commtrd

<p>My 70-200 is quite good just the way it is. I regularly shoot mine on FX and I love it. Mine is paid for and that's the best kind. And I can shoot it on my D300 as well with stunning IQ. I really don't use mine too much for landscapes where I would be absolutely freaked out over a small lack of corner sharpness. I have a 14-24 and a 24-70 for going wide with corner-to-corner sharpness and that they do admirably. In fact when using mine at 200mm especially on portraiture, a little bit of lack of sharpness or some minor vignetting in the far corners hurts nothing at all. To me it's a non-issue. Most likely the new version will be awesome too so if one must have the latest and greatest, get to it.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is just pure goodness on either DX or FX. I really love it on my D700. To me the size and weight are irrelevant. IQ is the only thing that matters to me at all. The 24-70 just delivers.</p>

<p>Or use a faster shutter speed...it is f1.4 wide open after all...</p>

<p>85 1.4 does not need VR. Use a tripod if necessary; the addition of VR to this fine lens would only make it even more prohibitively expensive while yielding no tangible benefits.</p>

<p>Wow this an educational thread. I didn't know my 14-24 had any appreciable distortion but then I never shot any large group type shots with it either. The lens has always worked really well for me for everything I've ever used it for, mainly landscape type shots. As long as I keep the camera totally level on the tripod it will shoot nice architectural / interior as well with almost no distortion. I really didn't think the original shot looked bad but then I am still learning a lot about all this stuff.</p>

<p>For IQ the 16-85 / 70-300 combo would be superior. I had the 18-200 and it was great for learning with but that was the only lens I have owned that I sold. Mainly due to the distortion on the wide end which really started to bug me. But it's still an OK lens for just general photography. I took a lot of good shots with it.</p>

<p>Some slight adjustment in LR2 would fix this right up. Shooting in raw also helps if any other than minor adjustment becomes necessary to salvage a shot. Does the D80 allow setting a custom WB? If so it saves a lot of work in post if WB is set according to prevailing light conditions before shooting. Can use the "PRE" setup if the D80 is so equipped.</p>

<p>24-70. Easy choice. Plus on a full-frame it is pretty wide. Unless you know for sure you will not be getting a full-frame then the 17-55 but the 24-70 works great on DX format as well.</p>

<p>Francisco good advice. I have found that my gear is a lot better than I am. Concentrate on increasing creativity using what you have first and that will help progression in skills so that when the time comes to buy the new lens it can be put to better use.</p>

<p>Definitely sell all your Nikon gear and go with the pentax. And don't be so hung up on VR as it does not take the place of proper photographic technique. What did photographers do in other times when NONE of their lenses had image stabilization or vibration reduction? They took great pictures... My 14-24, 24-70, 85 1.4, 50 1.8 lenses do not have VR and guess what? They all work just fine. Looking at my 70-200 I find that it has the VR turned off right now. Wow the 105VR also has the VR turned off on it as well! Oh yeah I tend to use my tripod quite a bit for image stabilization <strong>;-)</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Sounds like pentax would be great for you. Can probably get good prices for your Nikon gear at this time. On the other hand someone with some common sense might reconsider... </p>

<p>I like my copy just fine without VR. Can't really see how it would serve to make this lens any better.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting those shots. Beautiful work! Now I know I need a 300 f4 lens. I think it would be just what I am looking for.</p>

<p>Yep you're dreaming...even if there was such a thing as an 18-200 that was a constant f1.4 aperture, you could neither afford it or even remotely be able to carry it comfortably. Can't fight the laws of optics. Or economics. Such a lens would be massively unaffordable by all but the most well-heeled photographers. It would be pretty cool to have one though...</p>

<p>I would say to "focus" on the glass. Brian's comments are quite applicable. Also when deciding on lenses think a little farther out in time to anticipate whether a move to or addition of a full-frame body might be in the cards.</p>

<p>The 105VR is a sweet lens. One of my very favorite lenses. Very much worth the money IMHO. I also have the Sigma 150 EX macro lens and it is also a great lens. I find myself wishing I had a 200mm macro lens more and more. There are more alternatives available as well. I may just pick up a set of Kenko tubes to try with both macro lenses to see some greater magnification. Anyway, the answer to the OP's question is yes the lens is worth the money for a very useable focal length which works great on both DX and FX. Are there other macro lenses which are as good or better? Yes. This is what makes lens selection so difficult. As well, there is a considerable cash outlay involved in a purchase, so it is wise to try a lens if possible before the purchase decision is made. I have always loved my 105VR and will never sell it.</p>

<p>I have both the D300 and the D700. The D300 is an awesome camera and if you already have DX lenses that may be the preferred upgrade path for a budget. Especially if you don't use the gear to make money. I shoot my D700 probably 99.8% of the time but I just can't seem to sell the D300. Also if you tend to shoot longer telephoto the D300 crop factor will help you there. The lenses are really the biggest part of the investment so it bears thinking about your longer-term direction since if you acquire a lot of DX format lenses it will not be too cost-effective to switch over if you ever wanted to consider that.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the D300 as long as you are prepared to use flash when necessary since the iso capability is somewhat less than the full frame. The D300 will enable making great photos and depending on intended usage may actually be better. Having said that, I would definitely go for a D700 if I had to make the choice again. I tend to shoot a lot of wide-angle and low-light situations so the D700 is awesome for that. The decision really depends on the lenses and the budget (if not a pro photographer).</p>

<p>Shun has the best advice with regard to what the poster was asking. Better to rent first to work with the gear and get a feel for it without the heavy capital outlay.</p>

<p>D700 with a 24-70 f2.8 lens. Zooms ARE NOT USELESS. They are great tools for providing flexibility when needed. The OP asked about a ZOOM so evidently that is what he was interested in.</p>

<p>"And one lens that has proven to be a good ZOOM". quote unquote</p>

<p>Image quality, clarity, color rendering, sharpness, contrast, construction, all make this lens outstanding. It works very well on DX as well as FX and tends to be sharper than the primes in that range although some primes can be faster at f1.4 when that is needed. The 24-70 is absolutely a fine piece of equipment.</p>

<p>What Peter said...don't get the 18-200. Money better spent on a 70-200 or perhaps a good fast prime like the 85 f1.4 or 50 1.4 if shooting on DX. I really did like the 85 1.4 on my D300 for shooting events. It seemed to work out to be very useable for that and the aperture capability helped overcome the poor iso capability of the D300 (well compared to the D700...don't want to get anyone wound up!). If able to shoot with flash (strobist style) the D300 works exceedingly well.</p>

<p>What bugs me? Endless repetitive questions about "Which lens should I buy" from those who will not do even a modicum of research on their own and look at their own photography to see what focal ranges they tend to gravitate towards using over time etc.</p>

<p>Could be worse...could be a Hasselblad junkie!</p>

<p>I own both lenses and can highly recommend both. I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other as they are really both fantastic lenses. Plus I can use either on my D700 or D300 so there is a lot of flexibility there. If I had to choose ONLY ONE then it might have to be the sigma 150. Having said that, the 105VR is and always will be one of my all-time favorite lenses. Now how's that for a non-committal type answer?</p>

<p>Fortunately I don't have to choose one over the other and that suits me just fine.</p>

<p>I purely got lucky to get the bee shot. Handheld and just went outside to try some different settings as per some of the more experienced folks on this forum. The lens was the Nikkor 105 VR (one of my all time favorite lenses BTW). The advantage of the longer focal length becomes apparent when shooting "nervous" subjects like jumping spiders etc. If I just had to choose only one lens for macro type shooting it would be the sigma 150.</p>

<p>Thanx for nice comments...</p>

<p>Two recommendations: 1) Get a sigma 150. You will eventually end up with the longer focal length anyway if you get serious about macro and especially bugs etc. Save the money and just get the 150. You will not regret it. For the money spent you will be far ahead in getting the right lens to start with.<br>

2) Use a tripod. No way you will get the same IQ [from any lens] if you are handholding. Sometimes there is no other way to get the shot but to handhold; but in the majority of cases the support is what makes the difference between what would have been a great shot and a great shot.<br>

<img src="http://commtrd.smugmug.com/photos/494156752_Am3fJ-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://commtrd.smugmug.com/photos/494155651_TcnWe-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>