Also in Michigan & Indiana. Just pulling your leg. Have a great time & shoot lots!
That's a lame argument...the same place the power comes from for your computer, cell & the a/c in your house.
A 24-70 2.8 would be a decent choice (depending on how steady your are). It definitely would save you a lot of $. In the long run your shooting interests & budget will affect your choice.
I have one in like new condition in the box for $650 + sipping. https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/202018758067345/
If you're interested, let me know.
I'm in the same age bracket as you. Instead of the 70-200 2.8, take a look at the 70-200 f4. I have an extra & trust me the weight difference is a game changer unless you're shooting in VERY low light, the f4 will suit you very well.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-732868-1.html
Here on UHH. Looks like a good price...Nikon, not Tamron.
I can't find one either, I have this lens, also. Check Ken Rockwell for info. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3004af.htm
Great shot...he's after the ants!
I used to own that lens & had the same problem. I found a tripod ring on eBay that worked well. It attached to the zoom sleeve. It looks a little strange but does the trick for less than $20.
I understand that. Are you saying the lens doesn't have VR or the VR doesn't work?
Please explain "not the VR version". Thanks.