lisa_b4

<p>No, you're not. I'm a woman, and I still like a larger, solid-feeling body. I was not crazy about the feel of my first DSLR (D70) as it felt light and "plasticky." When I got the D200, I was thrilled--nice solid feel. I now have a D7000, which, with the grip, feels pretty solid, but it's still too small and light for my taste. I was hoping that the D600 would be a D700/D200 build with higher resolution but not too much like the D800, and of course a lower price.....</p>

<p>I've had the happen to me a lot. He probably had someone offer him a couple hundred more and he took it. The lesson I've learned is that if it's a screaming deal, get over their NOW with cash. That said, the kind of people that would say they'd hold it and then sell it out from under me are the kind of people I wouldn't want to do business with anyway, because they can't be trusted.</p>

<p>No Phil, not an ad, just sharing info. I ordered two of the batteries today and I'll be sure to follow up once I get and use them.</p>

<p>After the initial problems with the Nikon EN-EL15 batteries and the subsequent recall, prices for the EN-EL15 have remained high and supply has been tight. A good friend just told me about <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Wasabi-Power-Batteries-QTY-DECODED/dp/B009DJ1THW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351096724&sr=8-2&keywords=wasabi+power+battery+and+charger+kit+d7000">these aftermarket EN-EL15 batteries from Wasabi Power Products</a>. They are made in Japan, come with a 3 year warranty, and you can buy two of them plus a charger (with DC/cigarette plug adapter) for less than the price of one Nikon EN-EL15. My friend is a photo journalist who is hard on his gear and he's been using them since mid September and reports that they're great batteries.</p>

<p>The 35-70 is one of Nikon's true gems IMHO. Super sharp, excellent color rendition, good bokeh, built like a tank, relatively compact, and reasonably priced. I picked up one in mint condition for $250 used, and it remains one of my favorite lenses. More proof-positive that you don't need to spend $1,000-$2,000+ dollars to get a top quality lens. I've never had any problem with fogging and don't know anyone personally who owns this lens who has had that problem. I also own the 50 f/1.4 AF-D, and I like the images from the 35-70 better.</p>

<p>Those who are dismissive of "30 year old lens technology" might want to take a look at Bjorn Rorslett's website where many of the top-rated lenses are manual focus Nikkors--and these are rated as used on the D3X and other leading edge Nikon DSLR's. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, you don't have to spend a ton of money on the latest gear to capture award-winning images.....</p>

<p>I shoot 80% landscapes, and have been doing so the last 5 years or so primarily with my D200, so I kind of know where you're at. I also am not rolling in dough, I like to live simply, and travel extensively so small, light, well-built, and affordable are my main criteria when looking for quality photo gear.<br>

<br />I'm currently shooting a D7000, and I love it. I'm tempted by the D600, but will wait for the inevitable bugs to be worked out and for the price to come down. In a year or two, one will no doubt be able to buy a new or slightly used D600 below $1,400. I suspect that you'd be quite happy with a D7000 for several years--especially as a landscape shooter who has time to set up shots and nail the focus properly. Using the live view feature on the D7000 on a good tripod to compose and focus has noticeably increased my keep rate.<br>

<br />That said, a D600 would be great too, and don't forget that there are a TON of used AI and AIS manual focus Nikkors out there that are still as good (and sometimes better) than their modern AF versions, and they can be easily found in mint-exc condition for very reasonable prices. If you're mostly a landscape shooter, then using liveview (like on the D7000 of D600) to compose and focus is the way to go IMHO and you really don't need AF lenses to do that. Both the 20mm and 24mm Nikkor AI(S) are great lenses that perform very well on modern DSLRs especially when stopped down like you will for landscapes. You can buy those two wide primes for around $100-$200 ea in mint condition. The Nikkor 28mm f/2 and the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 are also legendary MF lenses that still perform exceedingly well on DSLRs.</p>

<p>I just upgraded from the D200 myself, and, I really think that a D7000, some quality MF primes, and a good (i.e. Gitzo) carbon fiber tripod with a good (i.e. Markins, Kirk, etc) ball head would keep you busy for many years to come and give you some really great images!</p>

<p>Whether the images you take with it have sharp focus or not, I would not want a camera with a very tight lens flange--seems problematic to me.</p>

<p>FM2's are about as bulletproof as they come. I've owned 4 of them for over 25 years and never had a single problem with them......</p>

<p>I should add that Ken Rockwell also has a good review of the 35-70 2.8, but Photo.net filters prevented me from providing a link to his review......</p>

<p>I'm not a big fan of "the Nanny state." I can make up my own mind (thank you very much) about what sources I believe are credible and which one's aren't. To actually have a filter set up to block people from providing links to a KR review seems over-reaching to say the least.</p>

<p>In another post on the Nikon forums, I was responding to a question about a recommended lens for a particular focal range. I responded with a suggested lens, and then included two links to reviews on that lens. When I tried to post this to the forums I got a message that said (essentially) "Photo.net does not allow links to Ken Rockwell's site because he has stated that he sometimes makes things up." I agree that KR isn't a definitive source, but, a lot of his reviews are informative and accurate--but more importantly I see no justifiable reason for Pnet to block us for linking to KR reviews if we choose to do so......</p>

<p>Sure, I know that a lot of people don't like him, but, by and large I find his equipment reviews useful--though I always take the time to look for multiple sources of info not just his. But what gives Photo.net the right to ban people from linking to his website? Surely we're all adult enough to make our own decisions about who we trust and who we don't?</p>

<hr>

<i>(Mod note: Moved from Nikon forum to KR and Rumors forum.)</i>

<p>One of my favorite lenses, and I think one of Nikon's best bang-for-the-buck lenses ever, is the 35-70 AF-D 2.8 It is razor sharp, built like a tank, and it's an FX lens--so it works equally well on FX or DX should you decide to go to FX at some point. I got mine used in mint condition for $250. Seeing as you have 12-24 covered already, the 35-70 would fill in the rest of the 24-80 range for you. The 35-70 is not AFS so it does focus a little slower, but, every time I use mine I'm blown away by the quality images it produces. You can see some reviews of this great lens <a href="http://www.tangentphoto.com/reviews/lenses/nikon35-70mmf2.8Dlensreview.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=112">here</a>.</p>

<p>I highly recommend reading <a href="http://bythom.com/support.htm">this article</a> by Thom Hogan. He really lays it out quite well IMHO and I finally bit the bullet and followed his advice and got a nice Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and a quality Markins ballhead. Yes, it was spendy, but with proper care it should last me a lifetime and it is such a joy to use......</p>

<p>It's possible that you have default import presets established for Lightroom that are altering your images (the way they appear--not altering the actual image!) as you import them. Do you have another image viewer on your computer? If so, I'd take a look with another program and see if it's any different. If yes, then look to your Lightroom image import presets--I suspect that where the problem is.</p>

<p>In answer to the OP, I do think that feeBay is currently going through a bit of a slump in listings. There have been recent changes in their policies that have annoyed a lot of sellers, and I think that many of them are voting with their feet and exploring other venues. They've recently been sending members private emails with offers of free listings and other discounts which is fairly unusual for them to do. I would suspect that C r a i g s list in cutting into their business some, which probably explains why they bought a large stake in CL.......</p>

<p>FYI, feeBay does NOT require a 2 week return period! I sell a fair amount of items there and while there are many things I don't like about feeBay (i.e. their excessive fees, forcing you to process ALL payment through them, not being able to leave negative feedback against buyers, etc.) they most certainly do not require a two week return period.</p>

<p>Will, I could have sworn the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX had a plastic mount--are we talking about the same lens? Mine is at home right now so I can't verify--if I'm wrong I apologize for any confusion. It really is a great little lens, even though to me it feels very light and "plasticky."</p>

<p>Sorry that this happened. It is a textbook example of why I would never own a lens with a plastic lens mount--the only exception being the 35mm 1.8 which is so small and light that I don't think it will be an issue.</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I recently (May) upgraded to the D7000 from the D200. I'm not a pro and I don't have a ton of money, so I try pretty hard to get the most bang for my buck when it comes to photo gear. Here are some of my recommendations for "bargain" yet quality lenses:<br>

1. Nikon 30 f/1.8 Great little lens, sharp images, less than $200 new.<br>

2. Sigma 10-20 super wide zoom. I've tried just about all of the superwides (Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, etc.) and I like the Sigma 10-20 the best out of all of them. $350 or so used.<br>

3. Nikon 35-70 f2.8 Built like a tank, razor sharp images. Autofocus is a tad slow, but IMHO this lens is one of the best bargains out there in terms of image and build quality, about $275 used<br>

4. Nikon AFD 50mm f1.8 Small, light, great image quality, about $100 new.<br>

5. Tamron 90mm macro. Super sharp lens, I like it better than the Nikon 105 AFD. About $250 used.</p>

<p>Port of Newport, Oregon on a beautiful fall day.....</p><div></div>

<p>I'm assuming that they insured the package, and, that they can verify that you haven't received it yet. If they were to continue to get my business I'd expect them to send out a replacement ASAP without an additional charge and then they can wait for the lost package.</p>

<p>The Tokina 16-85 is currently priced at $749, the Nikon 14-24 is $2,000. So, in reality the Nikon is nearly 3X's as expensive, and doesn't take filters--which for many is a big issue. "The best" is certainly subjective, many, many people would be hard pressed to identify from side by side prints which image was made with "the best" lens......</p>

<p>Back to the OP, many people claim that the pre-VC version of the Tamron 17-50 is the sharper lens. I'd suggest that if you got good copies of both lenses you'd be hard pressed to see much difference.</p>

<p>Taken while waiting for the family. Slowed shutter speed to blur movement.</p><div></div>