Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blade Canyon" data-source="post: 303028" data-attributes="member: 15302">I have reviewed the threads here, and they create more questions and uncertainty.On Sunday afternoon, I was shooting in a church with sunlight coming through the windows.&nbsp; My wife's orchestra was performing and she wanted some shots of her and others taken during the performance (so no flash).&nbsp;&nbsp; My body is a D600 FX.My lens was a Sigma 70-300, 4.5-5.6.&nbsp; No VR/OS/VC etc., shooting at the max 300mm.&nbsp; The results were disappointing, so now I'm on the hunt for either a faster lens, VR, or both.&nbsp; VR alone may well have been enough to cure the blurs.&nbsp; I should have pushed the ASA higher than 1600.Options (so far) and some thoughts on each:To keep the full 300mm zoom ability:Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $425 local on Craigslist.&nbsp;&nbsp; No more light, just VR.&nbsp;&nbsp; Should hold value.&nbsp; (The Tamron version that was well-reviewed here by JH Foto is more expensive new.)Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $625 local on Craigslist.&nbsp; No more light, just VR and extra convenience of 28-70 range added.&nbsp; Should hold value.&nbsp; Some online reviews are great for this lens, but I see here that some members think the IQ is marginal.Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 VR $750 on Ebay from a reputable seller I have bought from before.&nbsp; (Added on aroy's suggestion.)&nbsp; Same light, more zoom, plus VR.Going down to 200mm, but getting more light:Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $2,300 new.&nbsp;&nbsp; Top of the line pro lens, 4x more light, best new VR.&nbsp; Will lose some value as used.Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; $1,150 used on Craigslist local.&nbsp; 4x more light, and original VR.&nbsp; Should hold value for a few more years at least.Nikon 70-200 f4 VR&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; $1,400 new.&nbsp;&nbsp; $1,100-$1,300 used Ebay.&nbsp; &nbsp; 2x light plus VR.&nbsp; (But at this price I would rather get the used 2.8)Nikon 80-200 2.8&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; $450 used local.&nbsp; 4x light, no VR.&nbsp;&nbsp; Loss of 300mm range, no VR, but 2.8 at a good price!You guys have more experience, and I have never owned any of these lenses.&nbsp; Going north of $1k means I have to die 30 days sooner than my retirement planner expects.&nbsp; But if I'm going that high, I'd probably get the used 70-200 2.8 VR.&nbsp; On the other hand, the 80-200 looks like a good value, but no VR.&nbsp; I'd rather have light than VR, however, if I later get to shoot some fast action.&nbsp; A thread here says this lens is slower to focus.ETA:&nbsp; Just writing this down helped me narrow it down.&nbsp; I'm still interested to see what others have to say would be the best value in this bunch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blade Canyon, post: 303028, member: 15302"] I have reviewed the threads here, and they create more questions and uncertainty. On Sunday afternoon, I was shooting in a church with sunlight coming through the windows. My wife's orchestra was performing and she wanted some shots of her and others taken during the performance (so no flash). My body is a D600 FX. My lens was a Sigma 70-300, 4.5-5.6. No VR/OS/VC etc., shooting at the max 300mm. The results were disappointing, so now I'm on the hunt for either a faster lens, VR, or both. VR alone may well have been enough to cure the blurs. I should have pushed the ASA higher than 1600. Options (so far) and some thoughts on each: To keep the full 300mm zoom ability: [B]Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR[/B] $425 local on Craigslist. No more light, just VR. Should hold value. (The Tamron version that was well-reviewed here by JH Foto is more expensive new.) [B]Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR[/B] $625 local on Craigslist. No more light, just VR and extra convenience of 28-70 range added. Should hold value. Some online reviews are great for this lens, but I see here that some members think the IQ is marginal. [B]Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 VR[/B] $750 on Ebay from a reputable seller I have bought from before. (Added on aroy's suggestion.) Same light, more zoom, plus VR. Going down to 200mm, but getting more light: [B]Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII[/B] $2,300 new. Top of the line pro lens, 4x more light, best new VR. Will lose some value as used. [B]Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR[/B] $1,150 used on Craigslist local. 4x more light, and original VR. Should hold value for a few more years at least. [B]Nikon 70-200 f4 VR[/B] $1,400 new. $1,100-$1,300 used Ebay. 2x light plus VR. (But at this price I would rather get the used 2.8) [B]Nikon 80-200 2.8[/B] $450 used local. 4x light, no VR. Loss of 300mm range, no VR, but 2.8 at a good price! You guys have more experience, and I have never owned any of these lenses. Going north of $1k means I have to die 30 days sooner than my retirement planner expects. But if I'm going that high, I'd probably get the used 70-200 2.8 VR. On the other hand, the 80-200 looks like a good value, but no VR. I'd rather have light than VR, however, if I later get to shoot some fast action. A thread here says this lens is slower to focus. ETA: Just writing this down helped me narrow it down. I'm still interested to see what others have to say would be the best value in this bunch. [/QUOTE]

Verification