duncan_m1

<p>Lil, they're expensive now. I paid $1400 for mine which for mint was pretty ok. Seen they as high as $1800 on the 'Bay. That said, I used mine today and it's an outstanding lens.</p>

<p>Lil, I'm in London and managed to get one from a shop that was liquidising a collection of unused Nikon lenses that some guy had collected over many years. Got lucky, basically. They do come up on the 'Bay sometimes, though and I'd imagine B&H or Adarama may well have a used one.</p>

<p>Lil, I wonder if the Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D ED might be more what you're looking for:<br /> http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm<br /> Just picked one up myself for the second time. Plenty sharp.<br>

Add a T6 close-up filter for 1:1 at 180mm.</p>

<p>You might also want to consider finding a 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor. Might save you moving that camera and tripod back and forth. :-)</p>

<p>I'd go with Dan's suggestion and pick up a used 17-55mm at a decent price. When you upgrade to an FX system you can easily sell the 17-55mm again.</p>

<p>LOL! No worries Dick. And I agree. OP, get the D90 and give the D40X to the better half. You'll have a much easier time persuading her to let you buy unneccessarily expensive glass if she can also give them a whizz sometimes, too. ;-)</p>

<p>Dick, not winding you up here or being contentious but could you clarify this quote, please:<br>

<em>"and the ability to really dig into the depths of functionality as you learn more about photography"<br /> <br /> </em> What depths of functionailty could one explore with the D300 that one couldn't explore with the D90?<em></em></p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Rene, yeah, I understand if you need the weatherproofing and the better AF that one would spend the money. I just think many people are directed towards getting a D300 when in fact they don't need those 2 features, as nice as they might be to have.</p>

<p>Dan, thanks for that. I'd not done a whole lot of research into the D700 so didn't realise that.</p>

<p>Have to say, sometimes the replies to posts such as this baffle me, especially when people talk of the D300 being so much better than the D90 and worth the extra money. Someone mentioned the D300 taking longer to get to grips with. What? The D90, for all intense and purposes, is a D300 without the full-metal jacket housing of a pro-body and a few other differences. Below are the main differences between the D90 and D300, kindly supplied by Thom Hogan from his review here:<br>

http://www.bythom.com/nikond90review.htm</p>

<table border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" width="600">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="263"><strong><em>Pro D300 Differences </em> </strong></td>

<td width="324"><strong><em>Pro D90 Differences </em> </strong></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Faster frame rates possible (to 8 with grip)</td>

<td>Secure Digital cards same as compacts/Coolpix</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Better weathersealing</td>

<td>Some additional RETOUCH options, some useful</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>TIFF capability</td>

<td>Video capability</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>CompactFlash and UDMA speeds</td>

<td>Simpler Live View capability</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Larger buffer (99 versus 22, 19 versus 9)</td>

<td>Scene exposure modes</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Better AF sensor, covers more area</td>

<td>

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>More flexible bracketing, interval shooting</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>1/8000 top shutter speed</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>100% viewfinder</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Focus fine tune</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Able to use MF lenses and meter</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Image quality is said to be identical and none of the above would cause me to sell the D90 and pay the extra several hundred bucks for a D300. The housing on the D90 is more than adequate for most amateur photographers and a great deal of pro's out there. For product photography, which is my main genre, the addition of the liveview button, allowing me to toggle between liveview and viewfinder instantly (read toggle between framing and critical focusing) is a real plus over the D300 and one which I find incredibly useful. The video function is admittedly a moot point for most of us and not something I personally use but it's their if I ever decide to make use of it, I guess. The D90 is a cracking DSLR and will cover most of what the average pro-sumer will ever need and then some. It would take a certain type of pro-photographer who shoots a lot of sports and action photography, likes to use older MF lenses and throws his camera round from pillar to post before I'd recommend him taking a D300 over a D90. With the difference in price you can get yourself a nice 60mm AF-S Micro or similar and still have change for a couple of cold ones.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What makes people recommend the 17-35mm as opposed to the 17-55mm. I chose the latter because of the extra range, having previously owned and used the 28-70. The 17-55mm is excellent in all respects and for me a better alround zoom than the 17-35. Just wondered why so few (no-one except me) has recommended that one?</p>

<p>Jong, I would probably keep the kit lens (18-55mm) as it's actually a decent little performer look at picking up a used 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR. If you can find one for a decent price then add a 60mm AF-D Micro for your macro shots. It won't AF with your D40x but you'll likely manual focus for all your macro stuff, anways. Or stump up a little extra cash and get the AF-S version.</p>

<p>Think I'd look at getting the 17-55mm f2.8 AF-S and a used 85mm f1.4 AF-D. That would give you a wee bit more range on the zoom and a really stellar portrait lens to boot.</p>

<p>Thanks Gerald! Yes, always loved the Sea Dweller. Some of those Seikos are beauties, too. Recently owned the Marinemaster 300 and it was stunning.</p>

<p>New to this forum, or rather I haven't posted in a few years and had to open a new ID, so "Hi Folks!" One of my favourite watches:<br>

<img src="http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee207/outstretchedhands/COM/NEW6.jpg" alt="" /></p>