DSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1568 times:
Dmitry:
I really wouldn't recommend getting a "super-zoom" like the 28-200mm, they are really poor performers. These lenses were designed for the weekend travel photographers, who want to pack light and don't necessarily care about image quality. Besides, putting a lens like this on an F5 would be a crime!
Check out the following lenses if you can:
Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8
Nikkor 28-70mm 2.8D
Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 (all three models are top-notch)
Nikkor 70-210mm f4 (constant aperture)
The 28-70mm and 80-200mm range should cover just about everything...If you need a longer focal length than 200mm, the Kenko Teleplus 300 1.4x TC works beautifully with the 80-200mm 2.8.
Aric Thalman
Omaha, NE
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
OH-LZA From Finland, joined Jun 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
I would also like to know about lenses for a F5 as my dad is going to let me use his (which he never has used anyway BTW). I'm mainly interested in the 80-200 (Non AF-S) and 80-400 VR.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1549 times:
For the 80-200 range I can only think of one lens to get. The Nikkor 80-200/f2.8. If you can afford the AF-S, go for it. If not the non-AFS is just as good and should be in any Nikon shooters bag.
LGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
I recommend the Nikon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 and the 80-200mm 2.8 lens. You only need the 80-400mm VR if you plan on doing a lot of long distance shooting over 300mm.
DSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1537 times:
OH-LZA:
If you need the 400mm range, the 80-400mm would be a better choice. This is a fantastic lens, but it does have it's share of critics...Most of them are ones who complain that it is not AF-S or have a constant 2.8 aperture. Thats fine, but if this lens did have all of those features, we would be talking about a $3000 lens instead of a $1500 one.
The 80-200mm does quite well with a 1.4x TC, but once you start using 2x TCs, there is a real noticable dropoff in image quality. You also lose AF speed and accuracy, which makes a 80-200 + a 2x almost unusable for action shots.
Aric Thalman
Omaha, NE
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1533 times:
For now I will most likely get the Nikkor 28-105, and the 80-400VR. More later.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jun 2001, 1000 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
