niccoury

<i>Bjorn's reviews of these lenses were not made with the D3, so I am not sure how much they will help with the question.</i>

Ilkka, not entirely true. He's updating that lens reviews with "FX" ratings too.

I notice that too with my D50, The outside points hunt more so than the center one. It's a

bummer, but not much can be done.

The DX equivalent to the 28-70 is a DX 17-55 f/2.8. It's about $1,200 USD.

A fast tele might be good too. Like the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR.

Lens make a much bigger difference than the camera.

Go with the D80 and pro glass, a 17-55 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8

But by buying a 17-55 you save like 500 bucks which you could by a speedlight or two with

or better yet, a 60 AF-S macro.

You'll get better sharpness with primes most argue.

Although, the 17-35 f/2.8 is sharper at 20mm than the prime.

How about the 17-35? It's a fantastic performer.

Has anybody used this for shooting weddings? and if so, any samples out there?

Thanks!

~ nic

the Nikkor 20 f/4 was a great, sharp lens.

I like the 15 f/5.6 and the 24 f/2.

This could be a super cool resource. I enjoy reading how other pros in my field(s) use their

equipment.

It's a great news camera. Maybe a used D200 would be a good choice for more "studio"

work.

I second the Domke F-2 bag choice.

My F-2b arrived yesterday.

I'm going to pick up one of these for shooting food for the paper. I shoot at a lot of

food/wine/restaurant events in Monterey Bay, Pebble Beach, etc and I think this lens will be

the sole tool to do it with.

How does it handle compared to the old 60? I like how it's slightly longer and bulkier.

an AF-D 105 f/2.8 Nikkor micro can be found cheap for like 300-400 and the quality is

fantastic.

On a digital body, all the CA is gone. It makes for a nice compact wide-end zoom.

Thom Hogan wrote about it:

http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm

Nice contrasts, but the lighting on his face especially seems a little over exposed. Were you

in Aperture priority.

Nice shots though.