eric_arnold

<blockquote> <p>While the best result may be @ 1/400, I think I <em>could be</em> satisfied with hand-held results as low as 1/250--especially with a little sharpening applied in Photoshop.</p> </blockquote> <p>shooting handheld macros doesn't necessarily replicate real-world results. if you need to shoot at 1/400-1/250 to get a sharp image from a VR lens, the effects of the sensor may be more limiting than you think. you're still above 2/focal length, which isn't particularly impressive. i realize that shooting at 1:1 induces more lens vibration, but try shooting another series of shots with a live subject, i.e. a portrait, and see how low a shutter speed you can get for normal and low-light shooting. if you can get sharp results at 1/15 or 1/30 with that same lens, then that would be impressive. also would have liked to see results at ISO 1600 and 3200.</p>

<blockquote> <p> Is it unfair of me to expect the same results I got with MF film?</p> </blockquote> <p>yes. even a d800 at ISO3200 is not going to be the same as MF at ASA 400.<br> <br> my suggestion is to shoot at a wider aperture or use strobes if you need to close down the aperture that much. and dont use auto ISO if you dont want it to go that high.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I see f/2.8 zooms as a compromise - they offer some of the low-light ability and depth of field control of a fast prime, while still having some of the flexibility of a superzoom. f/2.8 happens to be a good compromise for depth of field control on an FX sensor; I can see that f/4 would give you less control on a crop sensor. </p> </blockquote> <p>fuji is coming out with a 16-50/2.8, but i'll probably pass on it because the 18-55 is so good optically and it's gonna be not-so-compact, which is a real plus of the 18-55. i can see where on paper the fuji "kit" lens doesnt seem all that great, but in practice it's superb, almost as good as their primes--and sharper than their 18/2 at 18mm, actually. f/4 isnt all that limiting either because a) the lens has OIS and 2) the fujis are great at hi-ISO.</p> <blockquote> <p> it really is too big to fit in the pocket of anything but a large jacket </p> </blockquote> <p>i have a black leather ever-ready case for the x100 that can go <em>under</em> a jacket, so this isnt really an issue in the real world. i get that people sometime obsess about size, but it works for me.</p> <blockquote> <p>There are times that a 16MP sensor with a rejigged colour layout isn't really a substitute for a D800, but it has its uses. we may just have to agree that there's no perfect camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>the Fuji's output is good enough, most of the time. if you NEED to shoot with a d800, then obviously, it's not for you. also, if there was a perfect camera, everyone would buy it and no other cameras would be sold, ever. what fun would that be?</p>

<p>i would skip the d2 generation and go for a d300 or a d3. if you like big bodies, the d3 will amaze you, and the d300 can be made into a big body with the grip. i'm still using a d300s and d3s, which are both workhorses.</p> <p>also, +1 on the 18-35/1.8 if you stick with DX.</p>

<p>i can understand wanting the d810 for medium format-like IQ in a walkaround package, but you cant shoot a d810 like you would a MF camera. if you read Ming Thein's <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/29/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-to-upgrade-or-not/">comments </a>on it, he noted:</p> <blockquote> <p>"The D800E required very high shutter speeds to handhold consistently; even lenses with good VR such as the <a title="Photoessay-review: the Nikon AFS 70-200/4 VR and Havana cityscapes, part I" href="https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/30/review-nikon-70-200-4-vr-havana-cityscapes-part-i/" target="_blank">70-200/4</a> I found could be used down to perhaps 1/focal length at best; everything else was 1/2x (borderline) or 1/3x + (consistently sharp). This obviously limits the shooting envelope of the camera significantly."</p> </blockquote> <p>the d810 is apparently better in this regard, but the point is that care must be taken with shooting parameters. even with a VR lens, you're not going to be shooting at 1/15 and hope to expect sharp pictures; this obviously has some bearing on selected apertures. if you insist on using narrow apertures, diffraction isnt the only issue since you will limit the shutter speed you can use, which could induce blur, or less than critical sharpness, into your shots, thus defeating the purpose of having a high-resolution body in the first place. </p>

<p>as others have mentioned, shooting a 36mp FX DSLR beyond f/16 is a very bad idea. diffraction sets in on the d800/d810 at about f/8-11. also, shooting action at that narrow of an aperture is going to require very good lighting. if you persist in doing this, it literally wont matter which lens you use. at f/8, you wont see much of a difference between a $300 lens and a $1700 one in most cases. if i were you, i'd either rethink your shooting style or rethink your camera choice. </p>

<p>the d7000 is within the OP's budget, Elliot. and more future-proof than the older d90. like i said, for a $125 differential, it's kind of a no-brainer to go for the better camera. </p>

<p>as far as light kit goes, there are certainly ways to minimize the weight of a D3s system. last night i shot in a nightclub with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4, not the full kit, in a Kata messenger bag. i was above ISO 3200 all night, so a Fuji or Nikon DX probably wouldn't have worked. But there's no way to minimize the bulk of a pro FX camera. i'm actually considering getting a larger Domke bag as the D3s is so bulky, especially with the 24-70 and/or 70-200, that the Kata's internal dividers get loosened from the velcro grip. my condundrum is that i like a messenger for quick lens access, but a backpack is better for my back. i have a Kata backpack too, but it's not appropriate for nightclub shooting.</p> <blockquote> <p> Does a 55 f/4 let you do what a 70 f/2.8 does in terms of subject isolation? No.</p> </blockquote> <p>i don't really use the 24-70 or 18-55 for subject isolation so much. the 24-70's bokeh isn't that great, compared to my fast primes. the fuji does have decent subj. iso capabilities at 18mm and 2.8, but in general, i switch to a sub-2.8 lens if i really want to emphasize this. again, here's another area where the overall compactness of the fuji system is a plus -- all my 1.4 FX lenses are fairly weighty and/or bulky.</p> <blockquote> <p>There are things the X100s can do that the others can't, and I'm not dissing it, but what it's not is a small and pocketable camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>the 1/2000 flash sync on the x100 makes it perfect for daytime fill flash, and i'd consider it a small camera, though one with enough heft to feel good in the hands. one reason i passed on the E-M5 was the small buttons. somehow that hasn't been a huge issue with the XE1, which i use with a hotshoe-mounted thumbgrip. most of the controls i need are either on the camera's external body, or easily accessible with a button push.</p> <blockquote> <p>I would like to see Nikon do more of a response to the Eos 100D/SL1 "microbody".</p> </blockquote> <p>me too. i also have a d90, and it works as a small "grab n go" kit with a 35/1.8 or the tokina 35/2.8 macro. the problem i have is that some of my DX 3rd party lenses are non-AF-S, and while the d90 has an internal focus motor, any smaller nikon DX camera probably wouldn't have one.</p> <blockquote> <p>how many FX shooters wouldn't be happy with either the 14-24 or the 16-35. I've been tempted by a smaller wide-angle myself, for travel, but haven't yet been grabbed by the options.</p> </blockquote> <p>if all we're shooting is landscape, travel and street, a Fuji system works great. in fact, you can get an XE1, 14mm, and one other lens for the price of the 14-24 alone, and you can use ND grads on the 14mm.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Frankly, the only DX prime I would have liked to see is a 24/2 - which I expect would be a lot less bulky than Sigma's 18-35. As already stated, I don't care anymore if Nikon brings out any DX prime - if I wanted fast in DX, then with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and Sigma 18-35/1.8 I would have everything I needed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Dieter makes a good point here, with a caveat being that both are reasonably hefty zooms, not smallish primes. as i said before, the Fuji 14mm is very compact, even with its metal build. we will wait and see how bulky the 16/1.4 is.</p> <blockquote> <p>Wait, you're comparing a stripped down mirrorless system (okay, you could have gone Pentax Q, but still...) with an EVF to the largest pro Nikon cameras?</p> </blockquote> <p>well, yes, because... wait for it... that's what i actually use. so i'm not just talking hypotheticals here, but actual real-world, field-tested experience. what matters to me isn't just the weight savings, but the fact that the Fuji 18-55 is a really good optic, so there's no real image quality drop-off from my $1700 nikon zoom vs a lens i got for $300 in a kit deal. see where i'm going with this? even your observation that the 18-55 is f/4 on the long end is mitigated by the OIS, at least with static subjects. and my XE1 is about 1 1/2 stops better at high-ISO than my d300s, too, although obviously not as good as the D3s in that regard.</p> <blockquote> <p> Comparing depth of field, we're looking at the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR as the Nikon equivalent, which is 465g vs the 310g of the Fuji - but with more range and more depth of field control. A more direct comparison would be without VR - the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G, which is only 190g.</p> </blockquote> <p>this is a pointless comparison. who's using a plastic el cheapo 28-80 on a FX body? and you are certainly nitpicking saying the 24-85 has more range. the difference is, what, 2.5 mm on the long end? ooh, now i'm worried i'm going to miss some shots because of that!</p> <blockquote> <p> I like the X100s (it's on my "to buy" list if I have a moment of inaccurately estimated finances), but it's really not that small either.</p> </blockquote> <p>allow me to point out another instance of you being wrong, Andrew. the x100 (same body as x100s) is both small and light (without being too light). the lens barely protrudes and it's light enough i can wear it around my neck for extended periods of time. </p> <blockquote> <p> my problem with the whole argument is Ilkka's 10-15% figure. Which means I can probably carry a 400 f/2.8 without noticing...</p> </blockquote> <p>well, Ilkka is known for carrying a 200/2 for street shooting. I, on the other hand, have had back issues from carrying the D3s/24-70/70-200 for extended periods of time on assignment. so any excuse to go lighter means a lower chiropractor bill.</p> <blockquote> <p>My EM-5 is so much smaller and lighter than my D90 it is the reason I'm going µ43 and leaving Nikon DX </p> </blockquote> <p>this just emphasizes my point.</p> <blockquote> <p> If I can get equivalent image quality in something smaller (size is key here, not weight. The DX bodies are all nice and light for their size imho) so that I actually take it with me instead of leaving it at home, that's everything.</p> </blockquote> <p>so does this.</p> <blockquote> <p>I keep hearing people say that there's a lot of people like me (I know of at least 3 or 4 on this very forum) who have said "enough" and gone to something smaller and mirrorless, but I think most of the market is slower-moving than that.</p> </blockquote> <p>even if you were trying to be a Nikon loyalist, the company isn't giving you much reason to stay the course, or at least follow a reasonable upgrade path. i'm not going to say the Df was a joke, but it was much more of a niche product than many of us wanted. the one pro shooter i saw with one raved about its small size, but a few minutes later had to tell a group he was trying to shoot to wait because he couldnt adjust the settings fast enough.<br> <br> as far as the market moving slow, it's all relative. there are a lot of forum members who are heavily invested into nikon glass, especially long lenses and such. they've already got the d800 for their landscape work and a d7100 for their wildlife shooting. they will probably be the last to leak to mirrorless systems. OTOH, the camera industry is experiencing a slow meltdown. DSLR sales have peaked; compact P&S sales have plummeted. mirrorless is the only segment which grew in the first six months of 2014, and guess what? most of those cameras aren't Nikon (or Canon). one can only speculate how much of that leakage is people who bought the d300 and now want an XT1, A7, or E-M1.</p>

<blockquote> <p>With Nikon, I've always gone full frame, but if I had a DX camera and wanted to make a substantial investment in glass, I'd still err towards FX lenses unless I had a very good reason.</p> </blockquote> <p>if you are a DX shooter, FX lenses aren't going to work for ultra wide angle. which brings us back to the fast wide prime condundrum. it hardly makes any sense to use a 14-24 or a 14mm on a DX camera just to get a wide angle focal length, and even then, the crop factor robs you of those lenses' ultrawide capabilities. OTOH, the 14mm Fuji, while not inexpensive, is reasonably compact and has excellent IQ with very minimal distortion. now, when i'm shooting wide, i have a choice between the fuji and 14mm, the d300s with 12-24, and the D3s with 15-30 and 17/3.5. i'm finding i'm grabbing the Fuji more often because of the overall compactness and low weight. another plus is that i can use ND grads or other filters on the 14mm fuji, whereas the 15-30 (and 14-24) don't accept filters due to the bulbous front element. so, again, perfect for travel and casual shooting. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Thus I really don't understand the complaint about weight with regards to Nikon FX.</p> </blockquote> <p>that's because your (on-paper) comparison was overly weighted toward Nikon. first off, i have an XE1 (2 of them, actually) in Fuji X-mount and a D3s in Nikon FX. the D3s+ 24-70 is MUCH heavier than an XE1 +18-55; in fact, i can bring a 2-body kit for less weight than the D3s with just one lens. the 27mm pancake is a paperweight and the 14, 35 and 60 are all similarly light. if i'm taking a standard zoom + fast prime out, my 24-70+ Sigma 35/1.4 far outweigh the 18-55+ Fuji 35/1.4. Even if i swap the 35/1.4 Sigma for the Sigma 50/1.4, there's still a significant weight advantage with the mirrorless kit -- enough to where i can throw in the 14mm and not feel it. And even if i swap the D3s for my D300s + Sigma 17-50 OS, the weight savings are considerable.<br> <br> My fully-loaded FX kit (D3s, 24-70, 70-200 VR, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, maybe the Sigma 15-30 or Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye) weighs 15-20 pounds. sometimes i'll throw in the d300s. it's a lot to lug. if i can get reasonably equivalent functionality from a lighter kit, I'm going for the lighter kit unless I'm shooting action or know i'm going to need to shoot above ISO 3200. the D3s is just too heavy for most casual shooting situations, unless i strip it down to just the 50/1.4, just the 35/1.4, or just the 35/1.4+85/1.4. and even then, the D3s+35/1.4 is still gargantuan, compared to the X100 (which has a 35mm equiv. FL at f/2). The point is, i know exactly what i'm giving up with the Fuji and exactly what I'm gaining. with the x100 or XE1+27, i just shoot without having to worry about, do i really need to dip in my bag and pull out a big honking camera. when i shoot street, i like to carry a messenger bag, since backpacks are fairly inconvenient. the 14/18-55/35 combo with the XE1 weighs next to nothing and takes up very little space in a bag.<br> <br> So, after owning Fuji cameras for about 8-9 months, i find myself reaching for them more and more in real world conditions, even though i have Nikon FX and DX options available. There's a tradeoff, sure -- the XE1 isn't nearly as intuitive as the D3s, and not even close as an action camera, and Fuji's telephoto options aren't nearly as developed as Nikon's -- but the Fuji's are changing the way i shoot and making shooting a more fun experience. </p> <blockquote> <p>36MP isn't about making large prints, it is about flexibility in framing and lighting. </p> </blockquote> <p>Point taken. I'm not knocking the d800 at all. there are definitely times i want more than 12-16mp to work with. But in general, i shoot too many frames when covering events to be able to manage those large files, and much of the time, 36 mp is overkill for my needs. as stated earlier, i'd rather have the d4 sensor in a d600 body than a d800, although if someone were to give me a d800, i wouldn't turn it down. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Nikon cannot give a lens roadmap because of the Osborne effect.</p> </blockquote> <p>interesting theory. but i'm not sure i'm completely buying it. they certainly could give us a roadmap, they just dont want to. they didnt even give us a roadmap for Nikon 1, which is a new system. and i'm not sure the Nokia/Osborne analogy works here, since computer and cel phones aren't the same market as camera lenses. let's put it this way: if loyal Nikon users knew Nikon was addressing the gaps in their system, they might not be tempted to switch to a different system for the lenses they want. every day i read about people who have sold all their Nikon gear. i haven't quite been pushed to that extreme, since i still shoot events and paid gigs with Nikon DSLRs, but instead of buying a new Nikon body, i invested into Fuji. had the Df been a d600 body with the D4 sensor, i might have bought one of those instead. IMO Nikon missed an opportunity by offering a niche product, rather than a camera which could have been regarded as a true d700 successor. i wouldn't rule out getting another Nikon body at some point, but i'm in no rush, and might as well wait for the D5. For Nikon, it seems to be about protecting a dwindling market share, covering the entry-level base, and trying to push people into FX rather than offering DX users a complete system.</p> <blockquote> <p>From a user's point of view it makes sense to get a mirrorless camera if you need this type of a lens and if you don't want to use FX for some reason.</p> </blockquote> <p>the main issue being weight/size. most of us dont print large enough to where an APS-C-sized sensor is a limiting factor. traveling or casual outings with a compact body and a couple of primes is far less cumbersome than an FX kit, and the IQ is "good enough" in most cases. even the kit lens zoom has excellent IQ and is a lot easier on the back and shoulders than the 24-70, which is my main FX zoom. far less obtrusive too, which is advantageous in street shooting and candid photography. </p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I prefer doing fast wide angle work using FX DSLRs.</p> </blockquote> <p>with the 14/16/18 primes, Fuji have addressed a longstanding need. all are wide and reasonably fast. the 18 and 14 are seriously compact, too. every time i go out shooting casually, i have to think about whether i want to lug the FX body and lenses. I get great IQ from them, but the size/weight differential between my FX kit and my Fuji kit is significant enough to mitigate any optical advantage i might get from the weightier set-up, most of the time. </p> <blockquote> <p>I don't feel "chained" to DSLRs</p> </blockquote> <p>it's hard to put into words how liberating it is to use a smaller system, or even a compact fixed-lens body like the x100, after years of lugging around heavy equipment. and i cant help but feel like Nikon missed more opportunities with their mirrorless entries and the Coolpix A. The Nikon 1 clearly had no idea where it was going at launch, and thusfar, the mantra has been, "less features, smaller sensor, same price (or more) as DX." it makes zero sense that a V3 would cost as much as a D7100. Similarly, the Coolpix A could have been a huge hit even at $1100 if it would have had more headline features, like an f/2 lens, stabilization, and a CLS commander mode. as it stands now, it makes no sense to buy one at that price when the almost-identically-specced, more configurable Ricoh GR is now selling for $700 -- with an optical VF and 32GB memory card. </p> <blockquote> <p>As for FX sales, time will tell what they will be. A mid-generation update isn't going to generate as much excitement as the D700->D800 update which finally gave Nikon users a reasonably priced high resolution camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>the one glimmer of hope here is that the d810 seems to be a more significant update to the 800 than it appears at first glance. that's great if you truly have need of a 36mp sensor, but i'm not going to spend that kind of money for something which i'd only use occasionally. i do have a full FX lens kit, and have been thinking about doing more studio/portrait work, but in the meantime, i can just rent if i need to.</p> <blockquote> <p>Eric, I had hoped it to be obvious that my above response had been made with tongue planted firmly in cheek.</p> </blockquote> <p>yeah, i got that. sorry my response wasn't more flippant. ;)</p> <blockquote> <p>Sony seems to be aware of that danger when they released their lens road map for the A7 system, restricting it to the type of lens and how many will be available by the end of 2014 and 2015. It's already July and of the 6 lenses that should at least be announced in 2014, one (70-200/4) is available, one has been shown (PZ 28-135/4 for video), one has been announced as being in development and is expected to be officially announced in August or September (16-35/4 - not even an image of it available yet), for the remainder there are only expectations (though there are plenty of officially looking road maps that just add to the confusion). Add five manual focus Zeiss lenses that are supposedly revealed at photokina in September. Only one thing seems to be clear from history - between Sony announcing a lens and it becoming available, several months will have passed.</p> </blockquote> <p>okay, but roadmaps have worked well for Olympus/Panasonic and Fuji. I can't claim to know what Sony was thinking--it seems they would have generated more momentum around the A7 had more lenses been available at launch--and the lack of native lenses has been frequently mentioned as a downside to that system. So far i haven't really been tempted by Sony, mainly because their lenses havent generated the same buzz as Fuji's, but some of their bodies look pretty good.<br> <br> In Fuji's case, they're not splitting themselves between several mounts and sensor sizes, so perhaps it's less problematic for them to deliver lenses they promise. in any event, their lens selection started out strong, with small, high-quality primes, and has only gotten stronger. to their credit, they haven't been spinning their wheels, releasing endless iterations of the same lens while ignoring obvious gaps in their system.<br> <br> i guess it doesnt really matter to me at this point whether Nikon updates the d300s or not. i got tired of waiting already, and already sank money which could have gone to Nikon into another company's pockets. <br> <br> if Nikon wanted to get me excited again about being their customer, they'd release a Ds (high-FPS FX in a compact body), a Dx (high-res FX in a compact body), a Coolpix P (fixed-lens APS-C sensor compact with an 85/1.8 equivalent lens), a Coolpix N ( fixed-lens APS-C sensor compact with a 50/1.4 equivalent lens), and maybe a 20 or 24/1.8 G. If they fixed the ergonomic and UI issues with Nikon 1, and provided a complete set of lenses, i could maybe have some use for that. But as far as DX goes, i'm pretty much over it and will either keep my current lenses or sell off my entire system down the line -- unless they wow me with some new lens offerings which shift my FAS back to NAS. </p>

<p>that's not a turtle, that's a cat. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Eric, you forgot the three 55-xxx lenses and the 40mm macro!</p> </blockquote> <p>you're right. does that really change things all that much? the proliferation of different iterations of consumer lenses represents a wall for DX users, to where you have to go to 3rd parties to get something which pushes the envelope even a bit, such as the tamron 60/2 macro or the aforementioned sigma 18-35.</p> <blockquote> <p>The FX 85/1.8 isn't all that big - and I doubt that it would shrink substantially if it was designed for the smaller image circle of DX. And dare I say that there is now a 58/1.4 lens that's "perfect" for portraits on DX - with the only caveat that it costs more than any of the DX camera bodies currently available. But I am sure there are many takers - maybe even a few more than those who purchased the FX 24/1.4 so that they can have the 35-mm equivalent FOV on DX.</p> </blockquote> <p>i havent seen the Fuji 90mm yet, but the point is with mirrorless' increasing options, there's less and less reason to be chained to DSLRs. as for the 58mm, there was already a less expensive manual focus option (the Voigtlander), but it just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to pay $1700 for a DX lens just to get AF, especially because you can get a fuji body AND their 56/1.2 for the same price. Ditto the 24/1.4 -- i dont think that's been a high-volume DX seller, and it makes little sense to me why nikon cant make a 16/1.8 and a 24/1.8 for DX, both of which are focal lengths which Fuji has accommodated (or will soon, with the 16/1.4.) Nikon wont even give DX customers a roadmap!</p> <blockquote> <p> I bet there won't even be a 16-85/4! </p> </blockquote> <p>releasing this ^ would have earned nikon some goodwill points. alas...</p>

<p>$125 USD isnt enough to make much of a difference in lens selection. while the d90 was and still is a fantastic camera, the d7000 is a worthwhile upgrade in most, if not all, key categories. where it will make the biggest difference is in AF; the d90's 11-pt AF isnt in the same league as the d7000's 39-pt AF. that alone would be enough for me, but the d7000 also has a better-built body, better metering, more resolution, better video, better hi-ISO, and a bunch of other bells and whistles.</p>

<p>the larger issue here is the lack of a truly competent DX lens selection. we've got an aging, unstablized 17-55, the 12-24 and 10-24 wide angles, umpteen 18-xx and -xxx zooms, the slowish, pricey 16-85 VR, the 35/1.8, the 85/3.5 macro and the nearly forgotten 10.5 fisheye. this for a system which is 10+ years on in maturity. so even if Nikon did revive the prosumer DX line, the lenses for it are incomplete.</p> <p>the problem with this is that mirrorless cameras are smaller, lighter, and are starting to have very robust lens selections (as well as a choice of entry-level or high-end bodies). fuji just announced a 16/1.4 (24mm equiv.), as well as a 90/2 (135 equiv.) -- two focal lengths which should be available in Nikon DX, as should a fast 56 or 58. the 16/1.4 probably wont be cheap, but it should come in under the arm, leg, and buttock Nikon wants for its 24/1.4, which is only 36mm on DX. if you want something fast and wide for a nikon DX body nowadays, your ONLY option is the 3rd-party sigma 18-35/1.8. fuji is also planning a 55-140/2.8 zoom which is another no-brainer focal length for crop bodies.</p> <p>it's clear that nikon's game is about protecting its market share, rather than making its customers happy. unfortunately, that market share is dwindling -- many d300 or d300s purchasers who dont need or cant afford FX have already moved on to mirrorless systems. that's what happens when you dont clear a logical upgrade path. if nikon released a d400 tomorrow, along with some less-boring DX lenses, they could plug this hole and restore confidence in their future direction. but since they havent yet, they probably wont.</p>

<p>wondering why there's so much OOF area if you shot at f/8. did you use a filter effect or post process intentionally?</p>

<p>the sigma 15-30 is a real sleeper lens. you can find them used for super cheap. also the tokina 17/3.5 is decent. it's almost a pancake and makes sense for FX if you already have a 20-35 and a 20.</p>

<p>no. buy an d7100 or keep what you have. </p>

<p>muralists at work</p><div></div>

<p>my D3s is getting a little loose and the zoom ring of the 24-70 is even looser. not a super big deal, but may have to send it in soon.</p>

<p>idk. my obsolete 12mp D3s still makes gorgeous files at high ISOs. go figure.</p><div></div>

<p>the thing about a filter is, you can always take it off in conditions where it is not needed. it's so easy to incidentally scratch a front element -- even when taking the lens cap on or off. i have filters on all my lenses. B+W and Heliopan have the best build quality, but Hoyas are good too. i dont think there's a real difference in optical glass between a hi-end Hoya and a B+W. the difference is in the ring itself; B+W makes its rings with brass, not aluminum. 82mm filters aren't cheap, but it's a lot easier to replace a filter than repair a damaged front element.</p>

<p>just want to expand on my comments a bit. i used a d300 as my primary body for a few years, mainly shooting events. i loved that camera (and still refuse to part with my current d300s), but the one area where the body let me down was in high-ISO performance. shooting a lot of live performance in low-light conditions, i ran into this limitation frequently. 2.8 zooms werent fast enough, and so i bought a bunch of fast primes but eventually upgraded to a D3s.</p> <p>had the 18-35/1.8 siggy been out back then, i would have swooped it up in a heartbeat. it would have saved me the trouble of buying a standard zoom AND fast primes -- and maybe even stopped me from going to full frame and buying all new FX lenses. had the company released it when the d300s was at the top of the prosumer DSLR heap, it probably would be much more celebrated than it is now. </p> <p>the reason i strongly recommend the 18-35 over the 17-50 and 17-55 is because it can actually extend the life of an older DX body like the d300, by giving it a boost in the area where it is weakest. Looking at the review from photo.net, it also seems to have more pleasant bokeh than DX standard zooms, and subject isolating-qualities equal to or better than the full-frame nikon 24-70 AF-S, which is a $1700 lens. Sigma has really been on a roll lately with their recent lenses, and it's nice to see them continue to innovate in a market segment Nikon seems to have abandoned: the pro or advanced enthusiast DX shooter.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I use this lens a lot for travel photography too.</p> </blockquote> <p>yikes. how's your back?<br> <br> obviously the 17-55 is a good lens. it's also the only 'pro' DX lens nikon ever made and a design from 2003. if all you're shooting is events, it's the most rugged option out there, and can do double-duty as a truncheon. but in 2014, it's a bit archaic and oversized, not to mention overpriced compared to DX lenses with similar specs. i also dont see a reason to choose that over the 18-35/1.8 zoom, which is $800 new w/warranty, unless the 20mm on the long end is absolutely critical to one's shooting style.</p>