karl_sch_rlund

<p>I'm not a wildlife shooter, but I've been reasonably happy with my 70-300 (VR) and D300 when trying to catch the odd bird in flight. The lens is not at its absolute best wide open at 300 mm, though, and I suppose that's where you may be a lot of the time when shooting wildlife. A used 300 f/4 would probably be a better bet if you're really going for it. As a general purpose telephoto zoom with a useful range for occational wildlife snaps, I think the 70-300 is fine.</p>

<p>Rick: Congratulations, I think the SB900 is an excellent flash. Apart from the previously recommended Strobist which does contain a lot of nice stuff, one blog I've found pretty useful is Neil van Niekerk's Tangents (on http://neilvn.com/tangents/). It is mostly focused on bounced on-camera flash, which I think is a really nice way of adding flash to many indoor pictures.</p>

<p>Dave L: That way of thinking doesn't really make complete sense for TTL flash, which I think is both pretty useful and a likely default mode for a beginner.</p>

<p>Neil A: My guess would be diptychs (or polyptychs).</p>

<p>My current lens collection includes a Sigma 30/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, and I'm pleased with all of them. Also, I think that the rest of Nikon's lineup of DX primes looks pretty good from normal upwards, meaning the 35/1.8, 50/1.4 (which I know is FX, but reasonable in size and cost) and 85/3.5 Micro. What I would love to see is a small, fast or fastish DX wide-angle. Somewhere between 18 and 24, f/2 maybe? Even f/2.8 might be good enough, if the rest of the package is just right.<br>

Justifying the added cost and size of f/1.4 lenses seems pretty hard to me. I'm also not interested in going FX, once again due to cost and size. Basically, the returns diminish too fast. This means I agree with Peter H's opinion about the DX f/1.4 "pro" lenses: I wouldn't buy them. They would be hard pressed to keep the things I (and I think many others) like about the DX system, and they probably wouldn't appeal to someone looking for the ultimate in quality no matter the cost.</p>

<p>John W: 650 € is about $830 US at current exchange rates, but when talking about camera equipment it's more realistic to use something like a 1:1 rate since it's usually more expensive here in Europe.</p>

<p>Keep it. If it's focusing correctly and giving you sharp results, what more can you ask for? This is the reason there is an AF Fine Tune function in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do a lot of sport photography [...]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, VR will not help you with this since you need to keep your shutter speeds short anyway. VR is useful to counter camera shake when using slower shutter speeds. That said, I would still recommend the Nikkor 70-300 VR since it's a great lens optically.</p>

<p>First off, I think your 18-105 will do fine. It's a very useful lens with good optical quality and a nice zoom range.<br>

If you do want to get another lens, I would suggest the 35/1.8 to get a more general purpose focal length for low light. It's also lightweight and pretty reasonably priced. Another alternative would be a flash like a SB600, but getting good looking light from flash is another learning curve. (edit: noticed that you already had a 50/1.4.)<br>

I don't think any of the 2.8 zooms would make a dramatic difference to image quality at this point, especially since you would be losing VR. The wide angle zoom could possibly be useful depending on the type of pictures you want to take, but personally I think the ultra-wide parts are pretty hard to use effectively.<br>

Regarding tripods I can't really help you. I have a Manfrotto 055 that works well but I wouldn't want to travel with it.</p>

<p>I'm happy with my Sigma 18-50/2.8. Pros in my book include decent OOF rendering/bokeh, good autofocus speed and accuracy and nice center sharpness. I haven't tried the Tamron, but I'm sure it's a nice lens as well.<br>

Agreeing with Mike E, I would also consider the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS if I was buying now. It's brand new and I haven't seen many reviews, but the ones that I have read have been positive (for example the one on photozone.de). Feature-wise, it looks like a pretty nice upgrade from the 18-50. As Mike said, it's a bit more expensive than the old one, though.<br>

The Tokina has been getting very mixed reviews, and a store I contacted actually discouraged me from buying it although I didn't get a very clear reason why (they just said it was bad optically, but didn't specify in what way). I followed their advice anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon owners are lucky to get FREE RAW editing software at all. Nikon give you basically nothing as far as I am aware for RAW editing, you have to buy it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon ViewNX is free and does RAW conversion and limited editing (exposure adjustment and some other controls I can't remember off the top of my head). I have no idea how it compares to DPP regarding editing features, though.</p>

<p>You could try using the chart and instructions from <a href="http://pentaxdslrs.blogspot.com/2008/06/part-1-autofocus-adjustment-for-pentax.html">this page</a> to test the focusing behaviour of the Sigma lens. I've used them myself to verify a back-focus problem with my 30/1.4 on a D40. The same lens works fine without any adjustment on a D300, though, so the body definitely plays a part as well.<br>

Good luck!</p>