How to get a D300 for £920.

Soupdragon · 19-04-2008, 16:43

Go to Jessops in hedge end and say "I'll give you £920 for a D300"
Ordered it today!

**Dabhand16** · 19-04-2008, 16:59

Well done that man

I'm sure you won't regret it.

Soupdragon · 19-04-2008, 17:06

It's all down to what lens to get now.
I have the 18-70 but I doubt it'll squeeze the best from the camera.

**Sonsey** · 19-04-2008, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

It's all down to what lens to get now.

Pixalo Photographic Equipment Reviews - AF-S 105mm VR f/2.8 G IF-ED -

JMitchell · 19-04-2008, 17:15

I've got the 18-70 on the D300 and you're right, I think it's time for an upgrade. I mean, it's fine, but you can tell there's more quality to come from this camera with better lenses. Just a shame they cost more than the bloody body does

**Dabhand16** · 19-04-2008, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

It's all down to what lens to get now.
I have the 18-70 but I doubt it'll squeeze the best from the camera.

Probably true, but it is still a good lens. Sigma do a 17-70 f2.8-4.5 but I don't know what it is like.

The classic standard is the Nikkor 18-55 f2.8, but excellent though it is, if you want a lens with a little more reach while retaining the useful wide end, it seems the choice is limited without having two lenses to cover the range. That will be pricey unless you consider a Sigma 10-20 or 12-24 and Sigma 50-150 f2.8. Sigma also do a 24-60 f2.8 - again, an unknown quantity.

Soupdragon · 19-04-2008, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonsey

Pixalo Photographic Equipment Reviews - AF-S 105mm VR f/2.8 G IF-ED -

I tried it in the shop today, the term "Fat BoY" sprang to mind.
I have to say, it seems a bit slow on the AF front.

Soupdragon · 19-04-2008, 17:43

Jack, Graham:

I am thinking along the lines of the new 16-85.
It looks good reading the specs/reviews although a touch pricey.

**Dabhand16** · 19-04-2008, 18:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

Jack, Graham:

I am thinking along the lines of the new 16-85.
It looks good reading the specs/reviews although a touch pricey.

The question is, is it better than the 18-70? I know it has a little more zoom range, but with the same aperture range, I won't be swapping my 18-70 for the 16-85.

To go back to your post

Quote:

It's all down to what lens to get now.
I have the 18-70 but I doubt it'll squeeze the best from the camera.

I don't think the 16-85 will do any better than the 18-70.

Soupdragon · 19-04-2008, 18:14

Hmmmm!, you're probably right although VR is a bit of a tempter.

JMitchell · 19-04-2008, 18:36

But doesn't improve IQ

I'd look at some of the 'old classics' (AF, of course) if it's for walkabout / landscape rather than fast nature and action...

slipstream · 19-04-2008, 19:27

Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM Macro is non too shabby either.

**Sonsey** · 19-04-2008, 19:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonsey

Pixalo Photographic Equipment Reviews - AF-S 105mm VR f/2.8 G IF-ED -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

I tried it in the shop today, the term "Fat BoY" sprang to mind.
I have to say, it seems a bit slow on the AF front.

I thought pretty much all macro lenses focused a littler slower due to the focus ring having a longer travel to make it more easier to get accurate focusing, is this not the case? (dunno myself as I've never used a macro lens yet)