Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy. |
popinvasion, there really isn't a reason for you to have the 70-200 if you don't use that focal range much. Yes, it's great glass, but if you don't need it, you don't need it.
It's fast, offers great flexibility in that range, and has very good IQ. Especially for sports, it's my primary workhorse (70-200 VR-I).
Yes, I have the VR-I version, and couldn't justify jumping to the VR-II for how much I'm using it (or not using it) lately. For portraits, I've been using either my Nikon 200//2 VR-I and my Sigma 85/1.4, so the 70-200 is sitting in my bag a lot, and when I travel, I tend to just carry the MUCH cheaper and lighter 70-300. (and I shoot both FX and DX) That 70-300 really is an under-rated and under-appreciated lens outside of here. But for that lens, I hear the Tamron is just as good as the Nikon, and might even have better performance at 300mm.
If you shoot wide a lot, a really nice gem is the Nikon 24/1.4G. I LOVE that lens. For the money you'd spend on the 70-200 VR-II, I think you may get a lot more satisfaction and use out of the 24mm/1.4G.
Hope this helps!