jason_clawson

Thanks Dirk. I haven't used a prime before but it sounds like it should be something I take a serious look at. I

suppose I don't mind taking a couple steps forward/back :-).

I really just want a lens that I can use for daily use when traveling "light." When traveling, I hate having to stop

and switch lenses. Thats why I like a zoom lens that is flexible enough for landscapes and portraiture.

I suppose I just need to go in the store and really try it out.

Oh, and thanks Dave for your recommendation. I will take a look at that-- especially at that price. (I don't care

about vignetting... nothing lightroom can't fix)

Thanks for your advice Dave. I really considered the D300 for a long time. I really do want the low noise, high iso

capability the D700 offers. I may not see the D700 advantages all the time but I would like to know that they are there

when I do need them.

For instance, I sometimes have the need to crop-zoom (for lack of a better term) in post processing in which case noise

becomes more noticeable. I also take a lot of low-light shots without a flash at relatively high isos. (The D70 at 1600

iso looks pretty bad and I am just sick of it!) From what I have seen in tests, the D700 simply looks amazing at high

isos which is my primary reason for wanting it. Otherwise, I would get the D300 for sure.

Oh and... I would print mostly 8x10 and smaller...probably mostly 8x10. Maybe a few printed larger. To

tell you the truth, I mean to print lots of photos, but never seem to get around to it.

Wow thanks for all the replies and advice. I am so glad I joined this website.

From what I have come to understand, and I am sure many will argue this point, shots taken with the D700

with "cheaper glass" look better than shots taken with the D300 with more expensive lenses. This probably

depends on what you are shooting. I don't think I would notice enough of a difference though.

I am not a professional photographer by any means -- photography is more of a hobby and I definitely have a

lot to learn so I am thankful for all the helpful advice.

For my "prime"-ary (sorry was confused about the term) lens (aka: standard zoom lens) I was planning on

spending < 800ish. I would like a lens that works well in low light situations. So with your

recommendations I have narrowed it down to:

1) Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF ($600ish)

2) Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF VR ($495)

I am not sure which to pick. Really they are a tossup for me. I would love to have better low light

performance but the extra zoom, VR, and lower price point is attractive as well.

Which would you guys pick and why? Are there any comparable Tamron / Sigma lenses? (I can't seem to

tell which are compatible with the FX sensor)

Also, as far as macro goes. I have never owned a macro lens. I love macro photography and it is something

I want to do more of. Right now I do macro with my D70 and my 70-300mm VR lens. It actually works

pretty well for closeups of flowers and such. If any of you guys do macro photography I would be interested

in hearing about your setups / seeing some examples of your photos.

Thanks again for all your help and advice.

I am getting a D700 soon (replacing my old D70). I have a AF-S VR Zoom NIKKOR 70-300mm lens that I plan on

using with the D700. Do you guys have recommendations for a good prime lens (one that works well for landscapes

and portraits) and a good macro lens that both work with the FX format? Are there any good off-brand lenses that will

work well (that are cheaper) or should I stick with Nikon?