tveck

I went from a D90 to a D700, the only concern with a FX-camera is good lenses. So looking at your lenses, in my opinion you should invest in lenses and not in an another camera. Only with very good lenses a D700 will be better, like my 105 DC,180 and 16-35. With my 70-300 VR (in normal light, the D700 is really better in bad light) I consider the results of a D90 equal to the D700. So I keep on using both camera's, the D90 when I want to go light.

I would advice a Nikon D50 ($100 to $150), which camera can go with the AF-lenses. A lot of those AF or AF-D lenses can be bought second-hand for a 1/10 of the price of the new AF-S lenses, and some of those older lenses used to be the pro-lenses (for $50,-). Build quality is most of the time better then of a new lens.

In my opinion is that the way to go when you are on a budget. $300,- for a D40 with a kit lens is far too much. I have not used Canon camera's, but they will be as good as a Nikon.

For a bargain you can try an Sigma 21-35/3.5-4.2, I had a used one and a new Tokina 12-24/4. The Sigma was better and I got it fot $50,-. But it is not really a wide angle lens on a DX camera.

Another vote for a 300/4 or 300/2.8

If you looking for a macro-lens for only macro use, my vote would be for a secondhand ai or ais lens.

In my opinion a 105mm is too short for taking bug, butterflies.. That is the reason I sold my 105 macro, nowadays I use extension tubes (12,20 and 36mm) on my primes, 50/1.8, 105DC/2, 180/2.8. That is as good as with a real macro lens, and far more flexible.

Congratulations with the 135DC, you won't regret it. I got the 105 DC (the 135 DC should be simular), which is my best lens (second is the 180/2.8). I also use it for macro, with a 22mm extension it's almost 1:1, better then a 105 macro which I sold.

Considering the problem that you have to use AF-S lenses, perhaps sell you D40 and get a D50, which should be under $200. Then it is possible to buy older 2.8 AF or AF 2.8D (second-hand) lenses. I own more than 10 second-hand lenses and never met any problems. For say $1000 you can buy almost anything you want.

My choice would be to give the 18-200 to your wife, it is a good lens. And wait until I got the money for a 70-300 VR, I own also the 70-300G, but the VR one is from another planet. Another MF lens, a Vivitar 135/2.8 I bought secondhand for about $50,- and that one is good. So there are possibilities to get a good lens rather cheap, but it needs a lot of searching.

When I want to travel light i use a belt. Biking for a week with it, containing 3 lenses (say a Sigma 17-70, Nikon 70-300 and an otherlens, It is always a difficult choice from 10 lenses),a monopod, filters (all 77mm), batteries and loader, camera D90 and some other needed stuff. What doesnot fit with the belt i cannot take, because all others things (like clothes) are in the bags attached to the bike.In the this way i (55 years) am still able to climb mountains, and ride (and fotograph) some 60 miles a day. So you should make choises when you cannot (or want not) take everything, The big mistake is to take all your stuff, to be ready for every possibility, and conclude that you did not use a lot of the stuff you have been carrying. But i am not feeling bad for the opportunities i misted, that is life, i just look for the next one.

A 105mm macro lens, I have sold it, is too sort for insects. Nowadays I use a Nikon 180/2.8 lens with macro-tubes which works much better. For the other macro-things I use my Nikon 60/2.8D. Sometimes I use a Nikon AF 35-70/2.8 lens (second had for about $250) with a 35mm macro switch, it is not a real macro (just 2:1) but that is not always needed.

I have also some close-up filters, but I do not use them anymore. There are lots of ways to make macro's, but I would start with a more or less cheap one, a choice like my second hand 35-70 is my advice.

Most cost efective must be the Vivitar 135/2.8 MF, very sharp and clean and only 40 euro. The runners up should be the Nikon 60 micro, the Nikon 70-300 VR and the Tokina 12-24. Recently I got a Nikon AF 35-70/2.8, but it is too short to make a real verdict.

I totally agree with John.

About 60% to 70%. Most of landscape and macro;s are with MF, using a Katz-eye or put it at the hyperfocalpoint. But with a Nikon, which I think doesn't matter.

I got a Vivitar 135/2.8 (auto telephoto) for 40 euro (+/- $50,-), manual focus but just as good as my Nikon AF 180/2.8D. But not every old lens is good, some are very disappointing (even in mint condition incl. Nikon's).

I have gone from a D50 to a D90 and my manual got dog's ears. After a year of reading I am still adjusting the presets and understanding the possibilities of the camera. Having studied engeneering it should be more easy for me, don't study too long.

And for bugs, butterflies I do use an extension-tube (12,20 or 36mm) and a 70-300mm/4.5-5.6 (in low light a 180mm/2.8 lens), my 105mm is even too short for this use. With an 105mm the bugs/butterflies fly away when you try to make a picture, a longer lens is necessary.

My recommendation would be a macro lens of 90mm or longer. I have a 60mm macro and a 105mm macro and when taking pictures the 105mm is much better to use because the longer distance to the subject. With a 50-70mm you need to be really (too) close to a subject and they are IMHO only useable under studio conditions.

The regular 50/1.8 will do the job, there is no lens what will be better. There is also no need for a 50/1.4 because you can do the lighting. For the macro-work you can use an extension-tube. So then you got a lot spare bucks for a good tripot, a remote controle and a standaard-holiday lens.

With an old Vivitar 135/2.8 (ais?) I get excellent results on my D90, the only problem is that you have to do everything manually. It is not really worse than my Nikkor 180/2.8 AF, but it takes a long time to handle, focussing, and the lighting is some kind of gamble. So there no need for a D700 but just time to get a good picture with those older lensses. And time seems to be out for us now.

Why don't you buy a prime 20mm or so, second hand should be in your budget. You are much better of with such a lens then with those zooms that are all a compromise.

As a starter I bought a D50, now upgraded to a D90, which was a real upgrade. If my D90 would break down, I wouldn't feel myself very limited when using the D50 again. But when my 70-300 ED VR lens breaks down, I would be $%#$%&** to use my other cheap 70-300. So I don't think the body is very important, find yourself a body which has the best feeling in your hands (with considering what you will have left for your lenses).

The Sigma 17-70 is an very, very sharp lens. I have tested it with a Nikon D90 against a Nikkor 60mm Macro and I can only tell the difference by the colours. The colours of the 17-70 are a littlebit flat, and I don't use it under 20mm. But it is a great lens for it's price. And you should replace the hood, I lost it because of it's loose connection (I lost it several times, at last I could not find it back)

The technique with the AF/AE-lock I have been using, nowadays I only manual focus because that is faster. I do a lot of macro-work so it has become natural to me, it just takes a little time to get used to it and I do have my glasses on. AF is only on moving things an advantage, but then the AF/AE-lock technique is not going to help you.

I bought a second hand Nikon 28-85/3.5-4.5 with macro for 80 euro, and it will do the job.

My D50 has been on all continents of this world (except Antactica) and done well. For half a year I got myself a D90. But the D50 is now in use by my brother, he was very pleased. It would not be a major issue to me to go back to the D50.