Originally Posted by
D1andonlyDman
Many, yes, certainly but not all. I got a quite good 28-200mm AF-D lens for $150, and an even better 18-35mm 18-35mm AF-D lens for $250 used.......And one can get an older 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor Zoom for under $600 that is optically the equal of the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens that sells for $1700.....
Some people are selling the 18-55mm+55-200mm kit lenses for $300. I pickup a 55-200mm VR in mint condition for $170.
A new D40+18-55mm just went for $355 on eBay. So I don't understand why you are buying $150 of this and $250 of that that a basic kit will cover.
I am also looking for a cheap 80-200mm f/2.8. But there are only two versions of two ring design, one AF-S and one AF. And both are not cheap. Many writers suggested against the AF version although I have not tried it myself. VR does exactly what people who looks for f/2.8 needs to do, extend the low light range. So if one will paying for a $800-$900 non-VR, is $1300 a far stretch? These are the questions I ask of myself and so far I could not reconcile either way.
Originally Posted by
D1andonlyDman
...
And the cost of the D90 is why I recommended a D80. Those bodies cost around $550 new nowadays. A used D50 would also be great, and those can be gotten for $250 in near mint condition.
...
The D70/D70s is even better. At 6MP and 1.5MP/CM2, it must be as great as the newer D40 for low light. It can also do wireless flash where the D50 cannot. You can get a D70 body for around $300 and the D70s slightly more.
When I bought the D200, I pass on the D80 mainly because it used SD instead of CF and lacking the 10 pin connector.