DSLRUsers.com

What would you buy next?

Both of these lenses are on the "to buy" list and I am getting the cash together.

So here is the dilemma: My wifes birthday is coming up - which, of course, gives me the perfect excuse to buy "her" a lens

Which one should I get though? I know she would probably be happt with the 28-70 - but I would probably be happier if I bought (her) the 70-200VR!

Which way should I go? I know she would be happy if I am happy too!!



Cheers, Mick

They're both great, Mick - but which one do you "need" more?

70-200 vr by a longshot

tell her size does matter

70-200 no question (unless 200f2 was an option )

Mick,

tell her you wanted to get her a fancy gym membership. However by getting her the 70-200, she can work out at home, while walking, etc. Much more versatile. The 28-70 is just not heavy enough

So get the 70-200 and be done with it.

She can always get you the 28-70 for your birthday if she wants something lighter.

André

Thanks for the suggestions and all the help guys. Looks like Donna may have to do a lot of exercise after her birthday comes around



Cheers, Mick

Mick

As you know I have both. I probably use the 28-70 about 10 times as much as the 70-200 since the 28-70 is my walkaround lens. YMMV

And FWIW, the 70-200 is currently out of stock.

Like the 80-400, 200-400, 85 1.4, 80-200, 17-55 ...

One might ask wtf is Nikon doing when so much of their best glass is unable to be purchased.

gstark wrote:And FWIW, the 70-200 is currently out of stock.

Like the 80-400, 200-400, 85 1.4, 80-200, 17-55 ...

One might ask wtf is Nikon doing when so much of their best glass is unable to be purchased.

Producing the good glass means that they can't make as many 18-55IIs as they want

Mick, it definitely depends on your usage as Peter said. For example, he loves his 28-70, but that range is neither wide or long enough for me to use as a walkaround lens (but I love my 28-75 Tamron for people shots)

gstark wrote:And FWIW, the 70-200 is currently out of stock.

Like the 80-400, 200-400, 85 1.4, 80-200, 17-55 ...

One might ask wtf is Nikon doing when so much of their best glass is unable to be purchased.

I bet they are selling 10x more of the 18-55II than a single 17-55 at a time

But the cost to make one of those and profit margin, is way more than one single 17-55...


Mick, I guess donna (you) will be happier with the 70-200VR. Tho not sure of your style of shooting, hanging around CBD with that lens is not such a good idea as it brings so much shock to people

The 28-70 can sever as an all purpose lens, but it is still too chunky IMHO, using it for full day gives me pain in the arm and wrist...

On the other hand, the 50mm used to be considered an "all-purpose" or "walk-around" lens. I for one found it quite liberating to show up with just a single focal length for our last harbour walk (and I don't only mean weight wise). And I'll do it again at the next stage, just haven't decided yet which focal length to pick

My point being, people (myself included) tend to fuss too much about the range they have available. I think it would be a mistake to discount a good lens just because of its limited zoom range. Where would that leave primes?

Cheers
Steffen.

stubbsy wrote:Mick

As you know I have both. I probably use the 28-70 about 10 times as much as the 70-200 since the 28-70 is my walkaround lens. YMMV

Same thing here

stubbsy wrote:

Mick

As you know I have both. I probably use the 28-70 about 10 times as much as the 70-200 since the 28-70 is my walkaround lens.

I will third that motion BUT it will really depend on what you mostly shoot