Next Lens - Nikon 80-200 f2.8?

[Pokie]

I'm considering my next lens purchase.
I'd love the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II , but the wallet won't stand the $2200+ tag.
I saw a number of them on the market used last year, but it seems like the first mad rush to full frame is over and a lot of the
early activity in lens replacements is over - I just haven't seen nearly as many used for sale.
I'm looking at the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF.
I might consider the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG Macro.
Perhaps the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR
but I have an old kit 70-300 4.5-5.6, and I think I "need" (want?) the f2.8 for speed and perhaps ability to isolate subject.

Pros & Cons:
With the price difference in the range of $300 between Nikon 80-200 and Sigma, I could get a teleconverter plus the Sigma.
Ratings on the Nikon 80-200 are highest. (ratings from here > http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/31)
Nikon 80-200 looks like a circa. 1997 lens - maybe this isn't a 'con' but is this long in the tooth for a lens design?
Ratings on the Nikon 70-300 vr are almost as high as the Sigma
I could get the Nikon 70-300 + teleconverter and still have money left over (replace heavy aluminum tripod?)
The vr would give me the speed, but not the aperture.
The 70-300 Nikon optics ratings a good bit lower than the 2.8
And though Ihave low quality kit lens without vr, I already have exactly that range
I imagine that optical quality degrade quite a bit with both the lesser lens and tc.

I shoot mostly landscapes, some sports photography, very little wildlife, birds, etc. - but would probably do more if had equipment to do it
From my posts here, you can get an idea of what I like to shoot.
And - this is hobby, not career.

I think I've prioritized my goals, not just for this lens but for future purchases too. I've labelled first as 1 & 2, but first two are roughly tied, and #4 and #5 are roughly tied.
1) improved optics over the lenses I currently have for the type of shooting I currently do
2) extend my shooting opportunities for action and or low-light photography
3) extend shooting range -distances - to macro level (perhaps Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor)
4) extend shooting range - distance - longer telephoto
5) extend shooting range - wide angle - perhaps 10-24 or 12-24 range

Plan (likely multi-year)
1) Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF
2) Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor
3) Nikon 2X AF-S TC-20E III
4) 10-24 or 12-24 wide angle.

Question:
What lens do you think I would find most useful, and be happiest with - as the NEXT lens?
Would you take the proposed path above, or go in a different direction?
Experience with the Nikon 80-200?
What about adding TC to this lens? Probably wouldn't use for sports this way, so I could handle the extra 2 stops if optics ok.
What should I consider that I didn't remember or know enough to ask?

Thanks,
Pokie

[bob_r]

Pokie,

I don't shoot Nikon, but it would probably be helpful if you listed your current camera, lenses and the sports that you like to shoot. Also, if you haven't done so, you might try downloading a free software program called "Exposureplot". It will allow you to view the settings (aperture, focal length, ISo and shutter speed) for your images by drive, folder, etc. It can be very beneficial to know how you normally shoot before investing in new equipment. I have a UWA lens (10-22), but according to my shooting history, I rarely shoot below 17mm and since I also have a 17-55, I probably don't really need the UWA lens.

Pokie, most of the images you post on here are landscapes, and fast lenses are rarely needed when shooting them. Also, I haven't noticed many of your images where you shoot using wide settings. How often will you use an UWA lens (more than me, I hope). One thing you haven't mentioned are the primes. If you find that you shoot most of your landscapes in a small focal length range, it may benefit you to look at primes. When given a choice, I will normally choose primes over zooms. They are not as convenient, but the results are usually better. Some of the primes are considerably cheaper than their zoom counterparts, especially when shooting landscapes and have slower shutter speed requirements.

Just a couple of ideas, Pokie.

Edited to add a link to Exposureplot: http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

[Pokie]

Bob,

Thanks.
I downloaded the program and took a look at a handful of folders.
Almost all shots with Nikon 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR, or 70-300 f4.5-5.6.
For Nikon D80 - the graphs look like they are showing the 35mm equivalents - 18-105 = approx. 27-160 I think.
The reason for the large number of 160mm shots is that is full extension on the 18-106.
Anything to right of 160mm was shot with the 70-300. Some to the left of 160mm were, but not that many.
A lot of the 160mm shots would have been further right if I had the combination of speed and tele.
A lot of the f5.6 shots would have been wider open if I had the glass.

October trip to Great Smoky Mountain National Park
Generally set ISO at 100, wide variety of pics - slow speed moving water, landscapes, closeups, etc.


Cub Scout Pinewood Derby
Basically shot the highest ISO I could without ridiculous noise, wide open, often zoomed all way to 105and let the camera figure out the speed.
Didn't pull the 70-300 out of the bag - too slow to even consider.
Looks like most shots were f5.6 at 105 and ISO of 1250.
Would have shot wider open if I could have.


Last season's soccer pictures.
Moved ISO up as it grew darker during evening games.
Aperture priority - wide open to get fastest shutter speed possible for the conditions.
Rarely used the 70-300 - just too slow.


Last summer Death Valley
Sunrise, daylight, sunset.


Looks to me like I would use the 12-24 to extend my typical landscape range, or 80-200 f2.8 to extend my sports, action, indoor shooting.

Pokie

[bob_r]

Pokie,

The thing that jumps out at me is that you rarely shoot with the lens wide open. Unless you plan on changing that trend, it probably wouldn't be necessary to get a fast lens. This could save you some big bucks!
Also, judging by these graphs, I think you would use an UWA lens since you seem to shoot at the wide end of your present equipment quite a bit.

This is an excellent program to see your shooting patterns and I hope it helps you select your new equipment.

[Pokie]

Except - 5.6 is wide open on the lens I use most - the 18-105 f3.5-5.6.
At full extension, 5.6 is all I can do.
Most of the 5.6's would probably be 2.8's if I had it available to use.
I can open to 3.5 when zoomed out, but rarely want narrow dof for an 18mm (27mm) shot.

Pokie

[dhrphoto]

Hi Pokie,
I think if you can't get the 70-200 f2.8, then you should get the 80-200 f2.8. Once you use the lens wide open for some nice sports portraits you certainly will Love the f 2.8 aperture because, there is nothing like a nice defocused background or a nice bright viewfinder image.

[Amy09]

The Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF would be a fantastic option even if you can't get the 70-200. I think that would be enough to satisfy most of your needs. You could take some amazing photos from some panama city beach condos of the ocean. This picks up colors so well I am sure anything will turn out great!