commtrd

<p>Good points made about the contact pins on the CF cards. That is why I have always left the cards in the slots (D300 / D700) and used the cable to hook up to puter for upload data. It may be a little slower but how much slower is it to try to fix a bent pin? Using the USB cable works just fine and I let LR 2.6 handle the upload from camera. Gets those raw files right in and then the fun begins...</p>

<p>Just shoot a custom WB pre-set it only takes about 5 seconds to do that and the WB will be nailed from then on while shooting in that light with that lens. You don't need to send that lens back to nikon or get a new one. Just set your WB correctly and you will be fine. And if you can't be troubled to do that then just shoot raw and fix it later in post. I hate doing that because it takes too much time and is not the right way to go.</p>

<p>I remember way back when I first started in photography I wrote in complaining about the same thing saying my camera was broke and one of the sages on here told me to learn how to use the camera because there was nothing wrong with it. He was right...</p>

<p>Probably the "old" 70-200 is going to be the best, most cost-effective solution FOR WEDDINGS. Extreme corner sharpness (on FX) would not be critical in those shots. If shooting DX, no worries anyway. Now that the new lens is out, really good deals on clean used 70-200's are available everytwhere evidently. If cash is not a problem, then the new 70-200 makes sense. BTW the old 70-200 lens still works very well and is a great lens.</p>

<p>If I were a working photog I would most likely acquire the new 70-200 because a zoom is definitely appropriate for this work (weddings). That being said, I love my Zeiss 100mm Makroplanar T lens as it is astounding. Shots with that lens and the D700 have a distinct "3-d" look to them and have awesome color rendition as well. Would a manual-focus lens be the best selection for weddings? I don't know; never shot a wedding and don't ever intend to. I got my 70-200 VRI for just this purpose but have rarely used it. After all the bad press about the old 70-200 would most likely take a beating if I sell it but if I started to do photojournalistic type stuff it would still work well for that. The flexibility of the zoom is a real asset in certain instances, like weddings I would surmise.</p>

<p>Probably good to wait for the D4...but the D3s certainly does sound promising. Now I have a D300 and a D700 so really can't justify the expense after getting a 200 f2 Nikkor and a 100mm f2 Zeiss makroplanar T. I have kind of always felt that the investment in glass just makes more sense because a great lens can conceivably be used for a lifetime and camera bodies may be obsoleted in what two years? It kind of gets to where it is smart to wait for the second product cycle just to sidestep the endless updates. And besides, since I am just an amateur I really cannot justify repeatedly spending several thousands of dollars every other year like that. </p>

<p>I just ordered a Zeiss 100mm makroplanar T from B & H yesterday so not happy to read something like this. I have done much research before deciding to do this (migrating to fast primes / manual focus) and never had read anything at all other than extreme mechanical quality from these lenses. I expect I will see the same quality and expect to have the lens the rest of my life.</p>

<p>The new lens is supposed to be very good, as I am sure it is. I have the older version and it is excellent on either DX or FX and I shoot it on both with great results. If the OP does not have a lens in the FL yet, then probably best to go for the new one. However the earlier version is an awesome lens and there are several good bargains on minty lenses for much better prices right now since several people just have to get the latest and greatest. I have chosen to retain what I have and still looking at acquiring the rest of the fast primes I have been planning on for several years.</p>

<p>The new lens supposedly does not go to 200mm at close focussing distance so this may or may not be an issue for someone looking to buy one. Probably is really a non-issue; I would like to shoot one to compare maybe I will rent one someday...</p>

<p>NAS is a slippery slope...</p>

<p>Well that's good to know...although I don't have any plans to sell any of my lenses at this time.</p>

<p>I have thrown out (on some purchases) all including boxes etc. and wished I had kept that stuff in case I end up selling that piece. Every ad on the forums references having all the boxes, packing material, paper forms etc. and the implication is that the item is downgraded without having all that stuff with the lens.</p>

<p>My wife claims I am a packrat and that I keep too much stuff as it is. Can't win...</p>

<p>Absolutely right. Use that stuff that's what it's for. I have entirely way too much money tied up in my gear and I use it every time I get a chance. I reckon maybe 5% of my shots are really keepers (to me, my own worst and harshest critic). Not a pro but dead serious about my photography. There are collectors and there are photographers. Don't be just a collector of fine Nikon glass. Use it! BTW I don't think the 24-70 is all that big or heavy. Try shooting the 200 f2 hand-held all day. You will figure out what big and heavy really is.</p>

<p>This is a situation that apparently will not change anytime soon if ever. A recent example: I had found a mint 70-200 (VRI) and had heard vague rumors of a new 70-200 which would address some of the issues pertinent to the older version; so I had to decide whether to go ahead and get the really good deal on the minty used older version or wait for an unknown time for a lens that may or may not even be a reality. I went ahead and bought the used lens. Now almost a year later nikon comes out with the new 70-200 so I have decided to keep my older version. This is always how it seems to work out with nikon and makes it dificult to commit fairly major money (for most folks anyway) to a body or lens when a new revised version may or may not be right around the corner. The cost of new camera gear makes it important to rationally approach spending that money on what's available or what may become available compared to perceived needs or desires in said gear.</p>

<p>Not a very good situation due to expense of good quality (pro level) gear. </p>

<p>There are way more important things to worry about. The only time serial numbers come into play is when listing inventory for insurance.</p>

<p>OK thanx for the update...the video is at 720p (for any Nikon body?) as far as I know?</p>

<p>I thought the D3s had the same sensor as the D3 / D700, only with video added?</p>

<p>Just not enough money for today's inflated prices. Will have to shop around and find good used stuff and even then it's going to be hard to do.</p>

<p>Have to comment on above post. I did not realize the OP was a pro photog with more than one guy working out of a bag. I could see how something like that could happen under those circumstances. We all tend to consider a story from our own point of view which may not at all be the same as the affected person. So if the lens is only a tool for the professional it may make sense to just get a new one and the old one would probably be used as a write-off for taxes as part of the business.</p>

<p>Well if you were negligent to the extent that you forgot that you left a valued lens like the 85 1.4 on someone's lawn then it could be construed that maybe you SHOULD have to pay an exhorbitant fee to get it fixed? Quality gear is so darned expensive it is hard to believe that anyone could be so cavalier about leaving an expensive lens out on someone's lawn to get ruined.</p>

<p>Second that...the D700 with the 24-70 is an incredible combination. Hard to beat for photojournalistic use such as the event mentioned.</p>

<p>I have a 105VR and a Sigma 150 macro lens. Both very good lenses and highly desirable. I have found in my own macro shooting that I keep wishing I had a 200mm macro lens for best working distance in the field.</p>

<p>The 105 VR is absolutely one of my most beloved lenses. In fact, if I absolutely had to use only one lens, the 105VR might be the one. And that is saying something, because having the trinity and the 85 1.4 and the 200 f2 gives one many options to consider in lens selection. I have also found the 200 f2 a fairly challenging lens to shoot as well, particularly hand-held due to its size and weight. I am definitely NOT one to complain about the weight of a lens but I will say that the 200 f2 is a very specialized lens so that when building a lens inventory, there are better selections to acquire and the 105VR would have to be on the short list for sure!</p>

<p>I have purchased three used lenses, from Nikon Cafe members and the last from Murphy Camera in Kentucky which a Nikon Cafe member alerted me to on one of the threads. All have worked perfectly and all saved me quite a bit of cash...the last one (200 f2) I saved over a thousand on that lens alone! So it can be a very big help for acquiring camra gear and saving a little money also. Between the three I have saved over $2200 by buying used instead of new. There is no distinguishing these lenses from brand new...literally not one single scratch or cosmetic imperfection whatsoever. Well worth looking for good used equipment. So many people get a lens to try and don't like it and then sell it. Bargains are sometimes out there!</p>

<p>Would be nice to see a head-to-head review of the old 70-200 and the new one to see how much better the new lens really is. I just sprung for a 200 f2 so my lens budget is completely blown for the forseeable future. Afraid the old 70-200 will retain its place in my lens inventory for a long time (if I don't want to face a divorce!)</p>

<p>Well there could theoretically be yet another argument in regards to this topic: that any given lens be as useful and flexible over a range of prospective uses as possible. So the 105VR is actually a more useful tool than the new 85 3.5 lens because it is also a macro capable lens which doubles as a stellar portrait shooter and a great landscape lens as well. In the world of macro, one generally finds that the longer the focal length the better the macro work. So the wider max f-stop ability of the 105VR allows for better selective focus for creating the better bokeh so desirable in photography generally. And that it does very nicely. A further selling point for the 105VR over the 85 3.5 DX lens...it can also be used very nicely on the FX format camera while the DX cannot. So here are a few relevant points to consider when weighing the merits of any given lens with a view for the longer-term use of that lens. Personally I prefer to not purchase any lens that is slower than f2.8 because after all, the purpose of any lens is to gather available light to project onto a sensor. That and to render the most pleasing backgrounds possible for any composition. Faster lenses tend to do that better as a rule and also handle low-light situations more satisfactorily. My 200 f2 lens makes crazy beautiful backgrounds for example.</p>

<p>One thing for sure, camera gear is so expensive that it is imperative that whatever lens is purchased, it will fulfill the purpose it was acquired for. If the 85 3.5 lens is a useful tool for whoever buys it and uses it, then that's great and the choice is there which is a good thing.</p>

<p>My imperfect financial situation demands that this imperfect photographer stick with my imperfect [current version] 70-200 lens...oh well life is good anyway. Just think of the photographers in the distant past and what they had to work with. Fast forward to now and consider that a lot of creativity to work with what you have actually goes a long way...</p>