PDA

View Full Version : "Must Own" lens recommendations for a novice.



DarkDTSHD
08-26-2005, 11:46 AM
Hello all,

What "must own" lens would you recommend to be in a novice's (or experienced user's) collection. Can you list 3 or 4 and tell me why? What impressed you about the lens?...etc.

Thanks in advance!!

kornhauser
08-26-2005, 11:58 AM
What kind of camera? Model?

I bought a Tamron 28-200mm lens for my Nikon D1. Then I bought a Sigma 28-80mm. Now I'm getting a Nikon D70s. It comes with a Nikon Nikkor AF lens.

I had no problems with the Tamron or Sigma. However; for the D1 and D70s, I think the Nikkor lens is going to work one hundred times better. Probably best worth the money the first time.

eastbluffs
08-26-2005, 03:23 PM
You'll see many discussions on this forum covering this, so to reitterate ...

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Macro Aspherical is the best bet for the $$, only $360. I've shot about 3,000 shots on mine and, with 3 other lenses, haven't taken it off for the last 1,000.

Why? Good range, good bohek, good contrast, good colors, good speed, good focus, free hood, etc. All round good performance. Oh, did I mention good price?

Elevated by many-a-photographer to offer "Professional results".

Doesn't make camera so big and heavy so using a neck strap is feasible.

You'll need to spend double or tripple the $$ to match or beat it. Image Stabalization would have been nice since it would have expanded the low-light options, but in OK to good light, or with a flash, the results are very acceptable.

Here's a pretty typical shot.

TheWheels
08-27-2005, 12:20 AM
Nikon 50 1.8. It costs less then a $100 i think and it will teach you more about shooting with available light than any other lens for that price. It will open your eyes to light. Two suggestions though ... watch out for the narrow depth of field and zoom with your feet. :D

Other than that I would need to know how much you are willing to spend. :)

Matt

TheWheels
08-27-2005, 12:35 AM
Actually you did say experienced users bag ... so here goes.

50 1.8 (I have heard the 50 1.4 is not as sharp - I haven't shot it)
70-200 2.8 VR (Best lens ALL around - Beautiful!)
17-55 2.8 DX (I have the 17-35 2.8 which is fantastic but the extra length sure seems tasty)

So this is my opinion on 3. For #4 ... I am undecided ... 85 1.8 maybe. Or maybe 24 1.8. I have shot the 24 1.8 though I don't own either. I am merely being speculative on what I ... you said MUST own ... so maybe I wouldn't say all are must own because it depends on what you are shooting. But there are my ideas on it.

Matt

DarkDTSHD
08-27-2005, 06:25 AM
Thanks for the recommendations guys! Much appreciated! :)

eastbuffs,

Nice shot! Was that shot using a Canon 20D? :) I'm actually considering that camera too as my "next step up from an entry-level DSLR" choice. But most likely I'll go with a Nikon D50 or maybe Rebel XT. Not sure. As this would be my first digital camera. I was originally thinking of going with a Canon G6 PnS camera.

While I have heard good things about Tamron and Sigma I do have to admit I am biased towards Nikon lens. Oh and the "must own" lens...I'm assuming price is not an issue. Which is why I mentioned that the lens might be a choice of an experienced user. Expert even.

Have a good weekend guys! :)

D70FAN
08-27-2005, 08:15 AM
Nikon 50 1.8. It costs less then a $100 i think and it will teach you more about shooting with available light than any other lens for that price. It will open your eyes to light. Two suggestions though ... watch out for the narrow depth of field and zoom with your feet. :D

Other than that I would need to know how much you are willing to spend. :)

Matt

I like the 50 f1.8 a lot but, for dSLR use, I really like the 35mm f2 for the same reasons. An overlooked jewel for digital shooting. Probably because it costs 3X more (~$300). The other very nice fixed focus lens is the 60mm f2.8 Micro, but for totally different reasons.

It's interesting that a year ago, nobody wanted fixed focus lenses, now they are back in vogue as people realize that in many cases they can foot-zoom the equivalent of 35-70, at f2, and get a little excercise in the bargain. ;)

P.S. Warning only use TTL foot-zoom while moving forward. :D

TheWheels
08-27-2005, 01:17 PM
Oh and the "must own" lens...I'm assuming price is not an issue. Which is why I mentioned that the lens might be a choice of an experienced user. Expert even.

Have a good weekend guys! :)

Well then the 70-200 2.8 VR is your lens ... it is so sharp, never seen better bokeh, fast ... simply incredible. Just my thoughts.

Matt

DarkDTSHD
08-27-2005, 02:45 PM
Well then the 70-200 2.8 VR is your lens ... it is so sharp, never seen better bokeh, fast ... simply incredible. Just my thoughts.

Matt

Hello Matt,

Thanks for the recommendation! Are you familiar with the 4.0L 70-200? That was recommended in one of the D50 reviews. They showed you a before/after shot of the same group of buildings. It was a night shot. Forget what the other lens was but using the 70-200 4.0L...WOW...the difference was in fact "night/DAY".

Briefly, can you explain why manufacturers put out let's say a 70-200mm lens in varying f-stops (e.g. "2.8" and "4.0")? I noticed some spec'd as "3.5-5.5"...etc.

Also, could you or any one else explain what is a "fixed focus lens" (yes I know I can google search it but I'd love to hear from you "experts")?

Have a good weekend guys!

eastbluffs
08-27-2005, 06:57 PM
Thanks for the recommendations guys! Much appreciated! :)

eastbuffs,

Nice shot! Was that shot using a Canon 20D? :) I'm actually considering that camera too as my "next step up from an entry-level DSLR" choice. But most likely I'll go with a Nikon D50 or maybe Rebel XT. Not sure. As this would be my first digital camera. I was originally thinking of going with a Canon G6 PnS camera.

While I have heard good things about Tamron and Sigma I do have to admit I am biased towards Nikon lens. Oh and the "must own" lens...I'm assuming price is not an issue. Which is why I mentioned that the lens might be a choice of an experienced user. Expert even.

Have a good weekend guys! :)
Yes, it is the 20D. Here's an interesting link to see the differences with the Canon 20D and Canon Rebel XT

http://www.bobatkins.com/photograph..._xt_vs_20d.html

In essence; unless you're into more advanced features, you pay about $400 for a heavier, more professional feel. The XT seems to kick out similar high quality shots.

Given a choice between the Nikon D50 and Rebel XT, I think I'd opt for the Nikon. However; that's because I like a heavier camera.

The 50 f1.8 lense mentioned above is a Canon lense. If cost isn't an issue, I'd go for the 50mm f1.4 instead. The f1.8 is a real cheap build. I think Nikon also has a 50mm f1.8 but I don't know about it. Ask George.

"Fixed Focus" just means no zoom. So, instead of picking from 28mm to 75mm with the twist of the wrist, you only get 50mm. So if your subject doesn't fit your frame, you back up. If its too small, you run forward (or crop it electronically later). These are called "Prime Lenses". For shot quality, the top zooms usually can't touch the top primes - and modestly priced primes offer amazing quality too. That a little over simplified, but as a generality, is true ("all generalities are false including this one" ... heard that somewheres)

Look into "Lenses forum". There is a permanent ("sticky") post that explains many basic lense-shopping considerations. Its a must-read if you are serious about shopping this thing out and better understanding the various recommendation considerations.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089

Finally: It sounds like you're looking for a starter Digital camera. A lot of fabulous things are coming down the pike for DSLR's in the next couple of years. Sticking to the cheaper (albiet still high quality) line is probably a good thing. My 20D will likely be replaced in the Spring.

D70FAN
08-27-2005, 08:33 PM
Yes, it is the 20D. Here's an interesting link to see the differences with the Canon 20D and Canon Rebel XT

http://www.bobatkins.com/photograph..._xt_vs_20d.html

In essence; unless you're into more advanced features, you pay about $400 for a heavier, more professional feel. The XT seems to kick out similar high quality shots.

Given a choice between the Nikon D50 and Rebel XT, I think I'd opt for the Nikon. However; that's because I like a heavier camera.

The 50 f1.8 lense mentioned above is a Canon lense. If cost isn't an issue, I'd go for the 50mm f1.4 instead. The f1.8 is a real cheap build. I think Nikon also has a 50mm f1.8 but I don't know about it. Ask George.

"Fixed Focus" just means no zoom. So, instead of picking from 28mm to 75mm with the twist of the wrist, you only get 50mm. So if your subject doesn't fit your frame, you back up. If its too small, you run forward (or crop it electronically later). These are called "Prime Lenses". For shot quality, the top zooms usually can't touch the top primes - and modestly priced primes offer amazing quality too. That a little over simplified, but as a generality, is true ("all generalities are false including this one" ... heard that somewheres)

Look into "Lenses forum". There is a permanent ("sticky") post that explains many basic lense-shopping considerations. Its a must-read if you are serious about shopping this thing out and better understanding the various recommendation considerations.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089

Finally: It sounds like you're looking for a starter Digital camera. A lot of fabulous things are coming down the pike for DSLR's in the next couple of years. Sticking to the cheaper (albiet still high quality) line is probably a good thing. My 20D will likely be replaced in the Spring.

To pick up on that cue...The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is the bargain lens in the Nikkor line, at about $100, and most people prefer it to the more expensive 1.4, which doesn't really do well until about f4, while the 1.8 starts being a really good lens by about f2.8. Another good foot-zoom is the 35mm f2 but runs about $300.

DarkDTSHD
08-27-2005, 08:34 PM
Yes, it is the 20D. Here's an interesting link to see the differences with the Canon 20D and Canon Rebel XT

http://www.bobatkins.com/photograph..._xt_vs_20d.html

In essence; unless you're into more advanced features, you pay about $400 for a heavier, more professional feel. The XT seems to kick out similar high quality shots.

Given a choice between the Nikon D50 and Rebel XT, I think I'd opt for the Nikon. However; that's because I like a heavier camera.

The 50 f1.8 lense mentioned above is a Canon lense. If cost isn't an issue, I'd go for the 50mm f1.4 instead. The f1.8 is a real cheap build. I think Nikon also has a 50mm f1.8 but I don't know about it. Ask George.

"Fixed Focus" just means no zoom. So, instead of picking from 28mm to 75mm with the twist of the wrist, you only get 50mm. So if your subject doesn't fit your frame, you back up. If its too small, you run forward (or crop it electronically later). These are called "Prime Lenses". For shot quality, the top zooms usually can't touch the top primes - and modestly priced primes offer amazing quality too. That a little over simplified, but as a generality, is true ("all generalities are false including this one" ... heard that somewheres)

Look into "Lenses forum". There is a permanent ("sticky") post that explains many basic lense-shopping considerations. Its a must-read if you are serious about shopping this thing out and better understanding the various recommendation considerations.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089

Finally: It sounds like you're looking for a starter Digital camera. A lot of fabulous things are coming down the pike for DSLR's in the next couple of years. Sticking to the cheaper (albiet still high quality) line is probably a good thing. My 20D will likely be replaced in the Spring.


Hello Eastbuffs,

Thanks for taking the time to explain "fixed lens" to me. And thanks for the URLs. Much appreciated!

As for entry-level DSLR's it's between the D50 and the XT. Without having taken either out for a "test spin" and only basing my research on reading reviews/forum comments...I'd say I would be leaning more towards the D50. Very low noise. And it's larger...meaning it should sit better in my paws than the XT...which I heard was very small. But a good DSLR nonetheless.

As for the 20D...I'm considering it because of it's abilities. Seems to offer more features/performance than any other DSLR on the market. Which isn't to say I think it's the "best". Just that I know while it is a serious workhorse it can also be used as a PnS camera. I know I'll have days...even after many years of shooting experience...where I'll want the camera to do the work. Seems with the 20D you get the best of both worlds. And it's just a small jump in price from a XT.

Any how, have a good weekend!

D70FAN
08-27-2005, 08:57 PM
Actually you did say experienced users bag ... so here goes.

50 1.8 (I have heard the 50 1.4 is not as sharp - I haven't shot it)
70-200 2.8 VR (Best lens ALL around - Beautiful!)
17-55 2.8 DX (I have the 17-35 2.8 which is fantastic but the extra length sure seems tasty)

So this is my opinion on 3. For #4 ... I am undecided ... 85 1.8 maybe. Or maybe 24 1.8. I have shot the 24 1.8 though I don't own either. I am merely being speculative on what I ... you said MUST own ... so maybe I wouldn't say all are must own because it depends on what you are shooting. But there are my ideas on it.

Matt

The rental 70-200 f2.8 VR I used from Tempe Camera was very disappointing, especially after using the 80-200 f2.8 about a weekend before. For the extra $900 I'm not sure the VR is worth it. I even tried tripod mounting with VR off and didn't get decent results until about f5.

I have shot most of the Nikkor 1.8's and they really aren't much until about 2.8-f4 (the 50mm f1.8 is the exception). I was impressed by the 60mm f2.8 however. While it is a macro, I'm thinking maybe a great portrait lens. But then the 50mm f1.8 already fills those shoes pretty well, for considerably less money. So it's off my list as I rarely shoot macro. And the 60 is not good for foot-zoom. ;)

I just bought a 35 f2 and it is a terrific foot-zoom (easily as good as the 35-70 f2.8) and really starts to shine at about f2.8. By f4 it's a dazeler.

Of all of Nikons zooms, that I have used, the 28-70 f2.8 has been the most impressive from f2.8 and up. This would be the one zoom that I would spend $1400 on, if I had $1400 for a lens... which unfortunately I don't.

DarkDTSHD
08-28-2005, 08:00 AM
So 1 person loves the 70-200 VR and one not. :) Any one else? :)

Thanks again for the recommendations thus far.

Rex914
08-28-2005, 10:59 AM
I don't own Nikon, so I can't say, but I'd generally expect Nikon's 80-200, 70-200 f/2.8 series to be superb. But as with lenses, there are always bad copies out there, and if you are misfortunate enough to get one, you'll either have to exchange it or get it fixed.

But as George suggests, the non-IS version is a good choice if you can afford it and is definitely cheaper than the equivalent Canon version and almost as cheap as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Warin
08-28-2005, 11:22 AM
Another vote for the 50mm f/1.8. I find I think about things a lot more when I have only the fixed focal length. I also have an 85mm f/1.8 and 300mm f/4, and I am adding the 24mm f/2.8 this week (today in fact!) While zooms have very good optical quality these days, I still prefer the prime lenses!

That and the 17-55 DX and the 70-200VR are hellishly expensive.

D70FAN
08-28-2005, 04:30 PM
But as George suggests, the non-IS version is a good choice if you can afford it and is definitely cheaper than the equivalent Canon version and almost as cheap as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

70-200 f2.8 VR = $1700
80-200 f2.8 = $900
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 = $840.

Before I give the final poo-poo the 70-200 f2.8 VR, I am going to give it another shot. The results I got were darn-right awful, while the 80-200 shots were sharp as a tack from f4 and darned good at f2.8. Maybe I was having a bad weekend or something.

The funny thing is, that I really wanted the VR to blow my socks off, as the 80-200 did. I'll try again next weekend, along with the Sigma 18-200.

eastbluffs
08-28-2005, 05:06 PM
Hello Eastbuffs,

Thanks for taking the time to explain "fixed lens" to me. And thanks for the URLs. Much appreciated!
You're welcome. Actually; I've heard the term "fixed lense" more to mean a camera that has a non-removable lense (not an SLR). Of course; if talking about lenses, that's an oxymoron. It could also mean "fixed focal length lense", so I presumed they ment that.



As for entry-level DSLR's it's between the D50 and the XT. Without having taken either out for a "test spin" and only basing my research on reading reviews/forum comments...I'd say I would be leaning more towards the D50. Very low noise. And it's larger...meaning it should sit better in my paws than the XT...which I heard was very small. But a good DSLR nonetheless.
"Test spin" is a concept if having trouble deciding. However; it doesn't sound that way.



As for the 20D...I'm considering it because of it's abilities. Seems to offer more features/performance than any other DSLR on the market. Which isn't to say I think it's the "best". Just that I know while it is a serious workhorse it can also be used as a PnS camera. I know I'll have days...even after many years of shooting experience...where I'll want the camera to do the work. Seems with the 20D you get the best of both worlds. And it's just a small jump in price from a XT.


At first I figured the 20D as very superior, but I was either misinformed or am falling for some wishful defense from several XT and Nikon D70s owners (I'm pretty sure they're right, they are all very close in performance). I like the 20D ergonomics more than anything, but it has also been very fast and accurate to focus and get exposure. I'd have to use an XT or Nikon for a month to say if that's any different. The complex settings have tripped me up many times (like accidentally setting pre-setting white balance then not knowing how to unset it and having the next 200 shots at 6000K Color Temperature when it should be 4200K - sort of redish looking).

However; you mentioned picking the Nikon over the Canon due to low noise. I would think the opposite. The Canon uses "CMOS" light sensors (the "film" of the digital camera), where Nikon (and everyone else) uses CCD. The Canon CMOS technology is noted for extreemly low noise, and Nikon's new flagship has switched to CMOS.

Personally; I think the option for Canon "L" lenses, as with Nikon's like, a huge advantage. If not for them, I would say beginners should consider the Minolta with built in image stabalization, large screeen, and more user friendly menu interface.

Good luck on your choice!

TheWheels
08-30-2005, 12:50 AM
[QUOTE=George Riehm]The rental 70-200 f2.8 VR I used from Tempe Camera was very disappointing, especially after using the 80-200 f2.8 about a weekend before. For the extra $900 I'm not sure the VR is worth it. I even tried tripod mounting with VR off and didn't get decent results until about f5.
QUOTE]


George ... this seems crazy to me. My VR is sharp as a tack. Absolutly incredible and beleive it or not I have hand held it down just below 1/15th of a sec and had sharp images. I know one guy brags he got it to 1/8th of a sec and it was still sharp. In fact I love the lens so much I will meet you in the valley somewhere and let you play with it. If you don't love it fine ... but the last guy I let test it out bought one the same day. I can't beleive someone wouldn't spend the $900 on it over the 80-200. Just my crazy thoughts. The one I rented from Tempe worked great for me ... bought one from sammys the next week.

Matt

TheWheels
08-30-2005, 01:20 AM
Hello Matt,

Thanks for the recommendation! Are you familiar with the 4.0L 70-200? That was recommended in one of the D50 reviews. They showed you a before/after shot of the same group of buildings. It was a night shot. Forget what the other lens was but using the 70-200 4.0L...WOW...the difference was in fact "night/DAY".

Briefly, can you explain why manufacturers put out let's say a 70-200mm lens in varying f-stops (e.g. "2.8" and "4.0")? I noticed some spec'd as "3.5-5.5"...etc.

Also, could you or any one else explain what is a "fixed focus lens" (yes I know I can google search it but I'd love to hear from you "experts")?

Have a good weekend guys!

DarkDTSHD,
First of all I don't think it was the D50 that had the L lens. L series lenses are Canon Pro glass (lenses just in case that isn't understood). Any L series lens should be Canons best offering so SHOULD be pretty sweet.

I am unsure if anyone explained this already but manufacturers put out varying f-stops because its cheaper. I will try to explain in a second. And no one get on me for not being technical because I understand it but doesn't necesarily mean I can explain it well. First lets start with a High end fast lens. (a fast lens is one that gathers more light then most - BTW I don't know how simple I need to be ... I haven't read enough posts to know the general photo knowledge of most users here). A fast lens, in my opinion, is one that the f-stop of the lens is F-2.8 or smaller in number. Also it is usually a fixed f-stop lens ... meaning that no matter where in the zoom you are 70 or 200mm for instance, the lens can stay at f2.8. On a variable zoom lens the f-stop may be at 3.5 at 70 but can only open up to 5.6 at 200mm. So when you buy that variable zoom lens keep in mind that at its most "zoomed" focal length it can only open up to f5.6 or whatever .... that means less light for you subject. Which in turn means you either have to up ISO - more noise .... lower shutter speed - more blur and/or tripod needed ... or add light - which means you have flash all over your pics so it doesn't look natural.

So why is it cheaper to put out a variable f-stop lens ... because on your fixed f-stop lenses the amount of glass needs to get bigger as you increase your zoom (also take into consideration the shaping of the glass that must occur - more glass means more shaping). More glass means more hardcore engineering etc thus price starts flying way up. Varying f-stop lenses can maintain the small amount glass but lose light. If after all this it still isn't that clear ... (which its ok if its not - it took me awhile) ... take a role of toilet paper and a role of paper towels. Put the toilet paper role up to you eye. Notice the amount of light and what you can see in your view. Remove the TP roll and mount the PT roll ... notice your zoom is further but the light hitting your eye is less. YES I know this excersize has its flaws but I think it might help any who currently feel lost. Imagine now puting lenses in those rolls and how wide the end would need to be to let in more light but maintain the zoom ... hope it makes sense. If it doesn't ... feel free to visit me anytime in sunny AZ and I will be happy to let you use my lenses and experiement while you buy me lunch. :D

As far as the difference in pictures for a fast lens vs. a slow lens ... it can really open your eyes to the quality of light available if you have the right equipment. It amaizes me about how little I noticed the difference between flash and available light prior to experimenting with it. BTW f-4 seems really slow for an L lens. If its not F-2.8 or faster (unless your 300mm or more - a straight f-4 might be more reasonable) then I would say don't spend the cash on an expensive lens.

As for fixed focus I think someone already picked up on that one for you. Its a lens that doesn't zoom. The nice thing about these is that the lenses tend to be faster but not all that expensive considering the speed. Of course that is because all the zoom engineering doesn't have to go into to it. Thus you zoom with your feet.

Hope this helps and isn't too long. :)

Matt

Warin
08-30-2005, 09:13 AM
Not to overly pick at nits, but it isnt a "fixed focus" lens. Ideally, they aer "prime" lenses, or "fixed focal length". There is a big difference between focus and focal length. Fixed focus are the lenses on cheap point and shoot cameras that dont feature autofocussing.

TheWheels
08-30-2005, 11:43 AM
Not to overly pick at nits, but it isnt a "fixed focus" lens. Ideally, they aer "prime" lenses, or "fixed focal length". There is a big difference between focus and focal length. Fixed focus are the lenses on cheap point and shoot cameras that dont feature autofocussing.


Your right ... sorry about that ... fixed focal length or prime. That is a really important observation. A fixed focus lens would be real bad. :D

Matt

D70FAN
08-30-2005, 12:39 PM
[QUOTE=George Riehm]The rental 70-200 f2.8 VR I used from Tempe Camera was very disappointing, especially after using the 80-200 f2.8 about a weekend before. For the extra $900 I'm not sure the VR is worth it. I even tried tripod mounting with VR off and didn't get decent results until about f5.
QUOTE]


George ... this seems crazy to me. My VR is sharp as a tack. Absolutly incredible and beleive it or not I have hand held it down just below 1/15th of a sec and had sharp images. I know one guy brags he got it to 1/8th of a sec and it was still sharp. In fact I love the lens so much I will meet you in the valley somewhere and let you play with it. If you don't love it fine ... but the last guy I let test it out bought one the same day. I can't beleive someone wouldn't spend the $900 on it over the 80-200. Just my crazy thoughts. The one I rented from Tempe worked great for me ... bought one from sammys the next week.

Matt

Thanks for the offer Matt. Like I said, I really wanted it to be a great lens. Especially after all of the stellar reviews I've seen. I don't shoot a lot of low light telephoto, but there are times when I need a really sharp 100-200mm lens at about f4, so the 80-200 f2.8 bolted to the Manfrotto would probably suffice.

But, I don't want to be the fly in the ointment, especially if the lens is that good. And since TC has 5 of the 70-200's, I will try to rent a different one asap. Unfortunately, this being a long weekend, they are out, but I'll check back Firday in case of a cancellation.

No big deal as I was going to give the Sigma 18-200 a true test run. If it works as well as my 18-125 I'll keep it. I know that there are lot-to-lot variations, but if you can find a good one...

Anyway, thanks again. From the weather forcast it looks like a good weekend for Payson or Flag, but it will probably be really crowded. Oh well, there's always the pool. :cool:

erichlund
08-30-2005, 05:34 PM
[QUOTE=George Riehm]The rental 70-200 f2.8 VR I used from Tempe Camera was very disappointing, especially after using the 80-200 f2.8 about a weekend before. For the extra $900 I'm not sure the VR is worth it. I even tried tripod mounting with VR off and didn't get decent results until about f5.
QUOTE]


George ... this seems crazy to me. My VR is sharp as a tack. Absolutly incredible and beleive it or not I have hand held it down just below 1/15th of a sec and had sharp images. I know one guy brags he got it to 1/8th of a sec and it was still sharp. In fact I love the lens so much I will meet you in the valley somewhere and let you play with it. If you don't love it fine ... but the last guy I let test it out bought one the same day. I can't beleive someone wouldn't spend the $900 on it over the 80-200. Just my crazy thoughts. The one I rented from Tempe worked great for me ... bought one from sammys the next week.

Matt

I've handled the VR. It's a great lens. Still, I can't agree that anyone would universally spend the extra $900. The 80-200 is still a pro quality lens, and certainly nothing to sniff at. Yeah, I have lust for the 70-200, but we'll have to wait and see whether reality sets in before the budget can swallow that extra $900.

I also have to ask myself, what could I get for that extra $900. Let's see, a 35mm f/2 and an 85mm f/1.8 plus a bunch of accessories with the $240 left over. One really super, duper, spiffy lens or 3 great lenses and a bunch of accessories. I see a scale tipping...

Cheers,
Eric