Friday Fun Question - Lens or Body (not as easy as it looks)

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Friday Fun Question - Lens or Body (not as easy as it looks)

(26 posts) (14 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

So I was thinking this morning about my large gap in the telephoto range, and obviously suppressing my NAS urges for 2010 so my wife won't KILL me (especially given down turn in actual clients this year). . . .

I will have about $2400 to use at the end of the year.

I have a D200 (but have FX thoughts).

2 choices this Dec 2010:

Nikon 70-200 VR II

Nikon D700 (used) or new D800/900 (whatever).

Both will retail for about the same around Xmas 2010. . .obviously if I buy a body, I'll still have a telephoto lens gap (might just buy a 70-300 VR cheap to cover that if I go with the body).

I'm thinking the lens purchase is the smarter idea, DESPITE the 2-stop advantage of the D700 over the D200.

Arguably, the NEW VR2 provides a 2-stop advantage over the older 70-200 VR1.

which is what lead me to think: I could rock a D200 with a 70-200 VR2 and yield similar results to a D700 with a 70-200 VR1!! (minus significant differences in sensor IQ capabilities). .

OR

Have we reached a point with dSLR bodies where the body is the smart purchase over the lens?

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

VR II over VR I gives you an (arguable) two-stop advantage in certain circumstances.
It allows you to drag the shutter two stops slower, it does not allow you to shoot two stops faster. The distinction is important because while VR stops camera movement, it does not stop subject movement. I'd take two stops in-camera over two stops in-VR any day IF the choice were that simple, but I think it is not.

The rate of DSLR obsolescence may have slowed (and for certain tasks I think there is no argument there are "good enough" bodies out there) but even if you accept that the rate has slowed I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that they are more likely to outgrow a 70-200 VRII before they outgrow any of the current bodies.

Posted 3 years ago #
bernard

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 309
offline

Lens ! Lens ! Lens ! :o)

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I'm kind of facing the same decision, but in July and with a D90. I've decided on some flavor of the 70-200 VR unless a 24-70 2.8 VR comes out, in which case I'll have a very tough choice to make. I say get the lens.

BTW, I love that you're talking about Dec '10 only 8 days after Dec '09 ended. It makes me feel a little less crazy for planning out my equipment roadmap so far in advance.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

lens, lens and one more time lens, as for 70-300 vr... I wasn't happy with the results on d200, if You don't have too much money, and want both, I would go for d5000 + 70-200vrI (You should be able to find a cheap one sooner than later) - this will give You two worlds - higher iso capabilities (for me d200 performs great till iso 400) while d5000 up to iso 1600 and for dx You will not need anything more than 70-200vrI

Posted 3 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

Your question is not easy for me to answer for you (if you get my meaning). For me, I am perfectly happy at this time with my D300, but I would like the new 70-200. I'd say get the lens. As SOAP points out, the lens will last a lot longer (tech-wise) than any given body.

I'm quite sure that by December 2010, there will be a D800. Will it have what it takes to temp me away from DX? The D700 doesn't. Have to wait and see.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

I would like do add some confusion to your already troubled mind.
These are probably the last moments for you to sell your trusty but old and obsolete D200 for some kind of remotely decent price.
Great lens like 70-200 will serve you well for many more years then any current body, even D3x in ten years will be a museum item and 70-200 will be fresh and current as today.
To be able to help you make your decision (or confuse you some more) it would be good to know what other lens you have and what are your photography preferences.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

While I think you have a point, mb, I would like to point out that the price of a D700, D300, or hypothetical D900 will surely drop more in real dollar terms (but obviously not percentage) over the next years than the D200 will.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Go for the lens. Even when you upgrade to FX, you will still want a DX body for those times when you would prefer reach over IQ.

The lens will hold its value much better as well. Even the old 70-200 costs about $300 more new today than it did last Christmas when it was selling at $1699. Can't say the same for the D300 you could have bought for about the same price last year.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

I would go for the lens, no doubt about that, but right know you can sell D200 for at least 600 or more depending on a condition and I wonder what the price would be this time next year.
And for 3000 in hand you could have more options.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

mb - I doubt You will find any buyers for a used d200 for more than $500, if so than show me them, I'll eagerly trade my old d200 for d5000; if some of You think that they great d700 will be worth more in couple years, than I You are wrong - sooner or later You'll be able to find this camera for less than that

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

The lens, definitely.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

adamz said:
mb - I doubt You will find any buyers for a used d200 for more than $500, if so than show me them, I'll eagerly trade my old d200 for d5000; if some of You think that they great d700 will be worth more in couple years, than I You are wrong - sooner or later You'll be able to find this camera for less than that

300 EUR for the camera touched and used by the first moderator of famous [NR] forum ... tempting ;) but I think I will wait for next year and get it for 100 EUR
You are probably right about the D700, but it is a digital world we are living in.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Hmmm a lot can happen in 1 year... .. Looking into my crystal ball .... I say get second hand D700 and second hand 70-200VR.. Both these together should be within your budget then.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

For what its worth I sold a D200 for $650 earlier this year (2009 rather) on Creigh's list. It was brand new though... only used it a week. I kinda wish I had kept. If you don't count the sales tax I actually made a profit (got it during the best buy deal).

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

Yeah my gut feeling is that the D700 used prices should drop in the next few years, but I guess the question is by how much?

If I sold my D200, I wouldn't have a body, so selling it for about $450 (I bought it for $600 through bestbuy, so I probably won't get more than that) would leave me without a body and without a telephoto lens (lol). . .well, I'd still have my N75, but not sure I like the AF on it THAT much to wait for a used D700 to fall to $700. . .

I think all the points are valid and confirm my gut that the lens is the "smarter" investment, and when the shoot calls for low-ISO, I can rent a D700. . .

Used D3's were going for about $4500 last year. . . .With the D3s out, they are averaging around $3k. . .that's a 33% drop in 12 months!!

If used D700's are going for about $2k right now, next year they should hit $1400, and the year after that, under a grand. . . .but would I want a D700 in 2012? That'd be like using my D200 in 2010. . .oh wait. . .

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

shivaswrath said:
If I sold my D200, I wouldn't have a body, so selling it for about $450 (I bought it for $600 through bestbuy, so I probably won't get more than that) would leave me without a body and without a telephoto lens (lol). . .well, I'd still have my N75, but not sure I like the AF on it THAT much to wait for a used D700 to fall to $700. . .

But you could sit and just look through your lenses.

shivaswrath said:
If used D700's are going for about $2k right now, next year they should hit $1400, and the year after that, under a grand. . . .but would I want a D700 in 2012? That'd be like using my D200 in 2010. . .oh wait. . .

We can only hope and wait, can't we?

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Willis said:
For what its worth I sold a D200 for $650 earlier this year (2009 rather) on Creigh's list. It was brand new though... only used it a week. I kinda wish I had kept. If you don't count the sales tax I actually made a profit (got it during the best buy deal).

Why did you sell it again?

Easy question- lens. The body becomes worthless in 2-5 years, the lens will last as long as you don't destroy it.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

irony of this ENTIRE post is that the new 70-200 VR2 has all these Q&A issues now. . .sigh. . .I wonder if that'll lower the resale value?

I've never seen a Nikon LENS come out with production issues. . .The D2H had it's startup issues, D200 the weird banding, D5k the death upon start issue. . .but no lens in recent memory . . . .

(here's to hoping lower resale value and this lower value so I can get one sooner!)

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

shivaswrath said:
irony of this ENTIRE post is that the new 70-200 VR2 has all these Q&A issues now. . .sigh. . .I wonder if that'll lower the resale value?

I've never seen a Nikon LENS come out with production issues. . .The D2H had it's startup issues, D200 the weird banding, D5k the death upon start issue. . .but no lens in recent memory . . . .

(here's to hoping lower resale value and this lower value so I can get one sooner!)

What issues? None related to IQ as far as I know!
And for DX I think you would be better of with second hand older one.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

The issue is with either paint or metal flakes coming off inside the lens barrel!

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

PB PM said:
The issue is with either paint or metal flakes coming off inside the lens barrel!

Really, any example please?

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

oh it's all over the place, check out nikonians.org and the front page of the NR blog. . .some weird flaking/disintegration situation going on inside the front-ringed barrel behind the front element. .. no obvious issues with IQ or imaging YET, but as you can imagine, if something's falling apart inside the lens. . . .only a matter of time. . .

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Nikon will fix the problem if you have an affected lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

NikoDoby said:
Nikon will fix the problem if you have an affected lens.

Of course with a "new" defective part ;^)

Posted 3 years ago #