chip_chipowski

<p>Bela - that is a good looking setup! I have the 50-135 f/3.5, and I can see how this lens would pair nicely.</p>

_

<p>John - I would take one of these combos:<br /> #1: 18-140 + 150-600<br /> The 18-140 should provide a nice range for most situations, and then you have the big gun for prime wildlife opportunities.</p> <p>#2: 18-55 + 55-300</p> <p>Very compact kit. This way you have your normal zoom and then a pretty long telephoto zoom.</p> <p>Vacation is always a tough one. On the one hand, vacation is a great reason to use the camera gear. On the other hand, you don't want to compromise the vacation. So, if you are excited about using the long telephoto then I would bring it (if feasible). If you just feel an <em>obligation</em> to bring the perfect gear, than I would go light and don't stress the big lens.</p>

<p>http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1804</p>

<p>Cascades</p><div></div>

<p>Michele - I think $2k is a reasonable estimate for the used value of your 28-70 + 70-200, depending on condition. Maybe a range of $1600 - $2000 is fair to expect. However, you might do some research before getting too far along on your budget process. I like to sell my gear on local craigslist, but that is not an option everywhere. To get full value for expensive lenses like yours, you might also have to be patient. Since you are looking to turn your lenses toward other camera gear, it might be worth talking to KEH or another camera dealer about trade-in value. That would be more expeditious than selling the lenses on your own.</p>

<p>Duane - I think I would be inclined to send <em>my</em> camera to Nikon, <em>if</em> I received such an email. However, Shun's point is well taken: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sending a camera to Nikon is a little bit of a hassle and sometimes can take longer than anticipated. I think it is unlikely anything bad would happen to your camera, though. However, if your camera is clean and fully operational then maybe it isn't worth it. I like the idea of a "tune up" even if there is no specific problem, so I would take advantage of Nikon's offer.</p>

<p>I agree it sounds a little unusual, but why be cynical? I am sure Nikon is doing this for a reason, but why not just accept this gesture at face value? As long as I can deal with the turn around time, I like sending my cameras to Nikon for a tune up now and then.</p>

<p>To the OP: how did you get along with your 7D? It looks like the 7D has a number of switches and dedicated buttons. If you like those kinds of controls versus menu diving, I suggest you look at a D300 or D700 along with the DF. Or a D800 would be good too, if your budget is large enough for the DF. If you try the DF and like it, I think it is a no brainer. That is the only Nikon DSLR with that control layout. But the D300-D700-D800 each have good physical controls. Yes, a lot of settings are adjusted via the command dials but you still have the top LCD showing you how the camera is set. At the end of the day, I think you should spend some time handling your various candidates because that will tell you whether they "feel" right.</p>

<blockquote> <p>But aren't we putting to much weight on a little detail</p> </blockquote> <p>It may just be a few mm, but little things can be big things :)</p> <p>To some extent, your point is well taken. I have a Coolpix A, and I adjust my handling to the camera. If I am shooting with my FE2, I make a different adjustment. With a main body DSLR, I am going to be more particular. Depending on what lens I am using, the camera grip might have a significant impact on my capability and it will almost certainly have an impact on my enjoyment level. </p>

<p>Of course Dieter, but the natural successor <em>for me</em> is something I am qualified to determine ;)</p>

<p>Thanks Shun and Tom. I shoot a D300 and the natural successor for me would be in the D7k series. I did hold a D5500 the other day, and it seems to have the new shape Nikon used for D750. It felt pretty good, so I am hoping Nikon incorporates something similar for D7300. Of course, we do also adapt and I am guessing I would also be able to get comfortable with a 7200 if I owned one.</p>

<blockquote> <p>True - I would have never guessed how poorly the D7000 feels in my hands from looking at the dimensions</p> </blockquote> <p>I used the D7000 on one occasion and it felt cramped to me. Can anyone comment on any body/handling differences b/w the D7000 and the 7100/7200? Any <em>(subjective)</em> improvements?</p>

<p>That F6 finder looks terrific</p>

<blockquote> <p>I have been using the D800 and D800E for over three years, and I have never experienced such "known issues."</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks for sharing this, Shun. When somebody mentions "known issues," I tend to take the statement with a grain of salt. Especially when that person is not speaking from first hand knowledge. True, there is sometimes substance behind the "known" issue. But the amount of substance is usually not well known.</p>

<p>I just saw a small review of the 16-80 lens. For such an expensive lens, I would not want a double nested extending barrel. I never liked that aspect of the 18-70. I know the design is probably sufficient, but I prefer my zooms to be a little more shielded. Since Nikon was interested in keeping the weight low, a fixed barrel was probably not feasible.</p>

<blockquote> <p>it seems a little half-hearted</p> </blockquote> <p>Tell me about it. It is as if Nikon forgot to give us the D400 for our birthday, and then Valentine's day rolls around and Nikon only gets us some lame card????</p>

<p>The Nikkor is 160% more expensive than the Sigma. So taking various value enhancements and detractors into account, the lens will be a success if it is optically 125% better than the Sigma. Unfortunately for Nikon's reputation on this forum, I predict the Nikkor will only be 87% better than the Sigma.</p>

<blockquote> <p>@ John<br />i totally love the landscape stuff you post.</p> </blockquote> <p>Same here - I can recognize your shots before seeing your name</p><div></div>

<p>Norbert - great article.</p> <blockquote> <p>Everything in photography is a <em>trade-off</em> – you can’t have more of one thing without having less of another. </p> </blockquote>

Holy cow - passions are running high on this thread. All these comments: I think it proves the lens is interesting, but I wonder how popular it will be. If Sigma just had to tweak the 18-35 lens, I guess it makes sense. Even if they don't sell a ton, maybe Sigma sees this as a kind of showcase lens. Personally, the huge size is an immediate deal breaker.

<p>Haha, Andrew - you have mid-range zooms you almost never use and you want a third! I think you need to be checked for GAS :)</p>

<p>Broadway Bridge in Portland, OR</p><div></div>

<p>Bernard, how did you get "selling short" from Jose's post?</p>

<p>Mercedes, imaginations run wild around when unconstrained. There have already been some good suggestions above, but can you give us a ballpark budget? </p>