TaoTeJared said:
4 months old guys, he got his lens.

In the post directly above yours, the OP stated that he's still leaning towards the 28-300. This would indicate that he hasn't decided totally, yet.

Other than that, we did fall for the old "Thread brought back from the dead" gag. I gotta remember to look at the dates again, even though I didn't bring this one back, but was just responding.

4 months old guys, he got his lens.

imua hawaii said:
after a few days of contemplating. i have decided to get an 85mm 1.4 when it becomes available, 70-300VR for that extra range (really thought hard about the 28-300VR) and RENT the 70-200mmVR for performances on stage I may not be able to get as close to.

first off, thank you all for your helpful tips and most of all for sharing your knowledge. I have a D7000. Learning every day by shooting as much as i can and following the forum.. the 28-300VRII is the lens I've been leaning towards but the other options mentioned are something to think about. much mahalo for your time and sharing..

If you want longer AND better low light, I'd seriously consider a 300mm f/2.8. You can't afford Nikon's newest VR version, but I'd look into a nice used manual focus version or perhaps a new third-party version?
If you don't mind not having auto-focus, then you can't do better than an older Nikon 300mm f/2.8. I think you can pick up one for something like $1500. With the rest of your budget, you can pick up the new Nikon TC20eIII. Combined, you'd get a 600mm f/5.6 lens. That's 3 times the reach at the same aperture. Without it, you get 50% more reach but with 4 times less light than your 18-200 at the long end.

I love my 80-400 if I need super telephoto length. It's a great lens and is very sharp, when used properly. The problem with the 80-400 VR is the fact that it's very slow and not a good low-light lens at all, even with the high-ISO performance of a D7000(DX) or D700(FX). In my opinion, you could save some cash and get a 80-200 2.8 over the 70-200 VR. It's just as sharp and it will last forever, since it doesn't have VR. I LOVE my 80-200 2.8 and wouldn't trade it for the 70-200 2.8 VR. You would have some cash left over for a nice prime or two.

I used to shoot with the 70-300mm VR and can say that it was a wonderful lens. I now have the 28-300mm and it does the job as well. Have you thought about the 80-400mm VR? It would fit your budget and although its due for an overhaul very soon (its the oldest Nikkor VR in the Nikon Lineup not refreshed) it takes great wildlife and landscape shots. One important question for you imua hawaii, what body are you shooting with!? DX or FX? The 70-200mm VR 1 that I owned before also was great and worked very well with a teleconverter just crazy heavy much like the 80-400mm.

I also have the the 18- 200 and had the same problem. My solution a D700 and a 70-200 f 2.8 would be outside your budget, but what about a D7000 (the higher ISO might solve the low light problem) and the 28-300VR
If you are allowed to use flash look at the SB900 which will zoom to 200mm

after a few days of contemplating. i have decided to get an 85mm 1.4 when it becomes available, 70-300VR for that extra range (really thought hard about the 28-300VR) and RENT the 70-200mmVR for performances on stage I may not be able to get as close to.
hows that for analysis? am i improving my thought process?

Awesome advice and suggestions! Thank you to all who participated!
Happy New Year to All!

Ahhh the perfect all in one lens.... 18-300mm f2 and in the size of a 28-300mm ... A guy can dream right?

You covered allot of different situations and almost all of them you are looking into prime-land. 1.8s and 1.4s are your friends. Need a camera with a motor drive for sure. The key for low light is getting a sharp image - you can always crop to get some extra distance for the frame.

What I use:
Landscape - Everything and anything
Wild life - 70-300mm VR - 70-200mm VR with 1.7TC
Sports indoor and outdoor at day and night - 70-200mm VR, 50mm 1.4 & 85mm 1.8 - day you can get away with a 70-300mm VR. I probably use the 85 the most to keep the ISOs low.
Performances on stage - 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 & 85mm 1.8

$2,000? 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 & 70-300mm VR would be the best start since you only have two other lenses and it would complement them. Add some great software for Noise Reduction (Nik, LR3, Noise Ninja etc) and an Expodisk for WB and you have a winning combo. The 70-200mm VR would be the next step for sports.

You need to decide if you want more length or better low-light performance and if you want a prime or a zoom lens. And then you need to decide what focal length fits you best.

More length:
Nikon 300/4
Nikon 70-300 VR

Better in low-light (zoom):
Nikon 17-55/2.8
Nikon 70-200 VR

Better in low-light (prime):
As you already have the 35/1.8 I'd go for something longer so maybe Nikon 85/1.4 or Nikon 135/2.

No.

There is nothing Nikon makes faster AND longer within your budget.

thank you for your detailed/knowledgeable response. maybe a stupid question but im going to ask it anyway. will i get more length from the 70-200 than the 18-200?

(reason I mentioned lenses under your budget is so you can perhaps get a few instead of one lens).

But to get a single lens for that budget, the nikkor 70-200 VR (not the new VRII) is $1999 on amazon.com

It really depends on the budget you're working with. The 70-300 VR (nikkor) is good, I've used it, but it's f/3.5-5.6. Any time you're going to want fast, you will have to dish out the money. I use a 50mm f/1.4 ($350) (the D, not G type) and I recommend that one. If you need longer length, the 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro (under $1000)... is a great lens. Now if you need a zoom, you can try to look for third party fast lenses. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ($800) is good and affordable; IQ results being different than the Nikkor version, in practical terms, much of it is negligible (unless you're a pixel peeper like I am).

Make sure you know whether you want a prime or zoom, and try to stick to fast constant aperture lenses if you want to do a lot of night photography.

On a side note, the 18-200 is brilliant...had one for many years until I sold it for better IQ lenses, so good choice!

thank you for your response. i have searched the forum topics and couldnt find any answers. maybe i am not looking in the right place? I guess a more direct question would be if i should look into more of a "all in one" with more range or if i should look into something like a 70-300VRii to get more length? your thoughts?

In that price range you have a few choices, this question has been asked numerous times though and a quick search of forum topics should get some results.

Need your advice: I have a 18-200VRII and love it.. But would want to have something with more length and better low-light performance .. for shooting landscape, wild life, sports indoor and outdoor at day and night, performances on stage.. What would you suggest? Please include suggestions for replacement and/or adding to the collection. I also own a 35mm 1/8 prime.
Budget: 2000.00.

Thank you...