If you shoot as much as I do, the D300 is worth it without any reservations.
> 
> If you don't already own a D200, just get the D300 and forget the D200.
> 
> ...


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Boile said:


> Yo Brian
> :eeps:


Quoting Fockwell will get you about as far as quoting Bangle- Except Bangle draws more respect.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

PropellerHead said:


> Quoting Fockwell will get you about as far as quoting Bangle- Except Bangle draws more respect.


I just found those quotes amusing and busting on Brian. Chill.
Not my opinion. I have never even held a D200 in my hands. :angel:


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Boile said:


> I just found those quotes amusing and busting on Brian. Chill.
> Not my opinion. I have never even held a D200 in my hands. :angel:


Sorry- I wasn't worked up or anything. I actually refer to him as 'Fockwell.' You should read the 'review'- I mean crap he posted on the E39. So very positive.. and filled with such misinformation that I completely lost respect for his opinon- about pretty much everything.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

Boile, you're going to have to try alot harder to get me green with envy than that! 

Rockwell? Hehe. Well, others have stated the majority of photographers opinions on Rockwell.

FWIW, I *just* used a D300 (friends camera) this past week-end for the first shooting some flag football. Based on that experience, it convinced me I don't need one. Sure the 3" screen was nice...but I really could justify the extra $600 (I paid $1200 for my D200  )

Congrats on yours, though! Nikon makes a damn good product! My next purchases are going to be lenses, I'd like to get a nice fisheye lens next.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

So, after sorting out all the posts below, did you end up getting the D300 body from the internet, and kept your original 18-200 VR lens. Now, that you quit taking soccer pics, what do you use your camera for? 

The used price of the 70-200 f2.8 VR is dropping just before Christmas. It's still too pricy for me to shell out $2000 for a new lens. When the II comes out, I suspect there will be more used lens in craigslist.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

I bought a D300 from ebay. I use my 18-200 VR on it (also bought via ebay).
But most of the time I use the 80-200 f/2.8, especially for action shots.
Who said I quit taking pics of soccer? 
I won't really be done with soccer until my kids are done. And there's no end in sight.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Boile said:


> I bought a D300 from ebay. I use my 18-200 VR on it (also bought via ebay).
> But most of the time I use the 80-200 f/2.8, especially for action shots.
> Who said I quit taking pics of soccer?
> I won't really be done with soccer until my kids are done. And there's no end in sight.


Enjoy your D300. The 80-200 is a great lens.

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I bought a D300 from ebay. I use my 18-200 VR on it (also bought via ebay).
> But most of the time I use the 80-200 f/2.8, especially for action shots.
> Who said I quit taking pics of soccer?
> I won't really be done with soccer until my kids are done. And there's no end in sight.


My apology. You're done with the soccer parents. Is the auto focus fast enough on the 18-200 for soccer? I decided to get the 70-200 2.8 VR. Used price is about $1500 since the II edition came out.

Edit: I just bought a 1 year old "mint" 70-200 2.8 VR from a guy in Manhanttan Beach, CA. Small world, he is the cousin of my boss at NASA. :yikes: My daughter will pick it up and I will see it Dec 23 when I'm in CA. :thumbup:

I asked why he is selling, he said he bought the II. :yikes:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

The 18-200 VR isn't fast enough for soccer. Not the auto-focus, the apperture.
Note that I use the 80-200 f/2.8. Autofocus is just fine, with some miss sometimes. You can't just point and shoot. A little planning ahead is required.
The 70-200 f/2.8 should be plenty good enough for serious amateur work.
I saw a pro guy at the side line and he was using a f/1.8 monster. :wow:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> The 18-200 VR isn't fast enough for soccer. Not the auto-focus, the apperture.
> Note that I use the 80-200 f/2.8. Autofocus is just fine, with some miss sometimes. You can't just point and shoot. A little planning ahead is required.
> The 70-200 f/2.8 should be plenty good enough for serious amateur work. *I saw a pro guy at the side line and he was using a f/1.8 monster.*
> :wow:


He used a truck to roll it around? Even the 70-200 weighs 3.25 lbs around your neck.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> He used a truck to roll it around? Even the 70-200 weighs 3.25 lbs around your neck.


That's why you don't carry it around your neck.
He used a professional monopod. 
BTW, you still using that shower curtain contraption? :rofl:


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

Ill be the first one to admit the fact that aside from jason o'dell i learned more about photography from ken then anyone will ever admit to.

while some of his stuff is laughable his articles and how to's were a major influence on me.

i think i adhere to quite abit of his thoughts and ideas.. although i do shoot raw..

he just seems to hit upon alot of topics and after i read it i go oooh yeah thats a good idea. as much as sometimes his equipment reviews can be whacky i really do like his how too's..

there i said it....


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> That's why you don't carry it around your neck.
> He used a professional monopod.
> *BTW, you still using that shower curtain contraption? * :rofl:


Of course. Part of my greatness in life is the accomplishment of a feat without the dependency on dedicated contraption (monopod). The ability to improvise at the right place and time is satisfying. You're just jealous that you don't have the mindset I do. 

Then, if I were using a 300mm lens, I would probably use a monopod as well because I would never be able handhold and steady that rock.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Of course. Part of my greatness in life is the accomplishment of a feat without the dependency on dedicated contraption (monopod). The ability to improvise at the right place and time is satisfying. You're just jealous that you don't have the mindset I do.


I think you should build your own camera.
Have you experimented with a shoe box with a hole yet? :rofl:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I think you should build your own camera.
> Have you experimented with a shoe box with a hole yet? :rofl:


No, I could never get it to operate in different lighting conditions like a store purchased camera. What makes you think I have that super ability to do that? I will let you know what I can and cannot do. I have to admit, I am far from being perfect. What else did you buy out of impulse?


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> What else did you buy out of impulse?


a new 28" LCD monitor which is also a HD TV. I can run it at 1920x1200 resolution. :thumbup:
See my other thread. 

Here you go Dave.
This is the lens for you. Give yourself a Xmas gift.
I NEED THIS LENS. :yikes:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121003nikkor300vrII.asp


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> a new 28" LCD monitor which is also a HD TV. I can run it at 1920x1200 resolution. :thumbup:
> See my other thread.
> 
> Here you go Dave.
> ...


I have the older version.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> I have the older version.


No frigging way, you don't. This is a f/2.8 $5K lens. :tsk:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

I got a head of myself. I got the 70-200 f2.8 VR, not the VR II.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

I have a new item in my (impulse) wish list:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-14-24mm...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1262623290&sr=8-1

:wow:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I have a new item in my (impulse) wish list:
> http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-14-24mm...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1262623290&sr=8-1
> 
> :wow:


I like the lens hood, sexy.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Boile said:


> I have a new item in my (impulse) wish list:
> http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-14-24mm...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1262623290&sr=8-1
> 
> :wow:


Nice lens. It's one of the "Holy Trinity" lenses. I have the 24-70 & 70-200VRI, but I never have the need to shoot that wide, especially when using an FX body so I won't be completing the trio.

Regards....JL
40 years of Nikon ownership! :thumbup:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

SRFast said:


> Nice lens. It's one of the "Holy Trinity" lenses. I have the 24-70 & 70-200VRI, but I never have the need to shoot that wide, especially when using an FX body so I won't be completing the trio.
> 
> Regards....JL
> 40 years of Nikon ownership! :thumbup:


I like that Holy Trinity concept. :thumbup:
I tried to do everything with one lens (also because I didn't know better and/or couldn't afford quality), so I went with 18-200 and 80-200. The idea wasn't to minimize overlap, but to have one lens for sports and one for everything else (including travel).
Well, the everything else needs to be further refined into indoors and outdoors.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

The 80-200 f/2.8 lens is a pro grade lens so you're covered on the long end. If you're going to stick with DX, consider a preowned 17-55 f/2.8. They are going for under $900 and the only pro DX lens Nikon makes.

Regards...JL


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

i have both the 17-55mm and the 80-200mm....love them both


----------

