lior.k

<p>My initial impulse was to sell my 18-35 and an old sigma zoom, which should get me (along with the 800$ that magically appeared) the new 16-35 VR.<br>

There are obviously many other ways this can go around (a used 105 f/2 DC, an 85 f/1.8 and another flash, a D90 as backup/crop for my D700 etc.) but after thinking it through, it should really go towards some workshops and tutoring. Make yourself better before you invest in gear.</p>

<p>Hardware:<br>

I'd like to see some sort of WiDi (Wireless Display) standard up and running quickly, so I could just bring my laptop home and not have to find the darned cable to connect it to the "real" display. However being in this business (Wireless communications) I know this is going to take much too long for people like us till it hits the market.<br>

I would also like the option of having an integrated CF reader in my laptop, hopefully one with really high speeds (PCIe should smack even 800MHz FireWire). But again, we're not an important segment so this option isn't even on the radar of most laptop manufacturers.</p>

<p>Software:<br>

I'd like a simple photo browser/sorter with really strong tagging capabilities. Keyboard shortcuts for tagging and un-tagging photos (and multiple selections, at that), searching by multiple tags, creating tags from EXIF data etc. Right now I'm resorting to folders, which is a hassle and gobbles up disk space like crazy.<br>

Another nice thing would be a third-party photo editing or media management suite that can make sense of Nikon's convoluted implementation of EXIF metadata, and translate it automatically so the rest of the world could read it as well.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>I don't have a camera bag.</p>

<p>I would take on an outing (depending on subjects and outlook) my D700 with ONE of the following:<br />either:</p>

<ul>

<li>24-85mm, if there are people involved and I need the versatility</li>

</ul>

<p>or:</p>

<ul>

<li>18-35mm on camera plus a 50/1.8 in my pocket for wide/scenics</li>

</ul>

<p>or:</p>

<ul>

<li>70-300mm VR plus a 50/1.8 in my pocket if I need the range.</li>

</ul>

<p>If there's hiking involved I use my (no longer available) Tamrac N-90 shooting harness, which keeps your camera strapped to your chest, leaving your hands free when you need them. Otherwise the standard Tamrac N-25 is what's usually across my back.<br />I shot New Zealand, Nepal and Scotland (on film) with an old, trusted Sigma 28-300, but you can really see how soft it can get on digital, so it's hardly ever in use today. I will someday check out the Tamron 28-300 VC, and will keep hoping Nikon will re-introduce the 28-200 (28-300?) with VR.</p>

<p>The less you carry, the farther you get.</p>

The answer to the OP (as Phil P described at length) depends on Style, Money and Location.

If you're being paid to shoot, and your equipment goes down the deductibles list, the extra cost of the faster glass may be justified (even in an ultra-wide: I've had enough shots with my 18-35/3.5-4.5 where I really wanted that extra background blur).

If your subject matter and the images in your mind require the shallower DOF, the faster focus (yes, it matters, even on the same camera- there's more "meat" for the algorithms to work with), faster shutter speeds or the TC's, you will "need" the faser glass.

If you're not carrying all your gear in your backpack for weeks on end (or walking around in the park with the kids, while trying to have some fun), then you wouldn't care about size and weight (better yet- the tripod may be doing the carrying for you).

Practicallity is a major concern for many people. I've got excellent mileage from my 28-300 Sigma (on film), in places where I wouldn't bother to carry more than a single lens, and in places where a bigger "pro" zoom would have attracted attention from too many offcials (or thiefs). Current materials technology being what it is, we won't have that 24-200/2.8 full-frame lens (that weighs just 1.5lb and costs less than $2k) anytime soon, not from the main manufacturers and not from the 3rd party guys. Only when plastics get good enough optically will we be able to start designing this kind of ambitious stuff, and even then I expect the actual exposure to be dimmer at the same aperture than glass.

Lee.