Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
I'm almost sure, but I'm not sure about the 70-200mm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="joaco2208" data-source="post: 347824" data-attributes="member: 30056"><p><strong>I'm almost sure, but I'm skeptical about the 70-200mm</strong></p><p></p><p>Hi guys,</p><p></p><p>Mi budget has changed and now I have a lot more to spend, so I'm able to buy greater equipment.</p><p></p><p>Camera: D7000 for around 620 bucks (Refurbished)</p><p>Small Zoom: (Tamron's New 17-50mm 2.8 VC), which seems to be a great all around lens. (650 bucks)</p><p>Macro (I tke a lot of close-up pictures so I thought i could buy a macro): Tokina 100mm 2.8 that seems to be awesome and it's not too expensive ($399)</p><p>But the Tele?</p><p></p><p>I have the cash to go and buy Tamron's new 70-200mm VC that is almost as good as Nikon's 70-200mm VRII. My doubt is that it costs twice as much as the old 70-200mm, but is it worth it to spend that much in the all-new features. I definitely want that fast AF, as my 70-200mm F/4L was FAST, and VC is almost mandatory for handholding a heavy lens. But are those 740 dollars more worth it? With that money I can buy a D7100 instead, which is not vital for me, but I consider it a nice Camera.</p><p></p><p>Should I get the VC or the Non-VC version? If in the next years the price of the VC version drops, I will lose a lot of money when reselling it. May that happen also with the 17-50mm VC?</p><p></p><p>Another option is to buy a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF for $1000. Is that a good buy? Or should I buy one of the Tamrons?</p><p></p><p>Thanks!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="joaco2208, post: 347824, member: 30056"] [b]I'm almost sure, but I'm skeptical about the 70-200mm[/b] Hi guys, Mi budget has changed and now I have a lot more to spend, so I'm able to buy greater equipment. Camera: D7000 for around 620 bucks (Refurbished) Small Zoom: (Tamron's New 17-50mm 2.8 VC), which seems to be a great all around lens. (650 bucks) Macro (I tke a lot of close-up pictures so I thought i could buy a macro): Tokina 100mm 2.8 that seems to be awesome and it's not too expensive ($399) But the Tele? I have the cash to go and buy Tamron's new 70-200mm VC that is almost as good as Nikon's 70-200mm VRII. My doubt is that it costs twice as much as the old 70-200mm, but is it worth it to spend that much in the all-new features. I definitely want that fast AF, as my 70-200mm F/4L was FAST, and VC is almost mandatory for handholding a heavy lens. But are those 740 dollars more worth it? With that money I can buy a D7100 instead, which is not vital for me, but I consider it a nice Camera. Should I get the VC or the Non-VC version? If in the next years the price of the VC version drops, I will lose a lot of money when reselling it. May that happen also with the 17-50mm VC? Another option is to buy a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF for $1000. Is that a good buy? Or should I buy one of the Tamrons? Thanks! [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
I'm almost sure, but I'm not sure about the 70-200mm
Top
