[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Dave

I'm one of the few who is happy with current camera, so will be keeping those

I was/am very happy with my D70s.

I'm even happier with my D300

[P-E]

Originally Posted by Dave

1. Lots of plasterboard & insulation to convert this garage into a studio

But won't you be moving soon

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by JMitchell

True, sorry But you know whenever someone asks someone else's opinion they've already made their mind up

NP And men say that women are complicated

Originally Posted by Dave

... I wouldn't worry about VR .. not essential as you have f/2.8 .

This is where I have to ask: (a) How does f/2.8 help with regard to camera shake? No matter how fast the shutter speed, a long FL is still prone to camera shake. And (b) Do you really want to be restricted to shooting at f/2.8 all the time, for the sake of maximising sharpness, when VR gives you the freedom to shoot at shutter speeds which are several times slower than you could otherwise use I really don't think that VR - particularly VRII - can be underestimated when it comes to long lenses. And to me it is false economy to buy average glass for a camera like the D300, you're just not going to get the best out of it that way

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

This is where I have to ask: (a) How does f/2.8 help with regard to camera shake? No matter how fast the shutter speed, a long FL is still prone to camera shake. And (b) Do you really want to be restricted to shooting at f/2.8 all the time, for the sake of maximising sharpness, when VR gives you the freedom to shoot at shutter speeds which are several times slower than you could otherwise use I really don't think that VR - particularly VRII - can be underestimated when it comes to long lenses. And to me it is false economy to buy average glass for a camera like the D300, you're just not going to get the best out of it that way

Well, I'd definitely go for a faster lens over optical stabilisation........ and I regularly use 3 IS lenses. But then I prefer the option of a shallow DOF and faster shutter (plus the optical quality tends to be better) over the couple of stops a stabilised lens provides. There is also the question of longevity - with more moving parts and relatively delicate parts, a stabilised lens is much more likely to fail sooner

[Markulous]

To answer P-E's OP:

Different body - 40D was the 'definite' but I'm veering back to a Nikon solution (but acknowledge that's probably an emotive rather than practical answer)

Be nice to have a ringflash - Sigma one's in the frame

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Markulous

Be nice to have a ringflash - Sigma one's in the frame

How about this?

[JMitchell]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

This is where I have to ask: (a) How does f/2.8 help with regard to camera shake? No matter how fast the shutter speed, a long FL is still prone to camera shake.

Yes, but having a wider aperture obviously lets in more light, which thus increases the shutter speed, reducing shake. If the shutter speed is more than twice the (effective) focal length, then there shouldn't really be an issue with shake.

Originally Posted by Charlotte

And (b) Do you really want to be restricted to shooting at f/2.8 all the time, for the sake of maximising sharpness, when VR gives you the freedom to shoot at shutter speeds which are several times slower than you could otherwise use I really don't think that VR - particularly VRII - can be underestimated when it comes to long lenses. And to me it is false economy to buy average glass for a camera like the D300, you're just not going to get the best out of it that way

I can see what you're saying about being stuck at 2.8, but generally outside I think light will be bright enough that I wouldn't be able to shoot at 2.8 without overexposing, or at least I'd easily be able to use a narrower aperture.
VR is just too expensive for me. I really cannot afford to save up for VR, a feature that might well be useful, but I don't think I shoot in low light enough to use it for one, and b) I don't think I'll need it in normal conditions
En plus (there isn't a good enough English equivalent that doesn't sound ponsy), this lens is not 'average glass' by anyone's standards. Ken Rockwell says 'just buy it'. It's only cheap because it's old and not the newest state of the art tech. VR to me does not signify good glass...but a trusted lens used by many respected photographers does

(not being defensive, just trying to show my reasoning )

[Dave]

One also needs to take in to account that the D300 offers minimalnoise at high ISO, so chuck that in to the occasion as well & VR is not essential. Note photographers have managed up to now with it

Please don't get me wrong, VR/IS is excellent & worthwile having if it comes in on budget. But for me I would always choose faster lenses over the function

[Dave]

Originally Posted by P-E

But won't you be moving soon

Oooh, you know me too well

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by Markulous

Well, I'd definitely go for a faster lens over optical stabilisation........

Originally Posted by Dave

... VR/IS is excellent & worthwile having if it comes in on budget. But for me I would always choose faster lenses over the function

So would I. I never suggested choosing one over the other

[EKIMIKE]

LOL! this is brilliant reading.

Jack - If money is an issue (obviously not if you've got a D300 ) don't go for the VR. Its one of those features that are great and give you the impression you NEED it but i'm in you school of thought that: People have done without VR for years. Quality is Quality and the 80-200mm is obviously quality glass. End of.

On a perosnal front, Im happy wiht my kit. I'm sticking to the great phrase which Stepheno sports as his Signature - Upgrade your ability before you upgrade your kit.

Having sold the D40x kit lenses (18-55 + 55-200mm) and SB-400 to fund some better standard stuff (18-70mm Nikkor, Sb 800, Sigma 10-20mm) the next step would be for me to get a better body (D300 of course, who am i kidding). But that can wait as im still happy.

It's quite satisfying scrimping the pennies and being able to splash that cash on some beautiful new kit lol. I seem to be a bit of a price hunter though after recent purchases. Im down with all the cheapest deals lol.

My immediate priority is a kit bag for an expedition trip to Poland int he summer - i need to try sum stuff on i suppose.

MiKE

[JMitchell]

Thanks Mike, that was my thinking, about quality vs 'new feature' as I said. However, money is also definitely an issue

[EKIMIKE]

The facts are that VR is only 10% (not literally of vourse) of what the lens offers so you're still getting the more important 90%. There has to be a lens before any VR is workable.

Just my simplistic view on things. lol

MiKE