Eli Fox , May 26, 2009; 10:44 p.m.
You all probably remember me--I posted a question about the 70-200 and 70-300 lenses last week. Well, I'm almost certain that I'll be going with a larger DX body (complementing a D40) and one of the f2.8 zooms. Which one is now the new question. Keep in mind that I will be shooting high school sports. Would it make more sense to...
-Buy a 70-200 VR and use it on my D40 for a while; I would probably upgrade to a D90 or D300 by 2010
-Buy an 80-200 two-ring as well as a D90 or D300 along with it, to have for the upcoming school year.
In the other thread my impression was that the 70-200 VR is not worth the extra cash. Is that true? I don't think there's anything very wrong with my D40 right now, although it has 30K clicks on it and will probably die by the end of the year. The ideal option would be a D300 and 70-200 VR but I'd like to save at least some of my leftover income, which getting an 80-200 and a body (or just 70-200) would allow me to do. Thoughts?
Dave Lee 
, May 26, 2009; 10:48 p.m.
Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 is the best value in my opinion. But don't discount the Nikon 70-300mm VR, it has excellent reviews and is less than half the cost of the faster f2.8 zoom lens. I don't think the 70-200mm VR is a good value at nearly twice the price of the 80-200mm 2.8 when all it offers is VR and 10mm wider end. I would get the 70-300mm VR if I were you. You'd have enough saved to also buy a Nikon SB-900.
Glenn C , May 26, 2009; 10:56 p.m.
I have an 80-200 two-ring and I don't doubt the 70-200 is worth the difference on DX if you can use it. VR by itself will be worth the difference for some things. It is definitely a matter of consensus that it is sharper on DX. And it has those handy focus-lock buttons. It's all a matter of how much those things are worth to you. To me... I can't justify it. But I'm a pure casual-hobbyist-type photographer and my investment in photo gear already matches what I can justify, at least for now.
Brian Duffy , May 26, 2009; 11:35 p.m.
If you owned at least a D80 I would tell you to spend the money on a good lens, but since you have the D40 I would go for the 80-200 and get a D300. The AF system is far superior to the D40 not to mention, image quality, build, speed, and numberous other features. EVen the D90 would be a nice upgrade.
Eli Fox , May 27, 2009; 12:08 a.m.
The AF system and the speed are really what would make big differences for me. I think IQ would be almost the same for static subjects, although I'm saying this without having experienced a DSLR with more megapixels. The added cropability would certainly be a plus.
Yeah, I think that's what I'm going to do. 80-200 and D300 it is.
Mark Sirota 
, May 27, 2009; 12:10 a.m.
I would work towards the ultimate goal, which are the things that matter for high school sports -- f/2.8 VR lens and a body with the latest autofocus module. In today's world, that means a 70-200 and a D300.
If you can't do it all at once, my recommendation is to go for glass first. Lenses are (nearly) forever, bodies get obsolete quickly. Don't spend money on an 80-200 or a D90, as these are only partial steps towards your goal (unless you need something *now* and it'll help you make money towards your goal...)
Steve Hughes , May 27, 2009; 01:17 a.m.
Eli
The 70-200 VR lens is the most over rated bit of kit there is, I sold mine for stupid money and don't miss it a bit. I see no advantage of the 70-200 over a used afs 80-200 for sports photography, for what you pay for a new 70-200 I have a (albeit well) used Nikon 300mm 2.8 a used Nikon 180mm 2.8 and Tamron 1.6 afs tc and money left over for bus fare.
A used 80-200 will be every bit as usefull as the 70-200 for about half the money, I'd also keep the D40 till it either wears out or frustrates you so much you want to smash it to pieces , also don't waste any money on the 70-300 it's not worth mentioning in the same breath as the other lenses...
Steve
Dieter Schaefer , May 27, 2009; 01:24 a.m.
With prices as they currently are, I'd be looking for the 80-200 AF-S lens - the predecessor to the current 70-200 and the successor of the two-ring 80-200 AF-D lens. You get the fast AF-S focusing without spending the money on the VR feature.
Matthew Brennan 
, May 27, 2009; 01:57 a.m.
Eli,
I have also replied to your previous posts. I have not changed my opinion. Get a D300 and the 80-200mm.
I have the 70-200mm VR - it's a great lens with terrific bokeh etc and really excels when shooting subject matter at shutter speeds well under 1/100th - 1/125th BUT for sporting action you will want to get a good still freeze frame and VR is not going to help you with that.
Get a D300 for it's superior AF servo and the 80-200 glass which by all accounts is equal in IQ to the 70-200mm item.
Ralph Berrett , May 27, 2009; 02:36 a.m.
VR is something of a placebo in my opinion. It does it help yes a little, but not as much as marketed. The question comes down to AF speed versus vignetting. I have an old 70-200mm f/2.8 push pull that is in my backup kit. It works well but for the AF speed I still use the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.
I can say the vignetting is very significant with my D3 but correctable in adobe raw.
Nikon D3 with the 70mm-200mm f/2.8 VR
Camera: Nikon D3
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture: f/2.8
Vignetting is fairly visible.
